Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2009-09-14T16:47:51Z

MICasey: /* Jellyfish fact */

== Giraffe neck ==
The neck of the giraffe is a great counterexample, BrianCo!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:How so? I don't get it. In what way does the giraffe's neck say anything one way or the other about evolution? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

If anything the giraffes neck is an example supporting evolution, as the animals with longer necks (caused from a genetic mutation) would have survived to reproduction as there is less competition for the food from the high branches. [[User:SSSmith|SSSmith]] 19:10, 12 November 2008 (EST)
: If the giraffes with shorter necks couldn't survive, then how did the young ones survive to become adults and reproduce?
: Also, I've already answered this point lower down the page:
{{QuoteBox|"It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.}}
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Refutations==

Ummm...this is a dangerous topic to take up, but it's my area of expertise, so what the hey. Most, if not all of the examples in the article can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.

1) Beautiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months. They actually resorb energy during fall, so the cost-benefit analysis works in their favor. This is one reason there is no seasonal loss of foliage in the tropics, which have a near-constant energy pool.

2) Molecular evidence places whales and dolphins in the same clade as cows (Artiodactyla). The presence of vestigal limbs is very strong evidence for this theory, as well.

3) There is a plausible pathway to the development of the eye, including numerous intermediate structures that were much simpler and less effective. Indeed, the vertebrate eye is quite flawed (blind spot, image inversion), as one of the tenets of evolution would predict (the idea that natural selection can function only on existing structures).

4) I would be willing to bet that there is an explanation for the evolution of blood clotting, but I need to do some book work first. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, so in the interest of vigorous science, I concede that point for now.

5) The swarming of jellyfish is a response to an influx of planktonic life brought on by the full moon...the predators follow the prey.

6) The timing of cicada species has to do with the availability of reliable energy sources and reliable mates. The somewhat arbitrary time periods highlight the underlying randomness of mutations.

7) I'm not sure whether point seven is referring to the ability of birds and butterflies to navigate, or their migrative lifestyle, but there is an explanation for both. Migration is an adaptive trait to allow exploitation of otherwise inhospitable regions, and the navigative abilities evolved as a response. Humans and other mammals actually possess a rudimentary ability to detect the magnetic field...a holdover from our own migratory days.

8) The neck of giraffes is a textbook example of sexual selection.

9) The gaps in the fossil record can be explained by the sheer difficulty of creating fossils. Probability argues against having fossils of everything.

10) Feathers could have evolved from scales, and there is molecular evidence for this.

11) Point eleven simply makes no sense...I have never heard anything like this concept in my years of studying biology. I think it may just be poorly written, but I can't understand the point well enough to refute it.

I have sources (often many) for all of the above, but I have to rush to rehearsal now, so I'll add those later.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think lists like this are simplistic, but here's some responses.
:# "''Beatiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months''" is story-telling. It doesn't explain ''how'' evolution could have come up with the idea. The rest of your point applies equally well to creation: God designed it to have a good cost-benefit ratio.
:# Being in the same clade does not mean that there is an identifiable ancestor. Vestigial organs are due to a ''degradation'', whereas microbes-to-man evolution requires ''innovation''.
:# The "plausible pathway" explanations are not plausible at all, taking great leaps in complexity (e.g. starting off with an extremely complex "light-sensitive spot". The vertebrate eye is not a flawed design at all. What's wrong with image inversion? That's a natural consequence of using a lens. As for the blind spot...{{QuoteBox|Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney gives a detailed response to the question ‘Is the inverted retina really “bad design”?’ He addresses the claim that the blind spot is bad design, by pointing out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and is far (15°) from the visual axis so that the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/]}}
:# No comment.
:# That makes sense. When you back that up with a source, I'll remove that one.
:# The first part about energy and mates doesn't appear to explain it at all. The second part about mutations is story-telling.
:# As for No. 1.
:# Selection only selects from something that is already there. The question evolution has to answer is, how did it get there in the first place?
:# That's an ''ad hoc'' rationalisation. It doesn't explain why the gaps are so systematic between different basic kinds of creatures.
:# What molecular evidence? Molecularly, they are quite different.
:# I agree that it makes no sense. I'll remove that one.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
: P.S. you had a typo in your first point. I wouldn't mention it except that I know you are fussy about such things!

Before responding, let me establish one thing that I should have said much earlier. '''My refutation of these points is not intended to prove evolution or disprove any "competing" theory.''' My goal is only to show that evolution can explain how these things came to be, and thus that they cannot be used as examples of failures in evolutionary theory.

Another related disclaimer: my claims are made from a background of evolutionary biology, so the reader should feel free to mentally insert "according to evolutionary theory" when appropriate.

I would first like to take these point by point as concisely as possible.

1) '''All origins theory is story-telling.''' The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible, and the different camps go about this in different ways. Evolutionary biologists do so by establishing a possible mechanism and doing controlled field studies to see if that mechanism actually works in the way we expect it to. If it does, then it's plausible enough to serve as an explanation, and more importantly, it can be used as a predictive tool. And that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability. The fossil record (ie history) comes into play only when something is unexpected, because it shows us that our tool may be flawed and we need to fix it, or maybe get a new one (if you pardon the analogy).

2) Being in the same clade ''does'' imply a common ancestor in the same way that being in the same human family implies a relationship. To continue the analogy, assume for a minute that we have two siblings separated at birth. They think they are related, and a DNA test shows that they are, but they have no proof of a common parent without their actual living parents. However, the chance of common ancestry is high enough that there is no reason to reject the assumption (by the way, the analogy is flawed, but it captures the essence of scientific proof: '''assumptions based on plausible possibilities, based on past research and questioned more intensively when contrary evidence comes to light''' there is no such thing as certainty in science).

3) I will try to find a good copy of the proposed pathway for the development of the eye, but I know that there is no implausible leap in complexity over the hundred or so proposed structures in the lineage. But keep in mind, as I mentioned in 1, just because evolution can explain something a certain way doesn't mean it happened that way...biologists are constantly redoing our own version of history. Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology. This one will have to wait until Monday, when the library is unlocked.

4) Is outside my area of expertise, and I will not mock those who know what they're talking about by bungling up an explanation here.

5) Sources for 5:a) Hickman et. al., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 13th ed. 2006. McGraw-Hill publishing, Boston, MA
b) Solomon et al., Biology, 6th ed. 2005, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA
c) numerous lectures and individual observation...not a source per se, but they at least serve to tell that I'm not making it up.

The fact that those are all biology texts should give a critical thinker pause, but again remember that I merely want to refute these points as evidence against evolution, not prove evolution itself.

6) I actually recieved another explanation from another CP member that does a better job explaining it, so I'm going to use that one and throw out my own esoteric and very involved explanation. Many predators reproduce in regular intervals. 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and so are not divisible by any other number. This means that the predators are not able to sync their reproductive cycle with that of their prey. It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.

7) Once again, I assert that all origins theories are story-telling and that that argument doesn't hold weight when applied across the board. The fact is that the explanation I provided is plausible and there is evidence to support that it happened (just to name one: Larkin et. al. "Evidence for widely dispersed birds migrating together at night", Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:1)

8) The neck of the giraffe was already there as part of the basic chordate body plan (the origin of that plan is still hotly debated in comparative biology, and there are three or four very good theories that can explain the evidence). All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks. Male giraffes compete for mates, and those with longer necks are more effective competitors (they win more fights), thus sexual selection selected those individuals with longer necks, resulting in a textbook example of sexual directional selection (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006). Evolution would be in trouble if giraffes didn't have the same number of neck bones as all other chordates...it couldn't explain that.

9) Let me change my tack, then, because my previous argument does seem rather ad hoc. Instead, I will refer to my analogy from 2: lack of an ancestor in the records does not imply that one didn't exist if such existence is highly likely. Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates. I will also say that the gaps in the record are constantly being filled in: a fossil called ''Diplognathus'' was recently discovered which confirmed a somewhat odd explanation for the derivation of ear bones (that's just one example). (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006)

10) The molecular evidence of which I speak refers to the nuclear material found within the cells creating scales and feathers, and within the proteins which make up the scales and feathers themselves. For starters, they are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin. Furthermore, all versions of a different protein have very slight variations, both in terms of the protein themselves and in the DNA which codes for them. The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry (similar to the "twins separated at birth" analogy). The variations in keratin are very similar between birds and reptiles, implying a common descent (Glenn et. al. "Evolutionary relationships among copies of beta keratin genes from several avian and reptilian orders" Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:4)

And I think that is more than enough talk on that for now...I need a break. All I will do is close with saying once again that I do not claim these are proofs of evolution or "disproofs" of other theories. I merely claim that the specific points in the article can be explained plausibly by evolutionary theory and thus can't be used as counterexamples. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments above range from concepts like "there must be an evolutionary explanation" to "the burden of proof is on someone else."

: The point here is simple: one counterexample disproves the theory of evolution. Accept that logical truth, or go no further and admit that you will adhere to evolution no matter what logic dictates.

: It only takes one counterexample. Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::: In ''principle'' it only takes one counterexample. In ''practice'', it's not that simple. Suppose that we have a hypothesis that water always boils at 100 degrees Celsius. We run 100 tests to see if that's true. One test shows water boiling at 97 degrees. Does that one counterexample disprove the hypothesis, or do we accept that perhaps that particular test has another explanation (e.g. somebody botched the test, or it was the only one of the hundred tests not performed at sea level)? And that was for a very specific hypothesis. Evolution is not a specific hypothesis, but, at best, a whole series of hypotheses. Finding a counterexample to one hypothesis does not mean that the whole idea of evolution needs to be discarded. At worst, evolution is a conceptual framework, not actually a series of hypotheses at all. Again, a single counterexample is not justification for rejecting that conceptual framework. Of course there are ''plenty'' of counterexamples to evolution, so we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket and say that one is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::It does take only one counterexample...and my point is that ''none of the proposed points actually follow through'' as counterexamples.

::The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic...it just so happens that the pigments in plants reflect certain photons which trigger specific neurons in our brains. Such beauty can happen by chance, and nature abounds with examples (the collection of specific coral species into a visually appealing reef, for example, is almost totally random). So no, evolution is not confounded by beauty.

::And also, the idea that the cooperation of two or more entities implies co-evolution is simply not true. First of all, the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change, and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures. Additionally, irreducible complexity assumes a goal, which is itself a logical fallacy. What I mean by that is that IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role''. But that assumes that there is a goal in mind! If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles. And that is why, from the evolutionary perspective, points 11 and 13 are not legitimate counterexamples. Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis. But evolution favored and led to them '''because they work well enough'''.

::A specific point of number 13 can be addressed in more detail: the symbiosis of complex plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria allowed the rapid dispersal of these plants, because it conferred on them a massive evolutionary advantage. Primitive plants, such as mosses, do not have these bacteria, but they are still able to survive. They are simply not as effective at it, which is why they are not the dominant plant form.

::As for the evolution of consciousness, I'm glad that was brought up, because it's a very interesting topic on its own. The current evolutionary standpoint is that consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation allowing an organism to better predict its environment. This is in response to pressures related to the massive and very rapid dispersal of humans across a number of different environments. This is an elegant solution because it explains why humans are the only animal to definitively display consciousness: only humans displayed such a rapid dispersal across varied environments. From the perspective of the gene, this was an evolutionary mistake (and the evolutionary model predicts it can make mistakes), because now their "survival machines" have the capacity to rebel against their own genes (after Dawkins, 1976).

::Again, I completely accept that one counterexample is sufficient for a falsification, we just have not yet presented a point that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. And on that line of falsification, anyone practicing physics is practicing a debunked field, because there are many things that physics can't explain, such as mass. Hmm...that statement makes me a little uncomfortable...perhaps there's a problem with my logic. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 17:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::: You write that "beauty can happen by chance." That's plainly false. You won't be able to identify anything strikingly beautiful, such as autumn foliage, that is known to happen by chance. Indeed, chance is the antithesis of beauty.

::: When presented with a counterexample, it's unsatisfactory for you to shrug your shoulders and say the equivalent of "it must have just happened by chance." If you're going to do that, then Jesus Himself could appear to you this evening and you could respond the same way and try to brush it off. Rather, you should admit beautiful autumn foliage cannot be explained by evolution, and admit that remarkable beauty is not the product of pure chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Responding to Thinker...

"''All origins theory is story-telling''": In making that claim, you've just asserted, without foundation, that the biblical account, ''which claims to be the eyewitness account of creation by the Creator'', is just a made-up story.

"''The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible''": True. Which is where evolution hopelessly fails. It comes up with superficially-plausible-sounding stories, which are often simply not at all plausible when looked at closely.

"''...that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability.''": Huh? Evolution is a claim about what ''actually happened''. Atheists use evolution to argue that the Bible is wrong (because ''they'' can see the contradiction). Whether or not it happened ''is'' very relevant.

"''Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor...''": But the claim was that it doesn't ''identify'' a common ancestor, which would be some sort of test that the implication is true. Further, being in the same clade only implies a common ancestor ''if evolution is true''. If life was created by God, it implies no such thing. So the argument is circular, because it assumes evolution in order to support evolution.

"''Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology.''": Perhaps this was a mis-type on your part, but I've seen it before, so in case you meant it that way, these are arguments against ''evolution'', not ''biology''. The two are not synonymous.

Regarding No. 5, could you provide quotes from those sources, please?

"''It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.''": No, it doesn't serve well. Evidence of things working well is evidence of good ''design''. Evolution's job is not to explain why things are the way they are, but how they came to be the way they are. You are providing evidence of why cicadas have reproduction cycles based on prime numbers, not of how evolution would produce that. The same applies to your response to No. 7.

"''All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks.''": It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.

"''Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates.''": Except that these [[intermediate forms]] are almost entirely lacking.

"''scales and feathers ... are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin.''": Two different types of keratin. And from [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/909 this article]:{{QuoteBox|‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.}}

"''The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry''": Or a common designer.

"''The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic.''": Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't explain beauty, because it's not a biological characteristic. However, I think that autumn leaves are a poor example, as the reason for their colour can be explained as simply being a natural consequence of them dying. A better example is the beauty of a peacock's tail[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/].

"''...the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change...''": No, they don't. They rely on there being no feasible intermediates that can produce the structure.

"''...and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures.''": No, they don't ''ignore'' such gradual development; they argue against it.

"''IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role.": No, it ''argues'' that without the missing part, it will not work in ''any'' role.

"''If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles.''": Hand-waving story telling.

"''Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis.''": Oh? The eye can detect a single photon. How do you get any better than that?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Rayment again brings up excellent points, and I'm actually going to let many of them stand unanswered (largely because to do so would start a cycle of the same arguments over and over again). I think this talk page could be very useful to someone questioning evolution as it is now, and there's not much more I can add without getting needlessly technical.

::But before I leave it, I want to address three specific points:
::1) Evolution should not be used by anyone to try and "disprove" creation. Something should be proved or disproved only on terms of its own merit, independent of other theories.

::2)I did mean to say "evolution" rather than "biology". However, as evolution is one of the core tenets of modern biology, underminging evolution would be just as damaging to science as undermining Genesis would be to Biblical inerrancy (I am referring here to another debate in which Mr. Rayment and I have been involved). Perhaps this sheds light on why many biologists, myself included, are so staunch in our defense of the theory.

::3) In regard to your final point. a) The chordate eye cannot detect a single photon, and in fact needs many photons to be activated. But that is just nitpicking. b) The cephalopod eye is far better in terms of capability and "logical design". In fact, the cephalopod eye is often considered to be one of the best in nature. Furthermore, many other organisms, such as mantis shrimp (which have many times the visual acuity of vertebrates) have eyes which are arguably superior to ours.

::And unfortunately, I think that is as much as I will be able to add before I must return to work. However, I think I have at least clarified some of the points of evolutionary biology, and hopefully this talk page will be helpful to anyone trying to get more information on the debate.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::But what if some evidence proved that the bible is in fact, not infallible? Would you disregard that, Mr. Schlafly, as you suggest we do with the theory of evolution? I dont mean to judge, just please don't say that someone is closed-minded because they may not change their views because one part of the theory may appear to be faulty.

::Arguing about this seems to be pointless anyways, since it is possible that one counterexample could prove the theory impossible, and it is possible that this counterexample could be overlooking something that neither side can see. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Thinker, evolution ''is'' used to disprove creation, whether it should be or not. And in a sense it should be, as (depending on how you define them), there are really only two options: a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation. If one is correct, the other is wrong.
:: I reject that evolution is a core tenet of biology. Biology existed before Darwin published his idea, and the two are different concepts anyway. Biology is the study of living things (e.g. how they work), evolution is the study (if you like, I would say story) of how living things came to be.
:: [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4342 This source] says that the eye ''can'' detect a single photon, and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/ this source] says that the cephalopod eye can't see as well as the human eye. In any case, you are comparing eyes for different environments and that therefore have different purposes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to throw something out there regarding number 1. It appears to be a "tree falls in the forest"-type statement. It appears to say that beautiful phenomenon are designed (divinely) for human pleasure and thus they could not precede humanity. Ah.... what?
[[User:Inspector]] 11:58, 1 June, 2009 (MST)

== Consciousness ==

Excellent new point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Bat counterexample ==

Superb again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

You appear to be unaware of the greater than 150 species of bats that do not echolocate: the megachiroptera, which represent two subfamilies and 41 genera. Even one counterexample would disprove the theory that bats cannot fly without sonar. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

The article stated: "A bat can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore the bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight."
1) Bats do not require sonar to fly; the existence of 150 species of non-echolocating bats proves this.
2) Even ignoring the sonar of toothed whales and the echolocation of oilbirds and swiftlets, there are nonflying land animals that use echolocation: two genera (multiple species) of shrews and the tenrecs. Thus the statement that "an animal that can't fly doesn't need it" is also disproven.
3) Since mammalian flight and mammalian echolocation both exist in isolation, the flight-echolocation combination is not irreducibly complex and therefore does not disprove evolution.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
: It was poorly worded, but the point was valid, that a certain group of creatures do need the sonar to fly, even if that was only some bats and not all. I've reinstated and improved the entry. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::It's clearly a waste of time to remove it again, but the point is most definitely not valid. To approach validity, there would have to be no current non-echolocating bats and no non-bat echolocators. There would also have to be no fossil evidence of non-echolocating bats and no fossil non-bat echolocators. In reality, none of these four conditions are met. Therefore there is no theoretical impediment to an echolocator evolving flight or a flyer evolving echolocation, since the two traits are entirely separable and need not have arisen simultaneously. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Thinker", please take your own name to heart: there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:My point was merely that the same logical reasoning can and should be applied to all origins theories. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and scientifically unsound.

:And the claim that there is no relative truth is just that, a claim: an initial assumption that serves as a jumping-off point for further debate. It itself must be justified, has not been justified to an extent that satisfies me, and is a debate that belongs elsewhere, so I will again leave it. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 15:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Some Comments ==

Just a brief comment - Aschlafly, you seem to suggest that autumn foliage is designed to be beautiful. That is totally subjective and personally I dont find autumn foliage particularly striking. One mans beauty is another's ugly. Secondly, in regards to consciousness, many species of chimps use tools and show morality also parrots have self awareness also and can recognise themselves in mirrors. I dont think wearing clothes has anything to do with self awareness either [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: No, PatWills, autumn foliage ''is'' beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too. You do have free will. But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful. It is, and it disproves evolution.

: As to animals, they don't dress themselves. They really don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Yes fine, you think foliage is beautiful. I dont, so its subjective. Its that simple. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: OK, maybe you don't think 2+2=4 either. You're not persuading anyone. In fact, your position simply reinforces that the beauty of autumn foliage is a counterexample to evolution, because you can't reconcile that beauty with the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Maths is not a subjective experience. Maths is objective. There is a difference. I am sure there are many people out there who dislike autumn foliage and their position is just as valid as yours. Personally I think bright green summer foliage is far more aesthetically pleasing. Back to the animals again, I am aware that animals do not wear clothes but that does not answer my point about other animals that use tools and are self aware. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::PatWills, give it up. You're just restating your absurd denial of beauty in nature, in order to salvage your belief in the theory of evolution. I'm with the other 99.99% of the population that honestly admits that autumn foliage is beautiful. And that single counterexample to the theory of evolution disproves it.

:::::Your denial of beauty does illustrate, however, how depressed people can become after they fall for the theory of evolution. Life without admitting beauty is very depressing indeed. Do yourself a favor and look again with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Is just told you I thought green summer foliage was beautiful, I dont like autumn foliage because it reminds me of winter. I have a friend who works at a university studying fungi and he thinks fungi is beautiful. Do you find molds and fungi beautiful? As to an open mind, well, you're the one denying that other people may have different ideas of what constitutes beauty. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Abstract judgements like "beauty" have no place in proving or disproving a scientific theory. They are unmeasurable & unprovable by scientific methods. Besides which, even if we accept that autumn leaves are pretty, how can that possibly disprove the evolution of plants & animals? It says absolutely nothing about the biological origin of that foliage; it only relates to our own perception of it. It has a lot to do with human views of nature, which have changed considerable throughout history, and vary from culture to culture. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that animals find that autumn foliage to be beautiful, or even have an appreciation of beauty at all. The perception of beauty is generally believed to be unique to humans, and whether you believe it to be a human construct or a gift from God, it cannot prove or disprove anything about the nature of the thing that we perceive to be beautiful or how it came to be. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Sideways, while you're at it, why stop at beauty? Go on to say that truth, mathematics, morality and everything else is all relative and devoid of anything absolute. In some cultures the counting is "1, 2, 3, infinity". So maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 in those cultures, right?

: Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty. It's a depressing fate. Open your mind and reject its absurdity while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Yes things are beautiful, but it is SUBJECTIVE! A person who is colour-blind might not find foliage so beautiful. Have you never heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, since you've barely addressed any of my points, and have instead put words in my mouth on completely different subjects, let me reiterate:
:::1. Truth and beauty are not equivalent. [[Facts]] are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place. Can we say the same about beauty? If nobody believes something to be beautiful, then it is not beautiful. What makes it beautiful is a perception. You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples of things that people disagree about whether they are beautiful or ugly.
:::2. Beauty is neither measurable nor testable by scientific methods. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence in proving or disproving a scientific theory.
:::3. You say that the theory of evolution depends on denying that autumn foliage is beautiful, when in fact this theme plays no role in the theory of evolution whatsoever. So this whole issue of whether or not we accept autumn leaves to be attractive is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the truth of what causes the trees to change this time of year.
:::[[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Sideways, your comment is not responsive. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with until you do, except to reiterate the following. Evolutionists ''must'' deny the existence of beauty, and you can see examples on this page. Suit yourself, but I'm going to spend my time with the 99.99% of the population that admits that beauty exists, and enjoys it. Depression awaits those who deny the existence of beauty, and you have free will to choose your own path.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Consciousness (2) ==

The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Be careful not to confuse ''consciousness'' with ''self awareness''. They are not the same, and I was talking bout the latter. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Ah I see, I'll be more careful. However, I still think the point is flawed though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process. Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::I would think the intelligence of some chimps and also parrots is somewhere inbetween. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:
:*Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.
:*Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality.
:*Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'.
:*Self-sacrifice: animals ''do'' exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is ''abundant''. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).
:*"Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: ''it is not linear''. Evolution '''does not''' say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.
:*"Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically ''defined'' as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::Regarding the point on symbiosis. The point relies on both grass and the fungus coming into existence as they are today being the correct view. As such the point relies on evolution not occurring. Since the point assumes that evolution did not occur, it cannot be used in an argument against evolution.
::Regarding the point on the Flagellum, and the transition between uni- and multi-cellular creatures, The theory of Symbiogenesis attempts to cover this. While still in it's infancy as a scientific theory, It has already been able to explain accurately both the chloroplast's and the mitochondria's involvement in multi-cellular creatures. Symbiogenesis regarding cilia and flagellum is currently being researched.
::Regarding animals and self-sacrifice. Other animals do exhibit altruism. A good example of this is the ''U. stansburiana'', or the Side-blotched lizard.
::Regarding intermediate fossils... This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument. Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another. People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils. Hence why I call it a cop out argument. There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.
::Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Self-awareness and clothing have little if anything to do with each other, I agree there.
::: Whether morality is subjective or not depends on whether or not you believe that it comes from God.
::: I'm not sure that it's true that tool use is "most often" found in primates, but otherwise I agree with this point.
::: I agree that animals do exhibit self-sacrifice. Stories of a hen dying whilst protecting her chicks are legion, for example. Admittedly, though, I don't know if any animals exhibit self-sacrifice for anything other than their own offspring.
::: Sorry, but evolution ''does'' say that "man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish". Well, perhaps not "rats" specifically, but it does the rest. True, it doesn't claim that we evolved from the creatures around today, but it does propose a ''line'' from the simplest creature to man (as well as lines to other creatures, altogether forming a tree). And any common ancestor to modern humans and apes would be referred to as an ape.
::: Yes, man is ''defined'' as an animal, in the taxonomic [[classification system]](<-- read that), but you can also ''define'' man as not an animal by using different criteria (such as the existence of an eternal soul). However, whether or not man is an animal is beside the point for this article.
::: The symbiosis argument does not rely on both "coming into existence as they are today", but on the requirement that both species became dependent on each other at the same time. In theory, that could be after both came into existence.
::: Scientists have discovered what ''they claim'' to be intermediate fossils, but (a) they are often not indisputably so, and (b) they are often not actually intermediate! That is, New Scientist in March this year had an article on supposed fossil transitional forms, and I'm reasonably sure that Tiktaalik was one of its examples, but it said that it was on a side branch. If it's on a side branch, it's not intermediate! For Ambulocetus, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776 here].
::: Just because creationists have rejected all proposals so far doesn't mean that it's pointless asking for them or that there's any that they wouldn't, in theory, accept.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Removed "Statistical Approach" ==

It was a joke. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true (they are NOT probabilistic) and the numbers were utterly random. The fact that so many holes exist is clear enough proof that evolution is absurd. Having an argument about odds only confuses the truth. Instead made it into a Logical Conclusion, by adapting some text from the top. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== "The foliage existed before man does" ==

But only by a few days, right? Incidentally, according to Ussher, the creation occurred pretty much at the peak of foliage season (in my latitude of the northern hemisphere, anyway...). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Beauty ==

The argument about the impossibility of evolution creating beauty is a valid one, contrary to Sideways' comment. If beauty objectively exists for no apparent evolutionary reason, then it's fair to ask why it exists, and it's fair to conclude that this argument is one that favours creation. To put it another way, evolution would not predict the existence of beauty, but creation would, so if beauty exists, the creationary prediction has been fulfilled and the evolutionary prediction is falsified.

So does beauty exist? Certainly we humans consider various things to be beautiful or not. Just as certainly, we differ as to what we consider beautiful, which suggests that the whole idea is subjective, not objective. So no, it is most definitely ''not'' like 2+2=4. The saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is quite true.

However, it can be framed in a more objective manner, as I almost do in the first paragraph. That is, are there things that are generally considered beautiful ''for which no apparent evolutionary reason exists''?

Autumn leaves are ''not'' an example of that. Why are autumn leaves the colours they are? Because in dying, they have lost the chlorophyll that makes them green. There is no need to invoke design to explain their colour. (This does not mean that God didn't deliberately design dead tree leaves to be nice colours, but it does mean that we can't invoke God as the only likely cause.)

However, an example is the one I mentioned higher on this page: the peacock's tail. Darwin considered the peacock's tail to be an example of ''sexual selection'', that is, the peahen prefers the more colourful peacock tails, so evolution favours more colourful tails. For a long time this hypothesis has been accepted, but more recently tests have been done to show that peahens ''don't'' favour more colourful tails, so this idea has been put to bed. (See link higher up this page.)

Now it's always possible that some evolutionist will come up with some other evolutionary explanation of the peacock's tail in the future, but at the moment, this evidence favours the creationary view, so is a valid argument. But autumn foilage is not, for reasons I've just explained.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Philip, if you think that beauty is ''completely'' subjective and relative, then do you feel the same way about the term "good" as commonly used? E.g., God created such-and-such, and saw that it was "good".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly. As God created 'goodness,' so too he created 'beauty' on Earth. Psalm 27:4 states "One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple." Likewise, Psalm 50:2: "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth." [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:58, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Right. Anyone who claims that beauty is completely subjective and relative is likely to say the same about goodness. God saw that his creation was good, but under this view that is in the eyes of the beholder. It wasn't ''really'' good, it just looked that way to God. For there, of course, it's a small step to saying that morality is in the eyes of the beholder. God said something was wrong, but it wasn't ''really'' wrong, it just seemed that way to God.

::: When 100 out of 100 people say something is beautiful (like autumn foliage), it ''really'' is beautiful. And those who deny it for the sake of evolution can look forward to the depression that life without beauty inevitably entails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: It is not true that 100 out of 100 people say autumn foliage is beautiful. Does that then open the possibility that it is not ''really'' beautiful? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 00:46, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: So what are we to make of the old saw that ''Beauty is in the eye of the beholder''? [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: It's meaningless when the beholder is God. What He sees as beauty IS beauty, as he created it. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::: We are talking about what appears beautiful to ''humans''. But to take your point, how do you determine (apart from explicit references in Scripture) what God considers beautiful? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: My mother, long passed now, used to hate Autumn - when she saw the leaves turning brown she always used to feel depressed, as to her it signaled the end of summer and the oncoming long dark winter months. I guess not everyone sees the world the same way. [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I experience a similar state - while I enjoy the pretty colors, it also means the end of the gardening season, and the onset of the heating season, hunkering down for winter, and the short, dark days. PS, one word I find interesting in other contexts in this "argument": kaleidoscope. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:00, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm not saying that beauty is ''completely'' subjective, nor relative. I believe that it exists, and that God created it (i.e. that's probably why the peacock's tail is like it is). But it doesn't follow from that that everything that we ''consider'' beautiful is that way because God intended it to be so. Do you find a landscape beautiful? Most do, but most landscapes are the result not of God's design, but of God's judgment on the world in the form of Noah's Flood. So in such cases, beauty is actually (a) subjective (i.e. it wasn't intended that way) or (b) ''despite'' the judgment (i.e. God made the world so beautiful that even in a corrupted form we still find much of it beautiful). I'm quite happy to accept (b), but if (b) is correct, what we have to acknowledge is that it ''isn't the way God designed it''. So are autumn leave beautiful because God designed autumn leaves to be beautiful, or simply because they are part of an overall beautiful creation?

'''But all that's rather beside the point'''. The point of the beauty argument is that evolution (i.e. natural processes) can't explain it. But natural processes ''can'' explain why autumn leaves are the colour they are. Therefore it's not an evolution-refuting argument.

As for God pronouncing the creation "good", first, I don't believe that the Bible necessarily uses the word "as commonly used" (in the present day). Rather I see "good" as referring to a range of things, such as impeccable and excellent design, faultlessness, fit for purpose, and such. And yes, beauty would be one aspect of that.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Aschlafly already explained it to you clearly, Phil. Beauty cannot result from evolution, as it cannot result from chance. As for Bible's use of the word, yes, it necessarily uses the word "as commonly used." Vague definitions is a favorite method of liberal deceit. God's word is inerrant, and thus does not mislead with vagueries. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:: That name's "Philip", by the way. And I've explained myself at least as well as Andy's explained it to me, and you've not added anything new to his explanation. Why is the Bible's use of the word ''necessarily'' "as commonly used"? Many Bible words have subtly different meanings than how they are commonly used ''in modern times''. And referring to my use as a "vague definition" is incorrect; I gave a definition that was more detailed than Andy's. Inerrancy is different to clarity. I agree that God's word is clear where it needs to be, but it's not always clear (on less-important matters), although always inerrant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
The old saw is an atheistic falsehood, which is traced to statements by a young Benjamin Franklin (before he returned to [[faith]]) and by [[David Hume]], an early atheistic philosopher. See [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/59100.html]. Looks like it has misled many who are unaware of its atheistic roots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: That's a rather selective interpretation of the link you provided. It actually says that in the wording we've been using it's attributable to a Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, although the concept appears earlier, including by Hume, and before him Franklin, and before him Shakespeare, and even he was not the first.
: Nevertheless, the existence of a saying does not mean that it's true. It may not be, but it appears to have a fair bit of truth simply by the ''fact'' that some see beauty where others do not.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:: No, Philip, Shakespeare did not say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is obviously an atheistic saying that you repeated, as I pointed out. It's time to concede that point.

:: Earlier you seemed to think that evolution could explain the undeniable beauty in autumn foliage, but it plainly can't. The color arrangement arose before man and has no plausible evolutionary purpose. Survival of the fittest to produce such beauty? It's absurd, and thus remains as a counterexample familiar to all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: No, Shakespeare did not say precisely that, but then neither did Hume nor Franklin. Your point?
:::: No, Andy, I did not simply "seem to think" that evolution could explain the beauty in autumn foliage. I explained why your argument was invalid, and you've done nothing to answer that, instead simply stating without any substantiation that "it plainly can't". What was actually wrong with the argument that I put (and which Samd has repeated below)?
:::: And what does "the color arrangement arose before man" have to do with the debate?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:46, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
::: I had been under the impression that leaves change color as a result of their chlorophyll dying due to a lack of water. If this is, in fact, true, I do not think that it is impossible to describe how and why the leaves change using a purely naturalistic viewpoint. (To be honest, I haven't really given this much thought before, and your view on it is very interesting. I'll have to dig out my old Wile biology book and see if it covers this. It's so hard to find science books written from a Christian perspective.)
:::With regard to whether there is a set-in-stone definition of beauty, this idea intrigued me, so I searched the King James Version of the Bible for various words and phrases meaning "pretty", "beautiful", and the like, using a software concordance. The Hebrew word used is almost always the same one, "יפה". Here is Strong's definition of it:
:::::H3303
:::::יפה
:::::yâpheh
:::::yaw-feh'
:::::From H3302; beautiful (literally of figuratively): - + beautiful, beauty, comely, fair (-est, one), + goodly, pleasant, well.
:::H3302 is simply a root (and unfortunately, I can't get the Hebrew letters to render correctly. Oh, well...):
:::::H3302
:::::יפה
:::::yâphâh
:::::yaw-faw'
:::::A primitive root; properly to be bright, that is, (by implication) beautiful: - be beautiful, be (make self) fair (-r), deck.
:::Most of the time, the word "beauty" was used in the phrase "the beauty of his [God's] holiness". "Beautiful" and "comely" generally referred to people or things that looked good, or, pretty. "Fair" was often used to describe various women, such as Sarah and Vashti. ("fairest" and "fair one" were only used in the Song of Solomon). "Goodly", "pleasant", and "well" (when it was used in this sense) likewise were used to describe things, but no definition of the ''words'' was offered in the text. In short, I was unable to find any hard-fast definition of what God considers to be beautiful (in a physical sense, at least). Based on this, as well as my own experience, I think that while there are things which practically anyone would agree is beautiful, such as a sunset, beauty is largely subjective. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 23:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Sarfati reference ==

The Safarti reference about the prostate doesn't say anything about how natural selection would have changed the design for the worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
: See the last line of the article. It doesn't say quite what was in this article, but I've improved it now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::It smells of [[straw man|straw]] to me. Sarfati (thanks for the spelling btw!) simply claims that evolutionists say that the prostate is a bad design, but doesn't (a) give any evidence that evolutionists actualy make this agument, <s>(b) give any reasons why evolutionists think the prostate is a bad design,</s> (c) give any reasons why evolutionists would ''admit'' that a bad design would be naturally selected or (d) show that it is necessary to the evolutionist argument for the prostate to have been badly designed. Maybe he has it in his book, but it's certainly not supported by the reference. (In fairness, there is also one line at the beginning of the article, but again this is just an assertion). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I guess he does say why evolutionists allegedly think that it is a bad design, but he then spends the whole article arguing that not only is it ''not'' a bad design, but evolutionists are using fautlty data to come to the conclusion that it is a bad design. Thus, according to Sarfati, if evolutionists knew about these data, they would have to agree that the prostate is a good design, thus counteracting his own argument! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Chromosome example==

The chromosome example, currently #15 on the list, is false. The standard human has 46 chromosomes. A human with Downs Syndrome has has 47. If they were to mate, they would produce viable offspring. However not all instances of having an extra chromosome result is problems such as Downs Syndrome, some have relatively no impact, most are far worse, and some provide benefits. However I cannot recall a situation where it was beneficial in humans, I have read of cases where it has benefited other animals and plants.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

: Random mutations are never beneficial. Please make your point after you have the evidence, not by referring to evidence that you don't have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::They can be, in the right circumstances. Take the SNP responsible for sickle cell anemia. A person homozygous for sickle cell will have a debilitating disease, but a heterozygous person is more resistant to malaria than a non-carrier and is not symptomatic for sickle cell. This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::If we were to assume that I was incorrect on mutations sometimes providing benefits, I was still correct that mates with different numbers of chromosomes can still mate successfully, provided of course that they would have been able to produce viable offspring in the first place. That part alone is enough to disprove the point. As for mutations providing benefits, I am not saying that all mutations are beneficial, in fact most mutations involving extra chromosomes cause serious problems, especially in larger mammals (humans included). However plants tend to make better use of the kinds these kinds of mutations, take the F. chiloensis or the Beach Strawberry, It has 8x the number of chromosomes compared to wild type strawberries. Because of this, it produces larger fruit with more seeds. More seeds and larger fruit being an obvious advantage regarding reproduction. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Corry said "''This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world.''" Just because the sickle-cell mutation happened to produce a beneficial ''result'' in one case does not mean it is truly beneficial. Natural selection dictates that anything that is beneficial stays, and anything that does not ''immediately'' benefit an organism is thrown out. If there ever was a beneficial mutation, it would very quickly be passed among ''all'' members of a species. Since all of humanity does not have the sickle-cell trait, the mutation is, hands down, not beneficial when applied across a broad spectrum (which is what would have to occur in order for a species to evolve). [[User:Samd|Samd]] 00:02, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::No- mutations in the genome do not spread like computer viruses. And as above, I said that homozygotes are at a disadvantage, while heterozygotes are at an advantage. If a mutation causes an overall reproductive benefit, in this case by heterozygotes being resistant to malaria and more likely to have children, then that mutation will be spread more than one which does not have a reproductive benefit. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 00:12, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

As Corry said, "random mutations" ''can'' be beneficial, even though that is (usually?) only in specific circumstances/environments. The claim that they can't be is one that leading creationists specifically say is wrong[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#mutations].

Samd is also correct that it is not beneficial ''overall'', but that doesn't make Andy's claim that it is "never" beneficial correct. And by the way, these rare beneficial mutations do not help the argument for evolution, because these beneficial mutations are still information-''losing'' mutations, whereas evolution requires information-''gaining'' mutations.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations. What it requires are information-changing mutations, which are the definition of mutations in the first place. There are massive parts of genetic material in living things that appear to do absolutely nothing. If one of these parts is mutated, there is no loss whatsoever (unless the mutation is worse than what it replaced, as many are). If the mutation makes a creature less likely to reproduce ''in that environment'', that gene will not be passed on to as many offspring, and the gene will become infinitely uncommon. If the mutation does nothing whatsoever, the population of that species is unaffected. If the mutation is beneficial (meaning that it makes that creature more likely to produce more offspring, which is extremely rare, but happens nonetheless), then this gene will be passed onto its offspring, which in turn are more fit to reproduce than competing creatures within that species. Therefore, this beneficial mutation spreads throughout the population as time passes (it does take a while).

:This can happen indefinitely until a species no longer in any way resembles its ancestors. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 20:53, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:: If a bacteria has no ''information'' for hair, eyes, bones, skin, and so on, but it's evolutionary descendants do have this information, then they must have ''gained'' this information! And if mutations didn't supply it, then where did it come from? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::: Mutations did supply it. There are examples of information-gaining mutations as well. And genes are not organized according to body parts. Scientists have discovered that genes interact with each other. The system is very complex. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 10:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::::There are? Care to name one, and rock the scientific world? Your last two sentences say nothing that argues for information-increasing mutations. Infact, gene interaction, expression, polyploidy and generally the complexity of the "system" as you call it are all problems for biological evolution by random changes.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:05, 9 November 2008 (EST)

:::: So JArneal, how do you explain these two comments of yours:
::::* "''Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations''":
::::* "''Mutations did supply it.''":
:::: You say that evolution does not require information-gaining mutations, I point out that the information had to come from ''somewhere'', so you respond by saying that it came from ''mutations''!
:::: Yes, please give those example'''s''' of information-gaining mutations. Dawkins was asked for examples, and couldn't supply any. Since then, I know of ''one'' disputed one that is always trotted out, but even if that one is correct, it's ''one'' when there should be ''many'', and you've referred to them in the plural anyway.
:::: And LowKey is quite correct that your comment about the complexity doesn't answer the question about where the information came from. That "genes are not organized according to body parts" doesn't mean that the information for the body parts is not there somewhere.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I'm sorry I contradicted myself, Philip. What I meant is that evolution is a theory about the adaptation of life, which does not necessarily require information-gaining mutations. What you are talking about is an argument about the progression of life, which is a consequence of people trying to contradict evolution based on creationist beliefs. To you, Lowkey, the complexity of the system is not the issue, so again I apologize. The fact that it is possible to generate the changes through random mutations is the issue. It is possible, no matter how complicated anyone tries to make it out to be. It's the same thing with the information-gaining mutations. As long as there is one example of an information-gaining mutation, it does not make sense to use this argument. I see an information-gaining mutation. That tells me that information-gaining mutations are possible. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:26, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Regardless of whether you label my argument as about the "progression of life", the unavoidable point is that evolution ''requires'' the addition of enormous amounts of new genetic information. I can't see how evolution going from a "simple" cell with no arms, heart, skin, brain, and so on to humans with all those and much more is not a "progression".
:::::: Simply claiming that it's possible to generate the required changes does not make it so. Lowkey specifically asked you for examples, yet you supplied none.
:::::: And no, it's not as simple as claiming that one information-gaining mutation is enough, for several reasons:
::::::* There is no undisputed example.
::::::* Evolution doesn't require ''one'' but very many (probably millions if not billions). Evidence of ''one'' is not evidence that evolution is capable of providing sufficient such mutations.
::::::* What evolution needs is more information-gaining mutations than information-losing ones. If a hamburger seller makes a loss on every sale, but then eventually sells one for a profit, does that mean that his business is viable?
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: If you are looking for an example of an undisputed information-gaining mutation, I cannot help you. I don't know if anyone can, because evolution will always be disputed on this basis. Do you want me to give that commonly known example? Fine. Down syndrome. I did not want to bring it up because I did not want to argue about this. It is beside the point. The length of the genome does not need to increase to create organs such as eyes or a heart. It must change, however. An amoeba has a far larger genome than a human, yet an amoeba does not have eyes or a heart. The actual size of the genome is not relevant, and therefore information-gaining mutations are not necessary, even from your viewpoint. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:46, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Down syndrome is caused by a genetic ''defect'', a ''loss'' of information, not an information-''gaining'' mutation.
:::::::: The amount of information is not proportional to the length of the genome. See the section on ''Measuring information'' in [[information#Measuring information|information]]. You are confusing the ''size of the genome'' with the ''amount of information''. That's like comparing chalk and cheese. As I said, the first cell doesn't have the information for things such as hair, skin, and eyes. So this information has to be ''added''. Even if the cell or bacteria loses ''other'' information in the process, the information for those other things has to be generated ''somehow''. That is the problem that microbe-to-man evolution has yet to produce evidence for.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, I believe I provided an example of a gain of information with HIV developing an ion channel. An ion channel that requires more than just a single mutation to occur. I believe it can be found [[Mutation|here]] with the gain of function examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 07:41, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, I said I did not want to argue about Down syndrome. But if you really want to, then here: Down syndrome is also scientifically known as "trisomy 21." This is because there is a third copy of chromosome 21 in the cells of a Down syndrome person (there are usually only two.)

The example in the [[information]] article does not have anything to do with our argument. It is pure coincidence that the english word for "vehicle" is longer than the english word for "car." The longer the genome, the more base pairs there are. The more base pairs there are, the more information is present in the genome.

If a creature exists that has, lets say, 10000 base pairs(very simplified example) and only about 5000 actually code for proteins that carry out functions(there are long strands of genomes in animals that have no purpose), then there are still another 5000 that do nothing. If a part of this section of 5000 base pairs is mutated and "turned on" to code proteins as is possible, and this part codes for proteins that create arms, then according to the gene, you have lost information to gain the exact same amount of information (no information gain or loss.) But according to our observation of what the creature actually looks like, it looks exactly the same except it has arms.

I'm sorry if I'm not making any sense right now, but I'm not sure if I understand your argument, either. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:43, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:3 copies of something instead of 2 is no increase in information. I have 3 copies of a couple of books (I lend a lot), but I have no more information than if I only had 1 copy of them. Switching existing information on or off is not gaining or losing information. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:25, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::Hmm. What is your metric for 'information'? Can you represent it formally (i.e. mathematically)? I ask because every well-defined metric for quantity of 'information' (such as used in signal processing), seems require more to encode three copies of a gene than two or one (at a minimum it requires at least an extra bit or two). It's very important to settle on ''specific'' definitions for quantification of 'information' before proceeding with assessments of relative changes. Shifting between specific definitions and metrics cause many problems. That was precisely the trouble that damaged many of Lee Spenter's claims about there being no increase in information from mutations (from his book _Not By Chance_) [http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199908/0178.html American Scientific Association discussion -- Follow links from this post] (an organization of Christian professional scientists and engineers) and [http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/spetner.htm Discussion from Ian Musgrave].--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:05, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:: I agree completely. But imagine instead that those books were created the old-fashioned way (copied by hand, this is similar to the way DNA is copied) and there were some errors made in the copying (mutations) in your third copy of the book. What has happened? No information was lost, because you have already stated that the third copy is useless information-wise if it was the exact same as the others. The amount of information did not stay the same, because you now have a book that contains a different bit of information in it, and the information it would have had without copying errors is already in the other 2 books. If information was not lost and information did not stay the same, it must have increased!

:: What I said might be a little confusing, but the above scenario is far more similar to that of DNA. Mutations cause changes in the information, which in this case is an increase in information.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::That is a false analogy, because in the example you gave the mutation '''is''' the 3rd copy. You are now talking about 2 mutations, the over-copying and then the copying error - but you still have not provided an example of the copying error in which the "copy" has a greater information content than the original. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:09, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::: JArneal, the word "vehicle" is not longer than the word "car" due to "pure coincidence". Rather, the example was ''intelligently selected'' to make the point that the amount of information is not the same as the number of letters, bits, or base pairs. When you randomly change a letter or bit, you say that information is not lost, it didn't stay the same, so it must have increased. But why do you say it was not lost? The point is that information is data that has ''meaning''. You've not shown that the ''meaning'' was not lost. Rather, you are continuing to falsely equate the number of bit, letters, or base pairs with ''information''.
::: In your example of the creature gaining the information for arms, what information was lost? According to you, nothing! That is, it has gained the information for arms, but the genes previously did nothing, which means that they had no information for anything, so no information was lost! Similarly, if bits or base pairs that already have ''meaning'' are mutated, then that ''meaning'' will be lost.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:49, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Lowkey, you are right about the fact that my analogy did not use just one mutation. It uses two. But the fact that it uses two does not make it a false analogy. Two mutations can easily happen in the same replication. Therefore, the analogy stands because it still represents what can happen in a replication.
::::And to your charge that I "have not provided an example of the copying error in which the 'copy' has a greater information content than the original," you are completely right. But I don't have to provide an example of this, because my analogy still works, and it is an example of how an information-gaining mutation could happen because of a combination of mutations.

::::Philip, that's not what I meant when I said the word "vehicle" was longer than "car" due to coincidence. But I don't know how to say what I did mean. I'll leave it. And your comment that it was ''intelligently selected''...are you implying that because you intelligently selected an example, intelligent selection happens in nature? I don't know ''what'' to say to this.
::::To your comment that I haven't been properly arguing because I have been equating data to information, you may be right. But hopefully this analogy (analogies are going to be the death of me) will work:
:::::''You have three copies of the same book. You want another three of the same, because your copies are getting old, and you want to get rid of them. So you go to a man who will copy the contents of the books for you. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that each book you gave him says only one thing: "The old man walks." Now in the copying, the man you hired makes an error in the third copy, instead making it read: "The old man talks."''
::::What did you know about the old man in your books before the copying? All you knew about him was that he walked. But after the copying, you have 3 new books, two of which say the same, and one that gives you a new piece of information about the old man, that he talks. You now know, after the copying, that the old man walks and that he talks. You have new information about the old man.
::::And about my creature example, the genes that were mutated did not have "meaning" because they did not code for proteins that carry out functions, so according to you, those genes had no information:"The point is that information is data that has ''meaning''." The genes did have data before the mutation, however, so when it gets a mutation that causes it to have "meaning" (code proteins), information is created out of the meaningless data.
::::To your statement that "if bits or base pairs that already have ''meaning'' are mutated, then that ''meaning'' will be lost," you are absolutely right. The meaning will be lost, which brings me back to the very first post I had in this section: If the loss of the previous meaning causes a creature to function improperly, that creature will not reproduce and the mutation will cease to exist. But if it causes the creature to function even better in its environment, its gene will be passed on, and the creature will never miss its previous gene, because it got something even better in exchange. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 13:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Thank you ==

Now I see the light. ''Beautiful autumn foliage'' is a clear, decisive evidence against Evolution. I am sure that most of my fellow colleagues, scientists, will see the light as well. A few militant atheists will stay on their positions no matter what evidence is presented them, but I'm sure the majority will understand. Now, let's spread the news! Answersingenesis, Creationontheweb, but also scientific papers: here we come! --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:Poor sarcasm if a favourite tool of [[liberals]] who have nothing to contribute and no facts to back up their objections. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:15, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Right. After a while, the [[liberal]] nonsense is so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it. Watch that user and I bet you never see an insightful edit by him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::: If the nonsense is "so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it," why are you commenting on it? --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 21:37, 6 November 2008 (EST)

== 'Chain of being' ==

RodWeathers reinstated the 'consciousness' entry with the edit comment "''Evolution requires a 'chain of being,' including varying consciousness''". I would like to know what this means and how it addresses the concerns with this entry already explained earlier on this page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

==Recent Revisions==

I'm back, taking a much-needed break from research, and I've started out with some relatively minor edits. As promised, here are some explanations.

1) I removed the example of the giraffe's neck because it is very easily explained by the naturalistic theory of evolution. And that's not just from me and the rest of evolutionary biology, that's from Dr. Behe.

2) I removed the example of the whale because it deals with common descent, which is (again citing Behe) accepted by scientific critics of evolutionary theory.

3) I added some clarification to the opening paragraph so that readers can better understand the premise of the article and the limitations of the counter-example argument. It is relatively technical compared to other entries, but as this is a technical subject, this article must unfortunately reflect that. I am not trying to say that the re-wording makes the arguments less legitimate, only that they focus the reader's attention on what exactly is at stake (the power of random mutation, which is the only thing questioned within the scientific field [and as an aside, that's being generous with "scientific", but I digress...]).

4) Finally, some of the examples needed rewording to actually reflect the argument. If anyone wants the technical explanations, I'll be more than happy to provide them, but suffice it to say for now that these arguments have to be worded very specifically to be true.

I think that covers all of them. If any of them are in question, please post here and I'll explain my actions. Please don't blindly revert them without a reason. That's unscientific. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 13:46, 14 November 2008 (EST)

: I've reinstated the whale and giraffe examples. It is nonsense to claim that common descent is not in dispute. And I've explained at the top of this page why evolution can't explain the giraffe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::Common descent is not ''scientifically'' in dispute. The only attacks to common descent come from without the scientific realm. That doesn't invalidate those attacks, per se, but in order for this article to use scientific reasons for the "rejection" of evolution, it has to be subject to scientific reasoning. And the fact of the matter is that no reputable scientist who has looked at the evidence rejects common descent.

::The neck of the giraffe is a result of what we would call "runaway sexual selection". If you observe giraffes in their natural environment, you might notice that the neck is far, far longer than any shrubs or trees which they eat. So, the neck is obviously not adaptive in that way, because natural selection dis-favors anything that expends energy without need. However, the ancestral giraffe (which is conjectured to look somthing like the Okapi) had a much shorter neck. Although we cannot quite be sure what the environment looked like millions of years ago when these selections took place, it is not much of a stretch to assume that giraffes with longer necks (and we're not talking about a significant difference here) had a higher fitness, so natural selection favored longer necks. At the same time, however, males were competing for access to receptive females. It should be obvious that better competitors were able to reproduce more, and that they would pass on whatever heritable trait allowed them to compete better. In the case of giraffes (anc yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution. Most importantly, the length comes from increasing the length of individual neck bones, rathering than gaining new structures. It's a perfect example of evolutionary homology!

::Now the next part becomes a little more complicated, and I expect a number of people might not be able to follow it (I'm drawing on some relatively high-level biology). The neck ''valves'' of the giraffe do pose a bit more of an obstacle. The explanation requires accepting common descent, but since I'm sticking to science, I'll go ahead and make that jump. If you know your evolutionary history, you know that all terrestrial chordates are derived from an ancestral fish-like organism. This organism had valves in its ventral aorta for just the same reason as giraffes (prevent back-flow). That's information bit number one. Information bit number two is that the vast majority of our genetic code is inert. It must be "turned on" to work. As the last information bit, remember that natural selection acts against anything which expends unneccessary energy. As the circulatory system of chordates evolved, the original requirement for aortic valves diminished, so natural selection favored those organisms which lost the structure. But wait! '''Losing a structure is not the same as losing the genes for that structure!''' Indeed, the genes were there the whole time: they are part of the ''hox'' complex that controls body plans, and this complex is very heavily conserved. Thus when the need arose for pressure control in the aorta again, it was but a small step to reactivate those genes in the giraffe.

::I can see how that becomes a "chicken or the egg" problem, and I think I may change the point to reflect that. Evolution does a great job of explaining how the neck became long, but people might take issue with the potentiation argument for the valves. I guess it's sort of an irreducible complexity argument.

::Reinstating the whale example shouldn't have been done. The question posed by this article is "can these phenomena be explained in the framework of Darwinian evolution?" The resounding answer for the case of the whale is '''YES!''' That's because one of the main tenets of evolution is common descent, and it's also one very, very strongly supported by evidence. So, scientifically, there is no basis for the inclusion of the whale as a counter-example to evolutionary theory. And please note, when we apply the type of scrutiny we're applying, we must first "pretend," if you will, to accept the theory as a whole and see if it does not provide explanations. That's how speculative science works.

::So with that in mind, I will once again remove the whale example. There's simply no scientific reason to include it. To do so would require attacking common descent first, which has been attempted numerous times and has yet to succeed in empirically-based scientific study.

::If we want to throw out the requirement of scientific scrutiny for a scientific article, that's the perogative of the admins. But we should be honest about the worldview lens through which we're viewing reality. That would save everyone a lot of time, because then we could focus on the source of discord itself.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:24, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::You said above ''"In the case of giraffes (and yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution"''. Before you remove anything, I want you to prove to all of us the test. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:29, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::::The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher.

::::My other revisions also need explanation. I removed the peacock's tail as an example from the beauty argument because it is even more easily explained than the neck of the giraffe. It doesn't change the argument itself, it's just an example that doesn't fit there. The variety of marine fish is a more consistent example.

::::I also changed the wording of the opening paragraph because the idea that mutations only destory information is a bogus "sound bite." There are reams of examples of informatio-producing mutations: gene duplication, inversions, and insertions all give rise to radically new coding in simpler life. Genetic recombination and meitoic crossing-over account for even more increases in information (Dawkins, ''The Selfish Gene'', to name just one source). The argument of irreducible complexity (which is the idea that this article is largely based on) merely states that even these mutations cannot account for complexity (and as another aside, I obviously don't agree with that point, but the last time I refuted it, it took up 30 pages...not so keen to repeat that;)).--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:43, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Did those scientists who made that observation actualy see the giraffe's neck grow? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::Huh? That question doesn't make sense (well it does, but not in a relevant way), and I think you may have misunderstood how we test for fitness correlations and natural selection in general. I was a little brief in my explanation considering that there are entire books on the subject, so let's try something a little more detailed and beginning at the basics.

:::Ok natural selection works on the idea that traits which increase fitness (the number of surviving offspring) will be passed on to the offspring of those parents (assuming it is heritable...no Lamarckian evolution). As long as the conditions remain steady, those offspring will then be able to have more offspring themselves until they make up a significant part of the population. Assuming (as Darwin and Malthus did) that there are more organisms than can be supported, only those who are best able to create offspring in this environment will be successful. "Survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification that spreads more misconceptions than anything else, which is why I hate the phrase.

:::So now we have the idea that natural selection ''favors adaptations which increase fitness''. Therefore, if we want to test whether or not a trait is adaptive, we can observe the number of offspring an organism has (who is in possession of that trait). This works best on traits which exist across a spectrum of phenotypes (say, the neck of a giraffe). The independent variable is the length of the giraffe's neck, and the dependent one is their reproductive success (gauged by number of matings and number of offspring). Such studies have shown a positive correlation between neck length and fitness (remember, "fitness" is just short-hand for "number of viable offspring). Also note that the specific test is one we use to judge the effects of sexual selection (in this case by intrasexual competition, based on qualitative observations of males fighting). To judge the adaptiveness of a trait from a ''natural'' selection standpoint, we simply look at the number of offspring produced (without taking into account mating success). If something is an adaptive trait using these tests, Darwinian evolution can explain it using its framework. If not, then the problem requires further investigation.

:::I hope that explains how we test the adaptive value of a trait. I don't know where the idea of "needing to see it grow" came from, but perhaps my initial explanation was too brief (I am used to teaching science majors at the college level and forget how much I've specialized, at times).--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)

The question was "did a scientist see a giraffe's neck grow?" What you said was this: ''"The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher."'' There are all sorts of little words in your explanations (and many, many others) which suggest that scientists just don't know, words like "assuming"; "conjectured"; "plausable"; "scientists believe"; and so forth. Scientists are people, and people anywhere can "assume" that the moon is a lump of cheese, but that of course doesn't change the facts.

With all due respect, the implication of your argument relative to ''Cameleopardus sp.'' has very much to do with scientists stating that mating rituals were responsible for the lengthening of the neck vertebrae, and these scientists implied such as if it were absolute fact. To make such an implication, I'm "assuming" they used the [[Scientific Method]]; the first step of that method demands that a scientist observe the phenomena in question; i.e. ''he has to see the neck actually grow'', and then provide a reasonable explanation for such growth in step two. In step three, the scientist has to do an experiment to see if his hypothesis is correct, and you did say above that "we can test this".

Here is my explanation for the giraffe's neck, which is supported by facts:
*At no time did a scientist of any kind observe a giraffe's neck grow, either in a single animal, or passed down to offspring through successive generations, in accordance with step one of the Scientific Method.
*At no time was testing done pertaining to the hypothesis related to mating; if such was done the results were at best inconclusive, or plain wrong. If the observation instruction of step one cannot be accomplished, then steps two and three could not be done as well.
*At no time in the history of paleontology was the remains of an animal found which could have been declared by science to be the links between the "okapi-like" animal and a giraffe.
That means science is left with two other explantions of the giraffe's neck, of which the familiar one is that it grew in relation to the growing height of the trees. That explantion falls apart for the simple reason that if the animal in question needs to eat and cannot reach the leaves, it either grows the neck immediately, looks for another food source, or starves to death within a few weeks. Two of those facts, by the way, can be observed and tested on any animal.

The third explanation is what I believe in, and there's no testing at all which can refute it: giraffes and their necks were created on the sixth day by an act of God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:34, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Wow...I'm not sure where to start here. I guess I can start by saying that the above is a very, very twisted version of the scientific method. In fifteen years of intense science, I've never experienced anything like what you described, nor have a I related anything like that to my many students. I would try to explain it for any observers, but I have the feeling that what I say is going to be squelched, anyway.

:First off, science does not require ''direct'' observation. If it did, then we wouldn't have chemistry or phsyics (aside from applied chemistry and Newtonian physics, which are just a small part of those respective branches). It depends on inference based on observed phenomena, followed by predictions based on those inferences. The scientific method would never require direct observation of the neck growing, it would require observation of a long neck and a scientist asking why it's long.

:Second, my "little words" are there for a reason: '''scientists do not know'''. We assume, we test our assumptions, we change them when things don't go as planned. I just finished up a research project in which the results completely refuted the initial hypothesis, and this eventually led to some radical insights into muscle development. Only the most arrogant and mis-informed (or rhetorical) scientists say things like "we know this beyond a doubt." If we knew all the answers there would be no need for science.

:Third, your explanation for the neck of the giraffe is based on incomplete facts. Moreover, its line of logic is based on an incorrect assumption about the scientific method. Science simply does not work the way you described. I don't know who is relaying the sort of information about the scientific method upon which you base your argument, but shame on them. They have either lied or were dead wrong.

:Finally, "belief" in an explanation has absolutely no place in science, because it precludes the possibility of doubt. Without doubt, again, there is no science. I believe nothing in the scientific field...I accept explanations, and I hold mutable opinions...I even make assumptions when doing is so is needed for forward progress. But I never "believe" anything (ever wondered why so many scientists are atheists? There's your answer). That would be a grave threat to scientific thought.

:I simply cannot continue. My arguments and logic rely on an understanding of science and "proof" which is simply not present here. I will return my focus to my students who are willing to learn. Good day. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:38, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Typical evolutionist weaseling. What Karajou has described is fully in line with the scientific method, and naturally you plug your ears and fail to actually answer the objections, since they undermine your entire worldview. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:48, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::Now, now, this is a debate page, and not a page where we can say "typical evolutionist weasaling". The point I made is simple. Science, as stated above in this example, says that the neck of a giraffe got longer as a result of mating choices, and Thinker indicated that testing has in fact been done on that subject. But to contradict what he said, belief is everything in science. In this example, science believes that the neck of a giraffe got longer over time via the mating of certain individuals. They believe it so much that they are willing to test their beliefs (hypothesis) to see if it is a fact. Thinker indicated above that it was tested; I said it never happened. Both statements could be considered beliefs, but the end result states one is a fact and the other is not. In short, show me a successive line of directly-related individuals who had larger and larger neck vertebrae over time exactly as described, and show me that this occurred through mating. It either happened, or it didn't. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:28, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::I think that the conflict here is in what Thinker and Karajou are trying to explain - Thinker is assuming that the ancestors of the giraffe did not have long necks, and therefore simple oberving that giraffes now do have long necks is enough to satisfy step 1 of the Scientific Method and he can then continue to propose a hypothesis to explain it. Karajou, on the other hand, believes that giraffes were created in their current form, in which case a net change in neck length over time would have to be observed before a hypothesis would be needed. However, for this change to be observed, the timescale needed would be far greater than the length of time since the ToE was proposed.
[[User:PBowler|PBowler]] 14:17, 2 October 2009 (GMT + 1)

:::::I haven't read the lengthy thread above, but resorting to "more time" to explain things actually raises more questions than it answers. One can add the all the time imaginable and heat will still not flow to a hotter place, water will still not flow uphill, and disorder still will not become more orderly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

==Some Items to Consider==
I believe it is important to point out a few misunderstandings of this article in relation to scientific thought. First off, subjective statements are not scientific. The term beautiful is subjective and can not be quantified. As such number one is not something that pure science can validate, “Beautiful by what standard?” Number two has been shown it be false as well. During the Dover trial M. Behe was shown a stack of research dealing specifically with the evolution of the immune system. I know personally that in most college level evolution classes immunology is not a common topic, however in graduate level immunology classes the evolution of the immune systems of different species is covered quite extensively. Number 6 is also another area that has been studied substantially. Simmons, R. & Scheepers, L. (1996). Winning By A Neck: Sexual Selection In The Evolution Of Giraffe. The American Naturalist, 148, 772-786. is an excellent paper explaining how sexual selection played the most plausible role in the evolution of the giraffe’s neck. Number 7 is one of those on going arguments; many transitional fossils have been shown however there are transitions between transitions. The best explanation for this is that soft tissue is very rare to find in a fossil and changes from evolution occur at the biochemical level. So it is a matter of morphology which leaves gaps. Number 8 was shown to be false, either last year or the year before, with the finding of Dilong paradoxus. This fossil showed feather precursors and featherlike projectiles with a scaled skin. Number 9 needs a citation, I know of no biologists that make a claim that Pterosaurs did not fly. Number 10, most thoughts on this issue is that wings were selected through sexual pressures and gained functionality at a later state. Number 11 has been recently debunked as well, there has been an established cascade leading to the formation of flagellum. Number 12 was shown to be false on this talk page already. Number 13 is misleading due to the limited understanding of symbiosis. Symbiosis is caused through mutual beneficial partnership. The species involved could survive on their own but over time were able to survive better through the partnership and eventually became dependent on each other. Number 13 does not address this. Number 15 runs into the issue of the soft tissue that was listed above. Another point to make is that there are cases where unicellular organisms do work together to survive, but do not have systems. I am not sure if this would qualify since the difference between unicellular and multicellular organisms is based on the development of specialized function of the cells. Number 16 is misleading. The prostate would only be eliminated through natural selection if it did not influence reproduction, considering the purpose of the prostate this is false. Number 17 is also false. There are many cases of animals using tools to achieve an effect, as well as self-sacrifice for the betterment of their young. Case for the tools would be primates and some marine mammals using rocks and other shaped objects to crack and open objects that they would not normally be accessible to them. Self-sacrifice happens in all kinds of environments from birds to mammals protecting their young to the point of sacrificing themselves. I would say that this mindset that is unique in humans is not a single mutation as much as a buildup of mutations and experiences thus allowing for some to be able to self-sacrifice while others do not. I am unsure how to proceed on fixing these issues in the article so a little advice might help. (Unsure being if I must present a well documented research case disproving the claim or show through logic why it is false then be able to do the deletion) Moreover, I am fine with having some items in this but please let those items be scientific examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Oh sorry, I should have read your comments before adding my 2c below. You've added more detail than me, and seem to be more of an expert in the topic, so I'll let you discuss it with the others. [[User:MattS|MattS]] 11:22, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Discredited Examples==
Although I agree with a lot of the examples here, you should probably consider removing the two examples for irreducable complexity (immune system and bacteria flagellum) as both of these examples have strong counter-arguments, and including them in your list will serve only to discredit the page.
Considering the immune system, the original arguments based on antibodies not working by themselves and the compliment cascade:
1) Antibodies do function by themselves. Opsonisation is only a small part of their function
2) Various mammals have been found which lack portions of the compliment cascade, showing it is possible for the cascade to have 'evolved'.
As far as flagellum is concerned, the actual motor is very close in structure to the bacterial poison pump, which 'squiges' a protein (poison) through itself. This could have 'evolved' into the flagellum by the poison protein becoming affixed, and thereby facilitating movement to a less hostile environment, potentially promoting survival.

As I said, I'm not trying to attack your arguments, I'm just worried that you are flogging a dead horse with these examples which will discredit an otherwise excellent page. There must be tons of other arguments you can use instead. What do you think? [[User:MattS|MattS]] 17:53, 29 November 2008 (EST)

==Pterosaurs==

Where did the writer get the idea that they couldn't fly? I have many books that say they could. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 19:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

: I've seen pictures of them pulling Santa's sleigh through the air, so you must be right!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:: Mr. Schlafly, with all due respect, could you please not insult other people's conceptions?--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:04, 1 December 2008 (EST)

As the person who originally added the statement, I shall take all questions. [http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html Here] is a cite, I will put it in the article presently. --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 14:03, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks PhilipV for the site. I would point out that it is only one researcher who makes this claim, and the comment section on the site even explains why it was flawed. To state that biologists do not believe that Pterosaurs could not fly is a mischaracterization of a single article. Now if there were several papers supporting the researcher's claim then that would be different. Perhaps saying "That a researcher made a recent claim" since the article is from this year there has not been much time for others to test the claim. Just to point out, there are physicians who still claim that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, there will always be fringe interpretations of data.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:45, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Phillip, next time remember to site your reference. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 03:52, 4 December 2008 (EST)

OK no problemo ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|''Support our Troops!'']] 22:26, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Unicellular to Multicellular Organisms==
What would constitute a clear transitional form? A group of unicellular organisms that work together to accomplish a function to sustain their life, like digestion of an energy source through shared enzymes? If this is the case bacteria order myxobacteria is a prime example of this. These bacteria work together often to achieve results that are not just based on physical manipulation but chemical. They often will converge on food and increase the concentration of their digestive enzymes to digest the food. They have to do this in close proximately of each other due to the enzymes being unstable; being close together allows the bacteria to produce a stabilizing chemical environment to stabilize the enzymes. In other words, by working together they share chemicals to aid in their ability to digest their food source. So would this be considered an example or social behavior by unicellular organisms (which can only be chemically driven)? I will wait for a few days for responses before editing the article.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:23, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Altruism==
Actually Rod, I am afraid you are incorrect. Altruism favors evolution because selfless acts that ensure the survivability of the population allow for the continuation of the genes of the population. Evolution is not based on the individual it is based on the population. For example, a father organism gives his life to protect his offspring, a purely altruistic act, thus allows for the genes of the father to be carried on by the offspring. You have to look at genetic shift on the evidence that once the organism reproduces its evolutionary role is not as important as its offspring therefore allowing for the parent organism to function as a protector of its offspring. If a parent performs the act, it does support evolution because it allows the offspring (or population) a better chance of survival.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:10, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:You really have bought into evolutionism hook, line, and sinker. Altruism is not limited to parents caring for their young. Animals adopt orphaned young of other species. Primates share food with unrelated animals in their group, help the injured, etc. None of these things improve individual survivability, and are thus counter-evolutionary. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 09:20, 18 December 2008 (EST)
::Actually they do provide for evolution. It does not really matter what the act is, just as long as it does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread. You have to think about altruism in terms of gene dispersion, what helps it spread and what helps it survive, thus favoring evolution. If organisms share among each other then the genes will survive and spread at an increased rate than organisms that do not. Another piece of evidence that shows that altruistic behavior falls in line with evolution is the evidence that parallel and convergent evolution are functions of altruistic behavior between two populations (part of the environmental selective pressures). I believe the point you are missing is that a single mutation in an organism is not enough to cause an evolutionary shift, that mutation must spread; therefore evolutionary shift is based on population and not the individual thus supporting altruistic behaviors due to their impact on the population's survivability over the individual. Perhaps you can counter this argument with some explanation as to why altruism can not be beneficial to evolutionary theory. I would agree that if the organism sacrifices itself before producing offspring then the behavior would counter evolution, however when one removes learned social constructs, you will see that the time an organism develops altruistic behaviors is often after the organism is able to reproduce. As for the comment about buying in, I am a biochemist, if I did not understand evolutionary theory then most of what I study would make no sense, such as seeing the similar metabolic pathways in different species with only slight, and progressive, modifications to differentiate them.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:40, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:::''All'' unnecessary action reduces the chance of the population having genetic spread, through wasting of energy. And to suggest that evolution is inherently population based undermines your argument. Any genetic change which improves altruism ''reduce'' the altruistic individual's survivability, thus the altruistic changes are lost. Thus altruism should not be seen in nature, as it destroys its own propagation. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 09:43, 18 December 2008 (EST)
::::Rod, all I can say is that you are mistaken. I provided you with several instances where altruistic behavior would allow for genetic dispersion (father giving up life for child), provided you with a hypothetical situation where two populations could benefit from altruistic behavior as compared to populations that do not show similar behaviors and explained in detail why you are mistaken due to your understanding of evolution being based on the individual instead of being based on the population. So to answer your point about wasted energy, populations are not closed systems and evolution is not based on the conservation of energy. So when an organism invests energy in an act where no defined outcome will occur it is not against evolutionary theory, nor is it for due to it being based on the individual once again. However if the energy used did happen to encourage a response from the environment that would improve the gene dispersion and chances of the population's survivability then it truly supports evolution. "All" unnecessary action does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread, for example reciprocal altruism: Sharing food is a good example. Suppose an animal captures a food source which is so plentiful that it cannot consume it all alone before it goes off. Sharing it with others may entail getting slightly less food now, for the possibility of more food later (when it might be sorely needed) if the recipients reciprocate the altruistic action. Kin Selection: When adult animals risk their life to distract potential predators away from their offspring they are exhibiting this form of altruism. Such behavior is evolutionarily stable since although it decreases an animal's chances of survival, it increases the chances for its offspring. Multilevel selection theory: Consider, for example, an animal population made up of warring groups. This would entail two levels of selection - between groups and within groups. Within any one group, altruistic behavior would be deselected by the dominance of selfish behavior. However, if altruistic behavior increased the overall fitness of the group, then the groups with the highest proportion of altruists would outperform the more selfish ones. Under appropriate conditions, this alternative selection pressure could dominate the disadvantage of altruism for the individual. Multi-level selection doesn't only occur on these two levels, since animals may be a part of various groups - close family group, extended family, tribe etc. We can consider evolutionary selection to happen on each level simultaneously. This explanation of altruism finds more evidence from anthropological studies which support viewing of groups of humans as adaptive units. According to Sober and Wilson, "the concept of human groups as adaptive units may be supported not only by evolutionary theory but by the bulk of empirical information on human social groups in all cultures around the world." More reading [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/][http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pdf_attachments/de%20Waal%20(2008).pdf] As you can see your example supports evolution more than it counters it.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:Able806, I don't have time to read through evolutionist propaganda. You have yet to explain intra-species altruism, which is the key point. Parents dying for their children is obvious in its advantage, but an animal nursing one of another species invariably reduces its ability to propagate its own genes. Dolphins assisting injured humans and animals do so at risk to themselves, with no possible genetic propagation or benefit. So long as ''any'' examples cannot be explained by evolution, it must be discarded; this is the nature of ''science.'' Altruism is endowed by God, not Darwin. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 10:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Rod, if you would have read my post you would have seen I gave you and example of intra-species altruism, or reciprocal altruism, and the science behind it as well as multi-level theory. As for propaganda, I really do not wish to participate in ad homium attacks against researchers, especially when one refuses to read the information provided. Evidence is evidence, take it as you will, however you claim has been shown to be false and contrary to the purpose of the article. Your trailing statement “Altruism is endowed by God, not Darwin” means nothing in this argument, and is a hook, which I shall not bite. I believe an administrator should settle this issue. Now if you will excuse me, I have articles to write.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I don't pretend to understand all of this, but I don't think the existence of [[altruism]] either proves or disproves the [[Theory of Evolution]]. Certainly a species whose individuals "do nice things for each other" without getting an immediate reward will survive better than species who are more individualistic. But God might have set it up that way for a reason.

It's fun to speculate on how traits like [[cooperation]] may have "evolved", but until we can read behavior in the [[fossil record]] it's all academic. The only scientific question about evolution is whether it was directed by an [[intelligent designer]] or its was merely due to the "creative" force of [[natural selection]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:41, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:Ed, I agree with your statement. Being that Altruism is a behavior, it is not something that can be detected in fossils of organisms that never used tools. As such, using altruism as a counterexample is grasping when there are other examples that have more "meat" if you will. Hence the reason why it should not be a part of this article due to it subtracting from the areas that hold more testable and provable potential.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe an example would help. A form of altruism has been observed among certain species of vampire bats, where one bat that found a meal (the "lucky bat") would share part of it with another bat (the "unlucky bat"} that didn't find a meal that night. The lucky bat can afford to give up some of its food, while the unlucky bat has to have something, or it will starve; so the exchange helps the unlucky bat more than it hurts the lucky bat. And the next night, the lucky bat might be the unlucky one, and have to depend on a handout. Since he showed himself to be generous the previous night, the other bats know that he's good for a meal for any of them if they need it, so they help him out this night. I heard of this back in college, so I forget all the details, and it's only anecdotal evidence, but it does seem to show how altruism can be a good evolutionary strategy, under certain circumstances.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)

==Hair==
Rod, once again another area which you might rethink. Hair is dependent on the rs-3 locus which encodes for the ectodysplasin-A receptor (EDAR), which is required for the initiation of hair development in mammals. This locus is also essential for scale development in fish and reptiles. This locus is the developmental precursor which follows a path similar to the Pax6 in eye development. As for hair being well fossilized, it is in amber but in other types of fossils it fossilizes poorly. Most fossils found in amber are of insects (due to the bugs eating or landing on the plant) not many higher animals are found in amber fossils, was [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E7D61139F935A25757C0A960958260 one] of the rare instances that it occurred. I know you are getting your information from AIG or ICR but follow up with it by searching pubmed. You will see articles that have been researched and reviewed that sometimes conflict with AIG or ICR's claims.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:01, 22 December 2008 (EST)

==Vestigiality==
Now I am begining to wonder about your purpose Rod, you have added yet again another false claim. In humans, the coccyx, the plica semilunaris, the pseudogene L-gulonolactone oxidase among many other muscles that serve no current purpose but had purpose in the past are all considered vestigial structures. To claim there are none in a human is false and further not supported by fact. So back to the orginal purpose of this article, perhaps we could stick to the valid counterexamples to evolution, instead of those that have been shown to be false.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 18:59, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:Every claim of "vestigiality" (an absurdity, I might add) has been proven false about humans, as far as I am aware. The claim about tonsils resulted in the needless death of thousands in improperly subjecting them to anesthesia and removing their tonsils. Are you willing at least to admit that? Please improve your spelling and also spell out your far-fetched claim that something else is vestigial in humans. Godspeed and Merry Christmas.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:08, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:I find it curious that you see it necessary to attack sourced, well-established problems with evolutionary theory, with nothing more than your own propagandist assertions, no doubt ingrained by an evolutionist education. Please, either back up your claims or leave these facts alone and contribute elsewhere in the encyclopedia. If you do some reading with an ''open mind'', you just might find the natural world is far different than you were taught. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:03, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly, to start, not every claim of vestigiality has been proven false about humans. The three items I listed above are examples that have withstood testing for now. I do not disagree that there is a possibility that they may be reclassified as more information is gathered, just like tonsils, however it is unlikely. Here are some published references for the items I listed: Coccyx <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8059973</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/677043</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6373560</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3284435</ref>, Plica<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15255295?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref>
L-gul<ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10572964</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8175804</ref>. I have no problem admitting the deaths of people placed under anesthesia however to claim that the removal of the tonsils caused the death, well that is something that would have to be looked at on a case by case basis, which considering the millions that have their tonsils removed does not seem to be the cause. I believe the key is the definition of vestige: the remnant of a structure that functioned in a previous stage of species or individual development. Vestigiality can be proven by morphology and sequence testing, pretty clear if you ask me. As for my spelling I apologize, English is not my first or primary language and I wrote the comment while traveling for the holiday, failing to spell check before I posted as I normally do. Rod, as for your comment, I agree with many of the items posted on this article as shown in one of my previous posts, however what you have posted recently is easily shown to be incorrect thus allowing for the question to be raised what are your intentions for this article? You keep trying to label my assertions as propaganda; however you provide no published evidence contrary to my statements. As I have said before I am a Biochemist, a field which relies heavily on the ToE so it is only reasonable for me to have a favorable view of evolution. I am a scientist which also means I question everything, including ToE. Aschlafly’s comment of the fall colors actually intrigues me. I know the biochemical pathways that lead to the chemical reaction in the leaves but I only understand that the difference in color is caused by the concentrations of the chemicals in the leaves. Not being a neurobiologist, I do not know what wavelengths of light stimulate what parts of the brain which would be needed to scientifically understand Aschlafly’s statement. I have supported my claim in the links above, perhaps you should open your mind to the understanding that perhaps not everything is as it first seems. As for being taught, well consider that I actually perform research so my friend I use experience more often than not.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:38, 29 December 2008 (EST)

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't allow ideological [[censorship]] here. Try Wikipedia if you want to insist on censoring criticism of evolution, though I oppose censorship by Wikipedia also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 7 March 2009 (EST)

==Jellyfish fact==

The article appears to lapse into the faulty "god of the gaps" way of thinking here. If the article is willing to state that the phenomenon is only "apparently" unrelated to 'evolution'. I've always felt the integrity of a conservative argument is based on the percentage of unimpeachable truths within (as opposed to the liberal priorities placed on 1. quotes from famous peoples and 2. quotes from liars) so if you don't mind, I would like to trim down the list to only those statements which are ironclad. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 09:24, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

: You make valid points, but a complete failure of evolution to explain a basic undeniable fact (such as the jellyfish behavior), and a lack of any imaginable evolutionary explanation, is a valid counterexample to the theory.

: Evolutionists claim that their theory explains all of life. If they want to reduce their sweeping claims, then we could reduce the list accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

::OK, that's a good point. I'll be honest that I'm not a believer in evolution, but it is an acceptable idea ONLY SO LONG AS it is not divorced from the Bible and thus logic. But, you are correct: The currently-trendy, and knowing that many of the left prefer trendy causes, the current theory of evolution supposedly applies to all things, so yes, that is the argument we are up against, rather than anything of scholarly or biologically sound merit. The article stays as is, but in the future if I discover more points worthy of the list, I would like them to be quite bulletproof. There's a wealth of anti-evolution texts, so my job of adding ones which meet evolutionists' own "standards" shouldn't be terribly hard, nor should CP's job of highlighting these on the News section, and in articles. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 12:47, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2009-09-14T13:24:20Z

MICasey:

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2009-09-14T13:21:43Z

MICasey:

Communism

2009-09-13T16:11:11Z

MICasey: /* Atrocities and Repression */ merged quote blocks

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
'''Communism''' is an atheistic ideology supporting a [[political]] system which replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the means of production with government ownership (see [[nationalization]], as in [[Venezuela]]).
It is based on [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "[[classless society]]." However, no Communist society has ever been classless; each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

President [[Ronald Reagan]] in an address before the British [[House of Commons]] said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

Today, communism continues to rule over at least one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Communist Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|200px|The [[hammer and sickle]] is considered throught much of the world to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the public owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.{{fact}} In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.{{fact}}

Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).{{fact}}

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

In 1955, [[China|Chinese]] communist leader Chou En-lai declared, "We Communists are atheists".<ref>Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] said, "for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything - force, violence, murder, lying - is a justifiable means." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 92.</ref>

== Atrocities and Repression ==

Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Nobel Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. They often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the Father and Creator of man, but also his Savior, Who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Cuban communism==
[[Cuba]] remains a communist state controlled by the Castro brothers since 1960 and under U.S economic sanctions.

==Asian communism==
The [[CCP]] in China retains an autocratic regime controlled by the Communist party, which allows no democracy or dissent. However it does allow capitalism, and has experienced a very rapid growth of the private sector and the middle class. Observers expect that the regime's efforts to control public opinion and forestall the will of the people will be more and more difficult.

[[North Korea]] remains a brutal dictatorship controlled by the same family. [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]] are also run by the old Communist cliques.

==Collapse of the Soviet bloc==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced democracy. With the collapse the remnants of Communist parties have dropped their old names and ideologies, but still operate on the left of the political spectrum.

==American communism==
:''Main article : [[Committees of Correspondence]]''
With the collapse of Soviet communism and the conversion of Chinese communism to "state run capitalism," the spiritual and ideological center of world of communism and the [[Marxist-Leninist]] tradition shifted to the [[United States]]. Several prominent American communists, rudderless without [[Moscow]] direction, formed a new organization in 1992 called the [[Committees of Correspondence for Democratic Socialism]].

The initial organizational conference was held in [[Berkeley]], [[California]], July 17-19, 1992. Charlene Mitchell, a former leader of the California Communist Party, speaking at the conference said, "the collapse of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] left the [[United States]] in a near unchallenged position of world leadership." Mitchell continued,
{{Cquote|What began as a moment to take stock and ponder where to go from there has now become a very different entity. People from the Communist Party, from CrossRoads, from the [[Democratic Socialists of America]], from NCIPA [National Committee for Independent Political Action], from Solidarity, from the Socialist Organizing Network and many others, including independent leftists and independent socialists, have come together here in Berkeley.}}
Criticizing U.S. actions in the [[First Gulf War]], Mitchell stated,
{{Cquote|[[progressive]] forces were nearly powerless in the face of an onslaught of demagogic, [[patriotic]] [[jingoism]] and yellow ribbons. This war, fought for no legitimate reason, was the crowning height of [[George H.W. Bush|President [George H.W.] Bush]]'s [[New World Order]]. Previously, the Soviet Union helped to provide a certain balance to rein in the crazies in this country. Now, that balance is no longer there. It is now up to us, the American people, to rein in our own crazies. The [[left]] must take a major responsibility in organizing this task.}}

==Notorious communists==

Well known communists include:
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Hugo Chavez]]
*[[Carl Davidson]]
*[[Frank Marshall Davis]]
*[[Bernardine Dohrn]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Van Jones]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Mao Zedong]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Paul Robeson]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.archive.org/stream/100thingsyoushou1949unit#page/n3/mode/2up 100 Things You Should Know About Communism'']

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Communism

2009-09-13T16:09:48Z

MICasey: /* Atrocities and Repression */ Removed "modern", it was unnessecary

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
'''Communism''' is an atheistic ideology supporting a [[political]] system which replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the means of production with government ownership (see [[nationalization]], as in [[Venezuela]]).
It is based on [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "[[classless society]]." However, no Communist society has ever been classless; each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

President [[Ronald Reagan]] in an address before the British [[House of Commons]] said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

Today, communism continues to rule over at least one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Communist Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|200px|The [[hammer and sickle]] is considered throught much of the world to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the public owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.{{fact}} In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.{{fact}}

Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).{{fact}}

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

In 1955, [[China|Chinese]] communist leader Chou En-lai declared, "We Communists are atheists".<ref>Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] said, "for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything - force, violence, murder, lying - is a justifiable means." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 92.</ref>

== Atrocities and Repression ==

Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Nobel Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. They often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the Father and Creator of man, but also his Savior, Who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Cuban communism==
[[Cuba]] remains a communist state controlled by the Castro brothers since 1960 and under U.S economic sanctions.

==Asian communism==
The [[CCP]] in China retains an autocratic regime controlled by the Communist party, which allows no democracy or dissent. However it does allow capitalism, and has experienced a very rapid growth of the private sector and the middle class. Observers expect that the regime's efforts to control public opinion and forestall the will of the people will be more and more difficult.

[[North Korea]] remains a brutal dictatorship controlled by the same family. [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]] are also run by the old Communist cliques.

==Collapse of the Soviet bloc==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced democracy. With the collapse the remnants of Communist parties have dropped their old names and ideologies, but still operate on the left of the political spectrum.

==American communism==
:''Main article : [[Committees of Correspondence]]''
With the collapse of Soviet communism and the conversion of Chinese communism to "state run capitalism," the spiritual and ideological center of world of communism and the [[Marxist-Leninist]] tradition shifted to the [[United States]]. Several prominent American communists, rudderless without [[Moscow]] direction, formed a new organization in 1992 called the [[Committees of Correspondence for Democratic Socialism]].

The initial organizational conference was held in [[Berkeley]], [[California]], July 17-19, 1992. Charlene Mitchell, a former leader of the California Communist Party, speaking at the conference said, "the collapse of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] left the [[United States]] in a near unchallenged position of world leadership." Mitchell continued,
{{Cquote|What began as a moment to take stock and ponder where to go from there has now become a very different entity. People from the Communist Party, from CrossRoads, from the [[Democratic Socialists of America]], from NCIPA [National Committee for Independent Political Action], from Solidarity, from the Socialist Organizing Network and many others, including independent leftists and independent socialists, have come together here in Berkeley.}}
Criticizing U.S. actions in the [[First Gulf War]], Mitchell stated,
{{Cquote|[[progressive]] forces were nearly powerless in the face of an onslaught of demagogic, [[patriotic]] [[jingoism]] and yellow ribbons. This war, fought for no legitimate reason, was the crowning height of [[George H.W. Bush|President [George H.W.] Bush]]'s [[New World Order]]. Previously, the Soviet Union helped to provide a certain balance to rein in the crazies in this country. Now, that balance is no longer there. It is now up to us, the American people, to rein in our own crazies. The [[left]] must take a major responsibility in organizing this task.}}

==Notorious communists==

Well known communists include:
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Hugo Chavez]]
*[[Carl Davidson]]
*[[Frank Marshall Davis]]
*[[Bernardine Dohrn]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Van Jones]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Mao Zedong]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Paul Robeson]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.archive.org/stream/100thingsyoushou1949unit#page/n3/mode/2up 100 Things You Should Know About Communism'']

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Socialism

2009-09-13T16:02:13Z

MICasey: /* Other Socialist Countries (Current ) */ added section on socialist trends under Obama

[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The [[caption]] reads, "Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!"]]
'''Socialism''' is an economic system of government which advocates state ownership of the means of production with equal distribution of goods among the people. The central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.

In practice the government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer. (People sometimes are allowed to have small gardens.) The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership of the means of production.

In practice however the socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government.

Theoretically socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."

As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.

{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> - Winston Churchill''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}

There are three main kinds of Socialism, but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

==Leninism==
First there is Marxian Socialism or '''Leninism''' as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by [[Stalin]] (and his successors) and in China by [[Mao Zedong]] (but not by his successors), as well as Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. The first version is totalitarian, with no democracy and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Virtually all property (apart from clothes and some personal possessions) is controlled by the Party, as are all jobs and all economic activity. Conservatives have been very hostile. China after Mao's death remained politically totalitarian under the Communist party, but allows a vibrant capitalism and free enterprise system.

Socialism in Communist countries such as the old [[Soviet Union]], [[China]] in the 1949-1980 period, [[Cuba]], [[North Korea]] and [[Vietnam]] had government ownership practically everything. That led to severe inefficiency and widespread shortages of basic goods and services. These Communist countries used an "[[Iron Curtain]]" to keep their citizens from emigrating and an elaborate, brutal secret police to ensure there was no freedom of ideas or action.

==Democratic Socialism==
The second form (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was democratic and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.

The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have largely dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted capitalism. However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism, but they have praised its vigorous anti-Communism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth.

In countries such as [[Sweden]], a form of democratic socialism has been much more successful, leading to high social equity and a burgeoning economy, as well as general content. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degrees of success.

==Communal Socialism==
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.

==Controversy==
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.

However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.

==Key elements==

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.
===Welfare state===
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.

State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].

===Religion===
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

Communist persecution notwithstanding, the earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with the aims of socialism. Acts 4:32-5:11 not only describes community redistribution of property, but describes punishment of a husband and wife for failing to completely share the proceeds from selling their land.

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].

== Britain, the Labor Party and Socialism ==

At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the [[Westminster model]] of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the [[nationalization of health care]] to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.

Since the election to government of the Labour Party in 1997, many "[[progressive]]" measures have been introduced, such as the Minimum Wage, Child Tax Credits, union recognition legislation, increased maternity and paternity leave, the Child Trust Fund, refurbishment of [[council housing]], free bus travel for the elderly, increased paid leave for all workers, free nursery-school places, and large cuts in unemployment.<ref>[http://www.towerhamlets.labour.co.uk/a1c1ce9b-1488-7bb4-a528-14436f084ba3]</ref> In addition, over a million children and a million pensioners have been [[lifted out of poverty]]; however, many in the [[Labour Movement]] are extremely critical of [[New Labour]]'s tentative approach to reducing [[inequality]], and are frustrated that the government has not been more willing to make the case to the public for the [[redistribution of wealth]].

== Criticism of socialism ==

[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.

==Past Socialist Countries==
===Chile===
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was popularly elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.

==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==
===[[Cuba]]===
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)

===North Korea===

North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref>

===Venezuela===

The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref>

==United States Socialist trends==

Since the beginning of the [[Barack Hussein Obama]] administration, many conservatives and non-partisans have taken note of the socialistic policies of the United States. These include the "bailing out" of many national industries (referred to by many political watchdogs as "soft nationalization"). In addition, the [[cult of personality]] tactics employed by 20th century socialist regimes have found new footing in the glamorizing of Obama's policies.

==Different Strands of Socialism==
*[[Communism]]
*[[Social democracy]]
*[[Welfare state]]

==Bibliography==
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433.
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_countries]

[[Category:Socialism]]

Socialism

2009-09-13T15:55:54Z

MICasey:

[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The [[caption]] reads, "Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!"]]
'''Socialism''' is an economic system of government which advocates state ownership of the means of production with equal distribution of goods among the people. The central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.

In practice the government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer. (People sometimes are allowed to have small gardens.) The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership of the means of production.

In practice however the socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government.

Theoretically socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."

As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.

{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> - Winston Churchill''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}

There are three main kinds of Socialism, but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

==Leninism==
First there is Marxian Socialism or '''Leninism''' as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by [[Stalin]] (and his successors) and in China by [[Mao Zedong]] (but not by his successors), as well as Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. The first version is totalitarian, with no democracy and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Virtually all property (apart from clothes and some personal possessions) is controlled by the Party, as are all jobs and all economic activity. Conservatives have been very hostile. China after Mao's death remained politically totalitarian under the Communist party, but allows a vibrant capitalism and free enterprise system.

Socialism in Communist countries such as the old [[Soviet Union]], [[China]] in the 1949-1980 period, [[Cuba]], [[North Korea]] and [[Vietnam]] had government ownership practically everything. That led to severe inefficiency and widespread shortages of basic goods and services. These Communist countries used an "[[Iron Curtain]]" to keep their citizens from emigrating and an elaborate, brutal secret police to ensure there was no freedom of ideas or action.

==Democratic Socialism==
The second form (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was democratic and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.

The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have largely dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted capitalism. However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism, but they have praised its vigorous anti-Communism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth.

In countries such as [[Sweden]], a form of democratic socialism has been much more successful, leading to high social equity and a burgeoning economy, as well as general content. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degrees of success.

==Communal Socialism==
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.

==Controversy==
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.

However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.

==Key elements==

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.
===Welfare state===
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.

State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].

===Religion===
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

Communist persecution notwithstanding, the earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with the aims of socialism. Acts 4:32-5:11 not only describes community redistribution of property, but describes punishment of a husband and wife for failing to completely share the proceeds from selling their land.

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].

== Britain, the Labor Party and Socialism ==

At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the [[Westminster model]] of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the [[nationalization of health care]] to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.

Since the election to government of the Labour Party in 1997, many "[[progressive]]" measures have been introduced, such as the Minimum Wage, Child Tax Credits, union recognition legislation, increased maternity and paternity leave, the Child Trust Fund, refurbishment of [[council housing]], free bus travel for the elderly, increased paid leave for all workers, free nursery-school places, and large cuts in unemployment.<ref>[http://www.towerhamlets.labour.co.uk/a1c1ce9b-1488-7bb4-a528-14436f084ba3]</ref> In addition, over a million children and a million pensioners have been [[lifted out of poverty]]; however, many in the [[Labour Movement]] are extremely critical of [[New Labour]]'s tentative approach to reducing [[inequality]], and are frustrated that the government has not been more willing to make the case to the public for the [[redistribution of wealth]].

== Criticism of socialism ==

[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.

==Past Socialist Countries==
===Chile===
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was popularly elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.

==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==
===[[Cuba]]===
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)

===North Korea===

North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref>

===Venezuela===

The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref>

==Different Strands of Socialism==
*[[Communism]]
*[[Social democracy]]
*[[Welfare state]]

==Bibliography==
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433.
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_countries]

[[Category:Socialism]]

Communism

2009-09-13T15:52:51Z

MICasey: /* Notorious communists */ Chavez is arguably a commie

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
'''Communism''' is an atheistic ideology supporting a [[political]] system which replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the means of production with government ownership (see [[nationalization]], as in [[Venezuela]]).
It is based on [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "[[classless society]]." However, no Communist society has ever been classless; each has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

President [[Ronald Reagan]] in an address before the British [[House of Commons]] said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

Today, communism continues to rule over at least one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Communist Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|200px|The [[hammer and sickle]] is considered throught much of the world to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the public owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.{{fact}} In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.{{fact}}

Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).{{fact}}

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

In 1955, [[China|Chinese]] communist leader Chou En-lai declared, "We Communists are atheists".<ref>Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] said, "for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything - force, violence, murder, lying - is a justifiable means." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 92.</ref>

== Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. They often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Cuban communism==
[[Cuba]] remains a communist state controlled by the Castro brothers since 1960 and under U.S economic sanctions.

==Asian communism==
The [[CCP]] in China retains an autocratic regime controlled by the Communist party, which allows no democracy or dissent. However it does allow capitalism, and has experienced a very rapid growth of the private sector and the middle class. Observers expect that the regime's efforts to control public opinion and forestall the will of the people will be more and more difficult.

[[North Korea]] remains a brutal dictatorship controlled by the same family. [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]] are also run by the old Communist cliques.

==Collapse of the Soviet bloc==

Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced democracy. With the collapse the remnants of Communist parties have dropped their old names and ideologies, but still operate on the left of the political spectrum.

==American communism==
:''Main article : [[Committees of Correspondence]]''
With the collapse of Soviet communism and the conversion of Chinese communist to "state run captialism," the spirtual and ideological center of world communism and the [[Marxist-Leninist]] tradition shifted to the [[United States]]. Several prominent American communists, ruderless without [[Moscow]] direction, formed a new organization in 1992 called the [[Committees of Correspondence for Democratic Socialism]].

The initial organizational conference was held in [[Berkeley]], [[California]], July 17-19, 1992. Charlene Mitchell, a former leader of the California Communist Party, speaking at the conference said, "the collapse of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] left the [[United States]] in a near unchallenged position of world leadership." Mitchell continued,
{{Cquote|What began as a moment to take stock and ponder where to go from there has now become a very different entity. People from the Communist Party, from CrossRoads, from the [[Democratic Socialists of America]], from NCIPA [National Committee for Independent Political Action], from Solidarity, from the Socialist Organizing Network and many others, including independent leftists and independent socialists, have come together here in Berkeley.}}
Criticizing U.S. actions in the [[First Gulf War]], Mitchell stated,
{{Cquote|[[progressive]] forces were nearly powerless in the face of an onslaught of demagogic, [[patriotic]] [[jingoism]] and yellow ribbons. This war, fought for no legitimate reason, was the crowning height of [[George H.W. Bush|President [George H.W.] Bush]]'s [[New World Order]]. Previously, the Soviet Union helped to provide a certain balance to rein in the crazies in this country. Now, that balance is no longer there. It is now up to us, the American people, to rein in our own crazies. The [[left]] must take a major responsibility in organizing this task.}}

==Notorious communists==

Well known communists include:
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Hugo Chavez]]
*[[Carl Davidson]]
*[[Frank Marshall Davis]]
*[[Bernardine Dohrn]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Van Jones]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Mao Zedong]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Paul Robeson]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.archive.org/stream/100thingsyoushou1949unit#page/n3/mode/2up 100 Things You Should Know About Communism'']

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-09-13T01:39:48Z

MICasey: /* Soetoro citation flaws */

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

==Obama clueless about American history==
In introducing Sotomayor, he flubs the constitution being the paper written over 200 years ago, mistakenly says 20 centuries ago. Maybe Totus was thinking the other paper written 20 centuries ago, the Bible! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiRhHqlzaG4 Video Obama: Constitution written "20 centuries" ago]
::A much as I hate to say this, I think taht was simply a slip of the tongue nothing more, also sign your comments please--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:02, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

::This really says more about you than about Obama, you're willing to think that a person with a Harvard education is below the line of mental retardation when it comes to History - US history in particular. It was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. If everytime Obama made a slip of the tongue you overreacted like this then you wouldn't be able to see the actual substance and be unable critisize his legislation or his political way. Really, grow up and stop looking for mistakes like that as it makes conservatives and you in particular look stupid and petty.

== Unlock article? ==

Can this article be unlocked? [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:22, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Specifically I want to delete this

"# Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. "

This doesn't offer any evidence of Obama being a Muslim. [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

:Actually, it does. For example, if this practice didn't exist, somebody might say, "Obama can't be a practicing muslim because a practicing muslim wouldn't deny Islam." The existence of this practice makes all of Obama's claims to Christianity irrelevant, because it proves he would make those assertions regardless of his actual religion. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 00:05, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Obama Received Aid as Foreign Student?==

I've seen this reported in several places. Apparently, Obama (under the name "Barry Soetoro") received financial aid as "a foreign student from Indonesia." The mainstream media seems to have basically ignored this; does anyone know more about it? This would lend quite a bit of credence to those who question his American citizenship. <ref>http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/obama-receives-foreign-student-tuition-aid-smoking-gun-finally-found/#more-6734</ref> <ref>http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1995743.aspx</ref>

==The Muslim Section==
The call to prayer is very beautiful, one need not be a muslim to appreciate it.

"Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them" Anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension could see that he was referring to having muslim in his family (he does) and lliving in a Muslim-majority country (he did) Neither of these prove him to be a muslim.

"He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." That proves him to be a muslim? So if you don't muslims have to either convert or live in the stone age, you're must be a muslim yourself?

"Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President" I believe there's some requirement for using your middle name in the oath.

"Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." Did he use a Koran, where is anything Islamic found there. Perhaps he's just not a very devout christian, is that a problem?

"On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[34] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view" Yes, Fareed Zakaria is a muslim, if one day, I turn on CNN and watch his show am I now a muslim? All of these prove not that Obama is a muslim, but that he simply isn't a anti-muslim fanatic and is open to all beliefs.

"Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior" It's absurd to think he was using the conventional use?

"Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth."
Malcolm X has inspired millions for his activity in the civil rights movement. The Nation of Islam was a radical group, but I can understand radicalism in the face of what had been done to african-americans at the time. Malcolm X left the group because he disagreed with their radical views. I fail to see how seeing him as an inspiration makes someone a muslim. I'm jewish, I'm inspired by Martin Luther King, that makes me a christian?

I could go on on and on, but I won't. Aside from all of this, what if he is muslim? Are muslims not allowed to be president? Can a muslim child not dream to one day be president just like every other kid? --[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well, it is an open question, IMO, or should be. The open question about his place of birth is another. The Koran actually calls for the use of deceit and violence against those who do not accept it 100%. That, in and of itself gives one pause. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:13, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

::I will add that since Israelis were prominent in U.S. politics circa '70's, from that time forward Muslim American's began to be heavily invested thanks to Middle East states such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait. Their ultimate goal was to get Muslims into U.S. politics. Today are the fruits from that investment, Illinois's Barack Obama and Keith Ellis. Chicago has over 400 Mosques, some capacity over 1,000. Home to Muslim Farrakhan, U.S. Muslim Brotherhood ties, big Saudi charities, Fundraising for dead Palestine suicide bombers. Obama bows out of great thanks and respect for the King.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:24, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Keith Ellis is from Minnesota not Illinois. Neither Keith Ellis or Barack Obama received donations from Middle Eastern countries.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: Then why is he keeping his campaign donations secret? Answer: they are coming from compromised foreign Muslim sources.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:15, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

I fail to see how it is relevant that President Obama may or may not be of the muslum faith. If he came out and said that he was muslum, then you could put that as his faith, but it is not important enough to have an entire section about

== Article in disrepair ==

Please, we need to either unlock the article or the moderators need to be responsive to the talk page. The frequency of updates is embarrassing for such a high value article. Several sections need to be cleaned up, which is too tedious for just a handful of administrators. This man is destroying our country and we are not keeping up. If we do this right, we can become one of the best repositories of Obama scandals and transgressions, but we have to be at least current.

Now as far as specific content, I'd like to expand on the Ayres ghost writing ''Dreams From My Father''. Jack Cashill updated his argument two days ago (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html), and frankly, I think is proven well enough to warrant sufficient detail in the article. I'd propose a paragraph here on the talk page, but I feel it may be ignored like my last suggestion. [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: Here is the other proposal I had. I suggest the following paragraph be added to the end of the section "Obama and Elitism":
<blockquote>
:Obama clearly exhibited his elitism on his May 5, 2009 limousine trip to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, VA.<re.f>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE</ref> Intended to showcase a connection to the ways of common Americans, Obama instead struggled to compose his order, finally settling on a cheeseburger with fancy Grey Poupon french mustard. This combination is rare among those who frequent burger joints in the United States, demonstrating Obama's lack of familiarity with U. S. culture and lack of American upbringing. Naturally, the liberal media abetted Obama by covering this up during their doting coverage <r.ef>http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html</ref>, in which he purchased burgers for liberal reporters.<r.ef>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/05/barack-and-joe-go-to-white-castle-%E2%80%A6-i-mean-ray%E2%80%99s-hell-burger/</ref>
</blockquote>

:(I broke the ref tags so it would be easier to copy and paste.) There are a lot of ways to attack him, but roughly since the election, little is making its way into the article. The time for mourning is over; now we catalog! [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:*''Fancy French mustard?'' Are you being serious? I have been to a place in Madison, Wisconsin that has a "Dijon Burger". And the area is known for its sausages, Brats, and most places routinely offer that kind of mustard. Granted Madison is a bastion of fuzzy liberal thinking, but still... And your statement about their being "lots of ways to attack him" is totally out of place here. We are an encyclopedia, and therefore do not "attack". If you, or anyone, want to think adding facts is the same as attacking, that is just clap-trap. Your Grey Poupon suggestion smacks of disingenuous mischief. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:35, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: The best criticism of Obama you can think of, is he isn't familiar with American burger joints? I personally find the average burger joint greasy and disgusting (and usually trayf), that doesn't mean I'm un-American.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:06, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

First, thanks for following up with me. The reason my proposal is not "disingenuous mischief" is that it is not my creation. As I linked, the criticism comes from reputable sources like Sean Hannity, as well as Ingraham, Limbaugh and many others I forget. Also, and very importantly, it is not merely about mustard but about the media fawning over him (see the legal insurrection link). It is popular conservative discussion. Thus, if we are to have a section on elitism, and given the solid sources, it merits discussion. If it then does not make it in, or we decide that the Elitism section for some reason is not justified (I would object), then I will accept. Another point I was to argue is about the attack. Conservapedia does not have to be the attacker, but it should help the reader to formulate an attack. The best niche for our 'pedia is to be where conservatives go to help develop an attack on a liberal or anti-American position. If someone wants to show Obama is an elitist, he can come to the Elitism section, follow the links and choose which arguments to make. And if he wants to prove Obama's a Muslim, he can ignore Elitism completely. On the other hand, if we just want to be a synopsis facts without direction, we are competing with Google and Wikipedia. It thus helps to include as many attacks as possible as long as they are vetted. Maybe I'm wrong or in the minority. And BTW, River Falls.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:07, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

== Table of Contents ==

Seeing as so many people find the position to be a problem, and more importantly that moving the ToC up would bury important information on Obamas muslim faith, could we include the ToC into the muslim "faith" section, as a side colum perhaps? Just a suggestion --[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:47, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:I like that. How about the following: Make "Religion: Described in the article" link to the relevant section(s), shorten the intro and integrate many of the details into the body or into new sections, then bring up the ToC. That way, the ToC is early, but the Muslim section is not push very far down. (Note that one of my criticisms tacitly in mind above is that the intro section rambles and the TOC is not first.) [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:12, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:: The article in general is ordered in a completely bizarre fashion. Regardless of how important the list of facts linking Obama to Islam is, it's way to long to preempt the table of contents, which is stuck around the end of page two as it is. Is isn't that the question of Obama's faith isn't an important one, because it is; it's just that the list of facts - many of which even I would admit are pretty tangential - don't constitute an important portion of Obama's brief bio, which is what normally goes above the TOC. Toss a reference to the controversy over his faith into the intro, then bury the list of facts (I might be biased against them because they're sort of ugly) somewhere in the article, parallel to where faith is talked about in the articles about other famous people. Perhaps, due to its contentious nature, spin it off into its own article, where it can grow into a more encyclopedic format. There's also a bunch of random criticisms and negative observations which, while appropriate for the article, are scattered sort of hodgepodge. The second most important biographical fact about Obama is not that his aunt is living in the United States illegally. Note that I'm -not- saying that it's not an important fact, it's just not a basic fact about Obama. Regardless of what he gets from the MSM, he doesn't deserve any sort of special treatment from CP. His article should be formatted in the same order as anybody else's, with random controversies and criticisms going into a controversies and criticisms section, in their own articles, or woven into sections of the biography where they are -directly- relevant. Given the number of sort of disconnected criticisms (like the "statements" section, which is great to read, but sort of unsituated), I really think a separate page for miscellaneous controversies and criticisms is warranted.[[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 16:16, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== Pakistani pronounciation ==

"Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one." I don't see this as relevant evidence of anything, you gonna call World War II veterans french because they correctly pronounce Bastogne?

:Typical of liberal deflection, moral equivalence. Open your mind. It will indeed set you free. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:30, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

::Set me free? Sounds more like it will make me angry and make me start hating everybody that doesn't think the same thing as me.

:::Seems to me you already are, posting anonymously, not owning what you post. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:05, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

==Updating a link==
Earlier tonight, somebody mentioned the reference link was broken, and suggested we remove that content. I snapped at him, for suggesting to remove that content, but it turns out the link actually is broken. I did a simple google search for the quote, and found hundreds of sources. Here's a few of the working links:

http://middleeast.about.com/b/2009/04/06/obama-in-turkey-at-the-gates-of-islam.htm
http://www.freep.com/article/20090604/NEWS05/906040435/
http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=6235.4664.0.0

Can we replace the current reference 22 with this reference? [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:21, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:I've unlocked it for you to update the link. Please edit in a constructive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::I would like to point out that the user who pointed out the broken link was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ABush20082012&year=&month=-1 blocked] infinitely for pointing it out. [[User:InnocenceIntent|InnocenceIntent]] 11:19, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:::The reason provided for the block does not support your comment, and the user name chosen by the blocked user was ridiculous. But you want to spend your time as an advocate for that blocked user who has not made a single substantive edit, then please take it up with TK. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:23, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::: I hate to disagree, and if the block was based on his name I am, but the only edits he made were to this page, about the broken link. [[User:InnocenceIntent|InnocenceIntent]] 11:25, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Godspeed to you. I see you were previously blocked, or at least I intended to, because I deleted your user page:
<blockquote>
22:41, 12 April 2009 TK deleted "User:InnocenceIntent" ‎ (Troublemaker/Troll)
</blockquote>
Obviously I judged your intent not too innocent before, and your past edits show obvious trolling, including reverting an Admin:
<blockquote>
# 22:25, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (Undo revision 652421 by Jpatt (Talk) My original revision was undone by patt due to a personal bias by the user.)
# 22:18, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (adding information about how the ACLU has fought for Christians.)
</blockquote>
And I can now see why, again, since you didn't do what Aschlafly said to, and posted here again, rather than contacting me. Such actions (the reason(s) for so doing) are immediately obvious to those of us who have been around here for a while. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:34, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Andy, thank you for unlocking the page - I fixed the broken link, so if you'd like to re-lock, it should be fine now. I'm going to go ahead and check all the other links on the page, and if they're not working, find replacements. If I find anything, I'll post here. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Many Broken Links==
OK, this deserves its own section. There are many broken reference links, which I'm trying to find replacements for.

5, first link, doesn't seem to be working for me, but it might just be me. This link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104131/posts would provide a reference for the same statement.

9 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6051268.ece would provide a reference for the same statement.

12 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://news.chennaionline.com/newsitem.aspx?NEWSID=9fab8324-a1a1-4ad6-840f-76b04a405a65&CATEGORYNAME=INTER would provie a reference for the same statement.

19 has the same link listed twice. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems kind of sloppy to me.

Reference (23) is broken, the page no longer exists. This is my fault, since I just added it, but (22) is just fine as a single reference. So we can eliminate this broken link without replacement, especially for a statement that returns as many google hits as this one does.

Reference (26) is broken. This is a toughie - most online references are copy-paste of the Wikipedia article, which itself sites these books:
:A Brief History of The Fourteen Infallibles. Qum: Ansariyan Publications. 2004.
:l-Qarashi, Baqir Shareef (2007). The life of Imam Husain. Qum: Ansariyan Publications.
I don't have these books, and I haven't read them, so I don't know if they back up the reference.

Reference (28) links to a video which, by the decription provided by the uploader, attempts to discredit the quote being referenced. A shorter video which arrives at the quote in question faster is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

Reference (49) redirects to the blog's main page, and blog does not have a search feature. Regardless of whether link is broken or not, we should replace with http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_No_bow_to_Saudi.html which is more to the point.

References (56) and (57) are the same link, we can delete one for neatness.

Reference (61) isn't even a reference. Suggest instead using http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26101

References (72), (73), and (75) are all broken. Suggest replacing all three with http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

Reference (89) is broken, but we can just link to Conservapedia's own [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]].

Reference (91) is broken, suggest replacement with http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/01/obama_campaign_to_return_aunts.html

References (97), (98), and (100) are broken. These were the same as (72), (73), (75), so we should have a single reference http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html and have all 6 of these citations be to this one article.

Reference (115) is broken, replace with http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Reference (128) is broken, suggest replacement with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/obamas-in-control-no-more_n_105407.html and rewrite of sentence which cites this reference.

References (129) and (130) are identical, suggest we delete one for neatness.

Reference (132) is broken, but will be difficult to replace. Citation is a direct reference to the reference and the authors of the reference. I'll work on this.

Reference (140) is broken, replace with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/11/john-lewis-warns-mccain-y_n_133903.html

(150) is broken, replace with http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

(152-154, 158) each have two identical links, delete one each for neatness.

(163) isn't a reference, but maybe Andy has the review procedures lying around so we can cite them?

(171) Access denied - we shouldn't cite references that require subscriptions. Suggest http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753197/posts for same content, by Limbaugh.

(182) is broken, replace with http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28189

(184) is broken, replace with http://vodpod.com/watch/956078-obama-we-already-have-economic-disaster-from-john-mccains-president-george-w-bush

Suggest rewrite of last two paragraphs of "Politcal Views" section, to reflect his election and change "current president" to "George W. Bush"

(187-189) are broken, I'm still working on replacements.

(190) is broken, replace with http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts

(191) has two identical links, delete one for neatness

(201) is broken, replace with http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html

(203) is broken, replace with http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370529,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g12:r1:c0.487981:b25437592:z0

(209) is broken, replace with http://www.politicalbase.com/forums/topic/obama-rebukes-mccain-camp-on-terrorism-criticism/3781/

(215) and (217) are broken, replace both with http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

[[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

That should be everything, though I might have missed something. Since it appears I can still edit the Obama page, I'm gonna go ahead and start this. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:We should lock this article again, it's being vandalized already. I'll just copy the source into a word document, make the necessary changes, and alert a sysop when it's ready to go up. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:51, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for identifying the broken links, but why not simply fix it directly? The entry is unprotected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Great work! I wonder why you deleted this, however: "After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: The source for that was missing, and I found a new link which supported the relevant statement in the article, but not that addendum in the references. The new reference I found does not make that statement verbatim, although, it's basically implied - I'll continue to look for a reference for that sentence. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 21:59, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::: I have been looking, and I can't find a source for this statement. I've re-added it with a citation needed. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 23:12, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Can someone insert this?==
My browser can't handle editing the page, can someone insert this under 'Election': In the weeks leading up to the election, Obama's staff worked to delay investigations by the [[Justice Department]] into allegations of voter fraud committed by [[ACORN]], Obama's former employer. In this way, hundreds of thousands, if not many more, votes may have been overcounted. [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=297446] --[[User:JDelaney|JDelaney]] 21:28, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:The link checks out, content's relevant, I added this material to the election section, but maybe it might be better placed in presidential campaign? Dunno. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 21:35, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks, Mr. JDBowen! It may be better there; but I think that, since more people look at this page, it may be okay here, too. Whatever you decide, I'm just happy it's out here! --[[User:JDelaney|JDelaney]] 21:45, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

==liberal vandalism: mulatto==
While an accurate statement, it may be a derogatory slang (mule-like). User remains blocked for disobeying sysop, lying. Remove--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:34, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
:Um... yeah, it's extremely derogatory and it's still up. We might as well call him.. well, n******. I see you have the last edit, so I won't remove it - but is that an accident that it's still up? Can we please take that down? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 09:40, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::It's obvious liberal vandalism, JacobB, and you could have fixed it directly yourself. Please do fix vandalism directly in the future as that is more efficient. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

==Animal rights==

In an article entitled "Does President-Elect Obama Bring Hope for Animals?" [[PETA]] quotes Obama as saying,
:"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." [http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/11/does_president-.php]
Interesting. Wikipedia reports in its Animal Rights article,
:"On November 24, 1933, the ...animal protection law, was introduced, with [[Adolf Hitler]] announcing an end to animal cruelty: ..."In the new Reich, no more animal cruelty will be allowed." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#1933:_Tierschutzgesetz]
[[Himmler]] likewise is famous for preaching kindness to animals [http://www.manasjournal.org/pdf_library/VolumeXIII_1960/XIII-11.pdf p.2]

Perhpas this area needs more study. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:17, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

::Great find! This is absolutely chilling. May God help us.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:48, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

== Kenya ==
Now that he have absolute proof that Obama was born in Kenya, can we change his place of birth ot Kenya? An image of the REAL Kenyan certificate was posted on the mainpage! Thanks!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 13:42, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

*No. A news report, of such a certificate submitted to the U.S. District Court, is just that, a report, not a fact. Some of the other information, in the Main Page News section, about Obama's failure to disclose other information, if not already there, will be added. If and when the purported birth certificate is authenticated, we certainly will add that in! As for now, the article reads, ''as it always has, factually...his actual place of birth is open to question.'' --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:00, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

== George Obama article for upcoming content of CP Obama article ==

George Obama article for upcoming content of CP Obama article: http://www.zimbio.com/George+Hussein+Onyango+Obama/articles/3/George+Obama+Barack+Obama+Brother+Fights+Life [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:42, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

:Excellent work. And long overdue. Much of this material is available, it just need to consolidate in one place. ty [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

== Praise! ==
I applaud the men and women who have edited this article since the start of August! I cannot believe how much this evil man has done and tried to do in less than a month! Great job on revealing the lies and evil that surround this crook!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 09:32, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

==Soetoro citation flaws==

The reference in the article's introduction to Obama's former/current(?) name of "Barry Soetoro" is sourced only to a short article on Pravda (RU). The first issue I take with this is the fact that the article itself does not concern Obama's/"Soetoro"'s true name, and doesn't seem to draw on any evidence regarding such, either. While, yes, the articles title is "Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama vs World Leaders", the only mention within the article is that "no one knows his real name" - yet the article's title seems to assert that Pravda (possibly as part of a larger movement) does, in fact, know just that.

Secondly, the article's overall professionalism and coherence is in doubt. Note the claim that America is "a Nation under the control of mob rule." (Be aware of the false capitalization, also - a classic sign of non-intellect, mind you). Now, Conservapedia defines [[Mobocracy|mob rule]] as "the rule by a group of people unrestrained by any meaningful principles". Now, this seems an odd thing for Conservapedia to grant audience to, as this Obama article makes it quite clear that Obama/"Soetoro" ''has'' principles, immoral and anti-American has they may be, they remain principles (much as one may say atrocious actions make the perpetrator inhuman, but this allegation does not affect their biological status as a human).

So the point must be made that either Obama/"Soetoro" is a dictator (the homepage often makes that viewpoint quite clear) or America is under the rule of the people. It can not be both, without delving into figurative speaking.

So I ask, given all these flaws in logic, argument, sentiment, and general intelligence on the subject, why is this article given what amounts to top-billing on this prominent Conservative site, when it does little, if anything, to back-up the point? I imagine other editors out there have brought this up before, and I'm curious what consensus or reasoning, if any, was reached on the issue. Thank you for your time. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 07:29, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
:Not only does ''Pravda'' state no one knows his real name, it also states no one knows where he's from. Then it raises the issue, if he is indeed barred from holding office of president, do foreign agreements and treaties he signs have the force of law? While this issue is being discussed elsewhere in the world, it hasn't been considered in the United States at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

::Perhaps I wasn't very clear there. I'm aware of the related cover-up regarding Obama/Soetoro's origin, but the problem lies with the citation itself (however, if you wish to improve the page by elaborating on the "origin" controversy as well, be my guest). I found it odd that such a scatter-shot, incoherent source article (from ''Pravda'') was used to make this point.

::'''Basically, if the ''Pravda'' article states that ''no one knows his real name'', why is it used as a citation for the name of "Barry Soetoro"? Surely there is a source out there which details the methods by which the "Barry Soetoro" name was discovered in the first place. The only mention of it within the ''Pravda'' article is in the title.'''

[[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 23:38, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Interesting point. Can you suggest any other sources?

:::Oh, and this recalls the old Soviet era joke about censorship in the two soviet communist official daily publications, "there is no ''Pravda'' in ''Izvestia'' and no ''Izvestia'' in ''Pravda''" (there is no ''Truth'' in the ''News'' and no ''News'' in the ''Truth''). But that was when both were openly commie rags. Let's give Glasnost a chance. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:18, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

::::Well, that's the problem. The only sources I can find are blogs - but even the '''most''' detailed ones only go so far as to say (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Barry Soetoro was Barack Obama's name in Indonesia", but again, these don't provide any documentation/interviews/quotes whatsoever. I'm afraid I tend to focus more on the man's policy than the controversies surrounding him - and I am, for the most part, willing to accept whatever good or bad comes along with such tunnel vision. So it's quite appalling that debates so rancorous turn out to be so hollow (perhaps the noise is product of the echo). Besides, if this "Soetoro" thing is true, I'd like to think that their was more discourse about how and why to include it in a biographical encyclopedia entry on BHO than someone doing a Google search and picking the first article with "Soetoro" in the title. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 11:00, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::''Pravda'' is not a blog, in fact, ''Pravda'' has quite a long history and reputation as a mouth piece abnd critic of the United States. We are simply reporting what traditional critics of U.S. political system, society, and culture are saying. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:24, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::I wasn't referring to ''Pravda'' when I mentioned blogs. I was referring to the sources I was able to find which ''did'' deal with the Soetoro name in the actual text of the article, which, as I said, even then were merely mentions of it rather than proof. If you can provide a source which '''''proves''''' the name, rather than mentioning it, you will have made a happy editor out of me. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 08:56, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, I see your reasoning now. If you can cite a source that ''proves'' George W. Bush lied about WMD rather than just mentioning it, you'd make a happy camper of me. too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:27, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Oh, come on. I'm not trying to disprove the claim, and I know you're smart enough to have figured that out. I just want CP readers to have direct, streamlined access to the facts. And I wouldn't claim that Bush lied, anyway. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 21:39, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks

2009-09-12T20:22:25Z

MICasey:

== Rewrite ==

I'm going to take a swing at this... bear with me. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:OK, I added a very terse timeline of events sourced from a combination of CNN's timeline and the FBI press release. I just included the key events of what happened... not the response during the day. Selective inclusion of the response could be perceived as partisan and total inclusion of everything... well... that'd be plagiarism. I also gave the most recent estimates for casualties I could find.

:I ''did not touch'' the "conspiracy theories" or "events following 9/11" as those are both way too political for liberal old me. My personal opinion is that the "events following" section should be a ''little'' bit more fleshed and written in a more encyclopedic tone... the immediate result was the [[War on Terror]] which has its own article. I also think that the "conspiracy theories" section needs a lot less space but possibly a link to another article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:17, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh... and I have an idea for an additional section which I may tackle unless someone does it first.

*"Planning and Execution"
*"Emergency Response"
*"Subsequent Health Issues"

:Any others? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I really wanted to go to bed... we seem to have lost the talk history in the BORF page move vandalism... I could only save the section I was editing and so still had in my browser cache. There wasn't much in here and I think the edits I made are pretty vanilla. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:OK... I added a section about the economic impact and the consequences on US policy. The economic impact can stand some significant increase from someone who understand the ins and outs better than I do. The consequences on US policy should remain brief as most will lead to their own articles. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:No one wanted to take a swing at it so I just cut the Conspiracy Theories section down to "Conspiracy Theories exist / are easily disproven" and the Popular Mechanics article. If people want to expound on the conspiracy theories, I would suggest creating a new article for it, and linkt to it from here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::I have one suggestion on the conspiracy section: rather than say "easily disproven," maybe "comprehensively disproven" would be a better term. Easily sounds more like opinion, while comprehensively is not only more neutral, but also more powerful. Just a thought.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Done and done. Next time, feel free to edit away. Those conpiracy theorists give me the heebie jeebies. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Added video link==
The Internet Archive has news broadcasts from the major networks for Sept 11-13, and I added a link in the source section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Smashing!!--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I moved them from the source section to the new "Additional Information" section as those links weren't used to help source the article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's rather interesting to watch the first clips from each of the networks; just another news day, then they're not sure what's going on with the first tower explosion, then the reactions as the second tower gets hit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Rewrite, et al==
I'm not going to do a re-write of Myk's re-write, but (this is constructive criticism, mind you) I feel it is rather weak. So, my suggestion is to arrange in new subheadings, and fill them with the detail required. The subheadings are in this order:

*Introductory paragraph
*'''Prelude'''
**This subheading describes the events and situations which led to 9/11, up to the arrival at the airport of the terrorists.
*'''The first plane'''
*'''the second plane'''
*'''the third plane'''
*'''the fourth plane'''
::I'm sure these subheadings will be changed in favor of, say "United Flight 73", etc, but you want where the flight originated from, number of passengers onboard, and which target it hit. Special attention should be paid to the flight that hit the wheatfield in Pennsylvania, as there was an attempted take-over by the passengers. The way I presented it here is that it infers to the first target hit, then the second, the third, etc.
*'''The Targets'''
**'''World Trade Center One'''
**'''World Trade Center Two'''
**'''The Pentagon'''
**'''The White House?'''
:This can go into detail on each one, as to when they were hit, number of people killed, in the case of WTC when each tower collapsed. I put a question mark by the White House, as it may have been a target, but the plane involved went down near Shankville, PA.
*'''Immediate reaction'''
:What the country was doing within hours of the attacks: the military on alert; all flights canceled, with those in the air ordered to land; the scrambling of fighters, the evacuation of the White House and Capitol, etc.
**'''President Bush's reaction'''
:Bush was in a school in Florida, engaged in a reading assignment for kids when he was told the news of WTC. Then he was on a flight not to Washington, but to a base in Louisiana.
*'''Identity of the terrorists'''
:Mohammed Atta should be the only one mentioned, plus a brief history of where he was in the Mid East in connection with his training; plus the indentity of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.
*'''Afghanistan'''
:Bush ordered Mullah Omar to turn over bin Laden and dismantle his training camps or face armed attack, which of course happened.
*'''Aftermath'''
:This can be further divided in conquest of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban; alleged connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq; heath issues relative to WTC; the plans for rebuilding the WTC; repairs to the Pentagon; memorials, etc.

What do you think? It leaves no room for the heebie jeebies concerning conspiracy nuts! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Be my guest, Karajou. I never wanted to be the sole author of the piece, just wanted to set up the framework. But saying it's rather weak... not tactful. Or constructive for that matter. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes it was meant to be constructive, as well as something that you could take advantage of. I wasn't about to take over the article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*Yes, Karajou, please emulate Myk's endless and trademarked tact! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::TK, i find that comment rather weak. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

TK, I am not interested in mindless or trademarked tacts; the only thing I have done was offer a suggestion. To me, this article belongs to Myk, and nobody else. Give him the chance, the means, and the opportunity to make it better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's a wiki, Karajou, it belongs to everyone. That's how wikis work. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Karajou, I was supporting what you said. It was sarcasm. Myk, you are 100% wrong. Not all Wiki's work the same way, nor are they intended to, according to the options the software gives site owners. Such all-encompassing statements are not only "weak" they are misleading. More precise would have been "That's how I prefer wiki's to work" or "That's how other wiki's work that I have used." --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::TK, please give me an example of a wiki where articles are all proprietary. Why must you argue every little point? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 21:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Protection==

After a wave of conspiratorial-oriented edits, I have protected this article. If anybody wants to add anything, just reach me on my talk page and I'll put it in. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Clinton's policies ==

I don't see anything in this article about how Clinton's failed foreign policies contributed to the attacks. Clinton had SEVERAL chances to take out bin Laden and he didn't. Not responding to the Cole attack and the African embassy bombings just emboldened the terrorists. Can someone add this important information to the article?

:I would recommend researching it and putting in referenced information with your findings. Be factual and don't personally attack Clinton, but let your information do your talking. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:20, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== "I believe in God" graphic ==

I don't understand how this is relevant to 9/11. Please don't call me an athiest, I am a christian. It just seems off topic. [[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 18:33, 12 January 2009 (EST)

*God is relevant to everything, and especially the United States, having been founded on Christian faith. Please don't be removing graphics without posting first. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:03, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: By irrelevant I certainly do not suggest that god is irrelevant, it's that god is not the topic at hand and it distracts from the point. Should we mention god and the value of prayer in every article with a prominently placed image? [[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 20:31, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: I also feel the need to point out that writing on the American flag in the graphic is against the flag code. "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature." (http://www.ushistory.org/BETSY/flagcode.htm, read section 8g). As a proud American conservative I follow the flag code to the letter. [[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 20:40, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== Why did god allow 9/11 to happen? ==

As a christian, I've always wondered this. Should this be discussed in the article? [[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 20:32, 12 January 2009 (EST)

*As a '''''C'''hristian'', Conservamike, you shouldn't have to ask. As an atheist, one would. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:35, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:Why? I really don't understand how that would lead you to imply I'm an athiest. I've been a Christian my whole life. God works in mysterious ways, but this is beyond mysterious. [[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 20:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

::I didn't imply any such thing. I said an atheist would have to ask. Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said '''"I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"''' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:45, 12 January 2009 (EST)

::: An athiest wouldn't ask, since they reject god entirely. The quote is nice though, maybe there could be a section outlining explanations from prominent Christians? I'd be happy to add it. [[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 21:05, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:Mike, there is a strong belief among Christians that there was a divine reason for 9/11. Something like that can either strengthen or shake someone's faith. It is extremely likely that someone reading this would want an answer to why God would allow a bunch of Third World nutjobs to hit America were it hurts. The information should stay. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 20:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

::Yes. So why did God let this happen? If he didn’t, the freedom he has passed to us as human beings would not exist. Before placing the blame of something evil and tragic on God, think about it. Why would a loving God ever want to harm anyone? And never forget, the most asked question in the universe is “Why?” The most unanswered question, unfortunately, is also “Why?” ''In this case, the answer may be our misuse of free will.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:52, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:::As a self-professed agnostic, this is one of the ... well, I'm trying my hardest not to be offensive, but I've never understood how a Christian could ask this question. I would imagine that faith in an all-knowing God would comfort one in knowing that there ''is'' a reason for everything, including this terrible tragedy. God did not "let" this happen, this was the free will of man—very evil men—forced upon innocent civilians. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)

The greatest evil ever, the greatest evil of all time....was when the creatures (mankind) killed the Creator (Jesus). This was the greatest evil ever. Yet, the greatest good that ever took place, mankind freed from the shackles of the devil, could now enter Heaven. Why did God allow his Son to be murdered? To bring about a greater good. Why did God let 9/11 happen? To bring about a greater good. 9/11 was a divine warning- straighten your path America or you will suffer unspeakably. Did we heed the warning? Not only did we not heed the warning, evil has grown substantially since. Only time will show the error of our ways.--Jpatt 21:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)

==Conspiracy theory section==

This garbage needs to be deleted. The article already outlines (logically and efficiently I might add) the well-known truth that 9/11 was the action of Islamic terrorists. Why provide a forum for what are mostly, quite literally, blame-America-first libs? Including links and refs to their insanity doesn't help America, it only creates more people with doubts. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 16:22, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Fox News Channel

2009-09-12T20:13:02Z

MICasey: /* Fair and Balanced */ Alan Colmes has left FNC

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Founding==
Fox News was started in 1996 by Murdoch and Roger Ailes. The two of them perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. Main-stream media "Political Correctness" was banished, with the news [[anchor]]s calling [[terrorist]]s what they were, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News uses the slogan "Fair & Balanced," carries bipartisan shows like [[Hannity and Colmes]], and daily guest pundits from all sides of the [[political spectrum]]. Fox News also is non-hostile to conservative and [[Christian]] values, viewpoints, spokesmen, and ideas. Fox News has gained the reputation for reporting the news in an unbiased manner and then allowing the viewer to decide; "We Report, You Decide" is another of their on-air slogans.

Fox News has dominated the [[ratings]] of other cable news outlets.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media [[tycoon]] Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined.

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
[[Liberal]] critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''[[Outfoxed]]'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

And although it's true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated, it's equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with [[price-gouging]] and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. [[Greta Van Susteren]]'s politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentaors, such as news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for Fox. Their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal]] [[propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year.

[[Glenn Beck]] has increased the 5pmET time period 90% in Total Viewers and 115% in the demo vs. Q1 '08, ''and is the fastest growing program in cable news for March''. Special Report with Bret Baier is up 39% in Total Viewers and 41% in the demo. [[Sean Hannity|"Hannity"]] is up 36% in Total Viewers and up 35% in the demo since going solo for the hour.

Those three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with [[Greta Van Susteren]] is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the [[Rev. Franklin Graham]], [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on [[Pat Ireland]] and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a [[Pew Foundation]] study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fox Versus Fringe Views ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist [[Brian Anderson]]. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' [[oil-for-food]] initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these mediatized conservatives. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fox Versus Obama ==
[[Barack Hussein Obama]] has thin skin when it comes to criticism of his policies. The entire [[mainstream media]] has thrown its support to Obama and refuses to questions his policies. Fox News is the lone station that will criticize Obama fairly. Obama said, <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_critic_fox_news/2009/06/19/227121.html Media Critic: Fox Only Press Doing Its Job] NewsMax, June 19, 2009</ref>

{{cquote| “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.” }}

Media critic David Zurawik said “Thank goodness at least one TV outlet, Fox, is questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt,” and "...ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and the others allow their news operations to be used by the White House for partisan political reasons."

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|300px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business News]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref>

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his on opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Sheppard Smith.

==External Links==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News]

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

[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservative news organizations]]

John Stossel

2009-09-12T20:11:50Z

MICasey: added recent info on ABC->FNC move

[[Image:Stossel.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[John Stossel]]]]
'''John Stossel''' (born 1947) is an advocacy reporter for the ABC [[television]] program ''20/20''. He has also written two books - ''Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media'' and ''Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know Is Wrong''. His books, and many of the positions that he advocates on ''20/20'', reflect Stossel's [[libertarian]] viewpoints.

In 1985, Stossel was attacked by professional wrestler David Shultz after he asked Shultz if wrestling was fake. Stossel proceeded to sue the [[World Wrestling Federation]], and won the lawsuit. [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0832766/bio]

In 2009, Stossel announced he was leaving the left-leaning [[ABC]] for the more non-partisan [[Fox News Channel]].

{{DEFAULTSORT: Stossel, John}}
[[Category:Media personalities]]
[[Category:Libertarians]]

John Stossel

2009-09-12T20:11:45Z

MICasey: added recent info on ABC->FNC move

[[Image:Stossel.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[John Stossel]]]]
'''John Stossel''' (born 1947) is an advocacy reporter for the ABC [[television]] program ''20/20''. He has also written two books - ''Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media'' and ''Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know Is Wrong''. His books, and many of the positions that he advocates on ''20/20'', reflect Stossel's [[libertarian]] viewpoints.

In 1985, Stossel was attacked by professional wrestler David Shultz after he asked Shultz if wrestling was fake. Stossel proceeded to sue the [[World Wrestling Federation]], and won the lawsuit. [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0832766/bio]

In 2009, Stossel announced he was leaving the left-leaning [[ABC]] for the more non-partisan [[Fox News Channel]]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Stossel, John}}
[[Category:Media personalities]]
[[Category:Libertarians]]

User:MICasey

2009-09-12T13:43:50Z

MICasey:

Hello. My name is Michael Ian Casey, and I've been a resident of Georgia in Athens-Clarke County for the past four years. (Yes, it is extremely liberal here.) Currently, I am a musician (guitar, piano + others) as well as a writer in my free time. Do not mistake me for a 'limpwrist liberal-artiste' and do not mistake my stoicism for a lack of sentiment or passion, nor my devil's advocacy for treason. The greatest works of music are those which occasionally play against themselves, and the greatest literature is that which is human, and contemplates duality.

'''I am here to advance to the cause of intellectual conservatism, free from hype and equal in its depth and breadth.'''

I've given up any hope of changing Wikipedia (however, Wikipedians never gave up hope of changing or reverting my edits) and decided to come here. As I did on that "enpsychopedia", I will not tolerate puppets, trolls, vandals, or anyone else attempting to disrupt the Conservative learning process.

Other than that, I enjoy reasoned debate (Socrates and G.K. Chesterton have informed my thinking more than anyone except God and my father.), history, geography, driving through the country in my ancient and trusty VW Cabriolet (it's foreign, forgive me).

Feel free to ask questions, I will respond civilly and in-depth to each submission.
{{userboxtop|MICasey}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User Not Obama}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-09-12T12:56:10Z

MICasey: /* Soetoro citation flaws */

Daughters of the American Revolution

2009-09-12T12:23:43Z

MICasey: Created page with 'The '''Daughters of the American Revolution''' is a group of women charged with the promotion of patriotism in the United States. They have chapters in all 50 states. Eligib...'

The '''Daughters of the American Revolution''' is a group of women charged with the promotion of patriotism in the [[United States]]. They have chapters in all 50 states.

Eligibility for the group may only be attained if a woman can prove that she is related through blood to someone who helped the U.S. achieve independence. This definition contains such historic patriots as militia members, signers of the [[Declaration of Independence]].

Past and present members include [[Susan B. Anthony]], [[Elizabeth Dole]], [[Laura Bush]], and [[Phyllis Schlafly]].

Google

2009-09-11T18:03:58Z

MICasey: No citation or encyclopedic merit.

'''Google''' is a company whose primary business is [[Internet]]-based services, including an extremely popular [[search engine]].

Google is associated with [[liberal]] causes and has been criticized for catering to communist [[China]] in censoring information from the people as requested by dictators:<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm</ref>

: Reporters Without Borders joined others in asking how Google could stand up for US users' freedoms while controlling what Chinese users can search for. Its previous search engine for China's fast-growing market was subject to government blocks. The new site - Google.cn - censors itself to satisfy Beijing. While cooperating with China's govenment, Google refuses to fulfill requests by the U.S. Department of Justice. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4630694.stm , BBC Google defies US over search data, January 20, 2006</ref> Google counsel Nicole Wong said "..we intend to resist their motion vigorously."

Google has also been accused of delisting [[conservative]] news sites from its search engine. As one of many examples, "In February 2005, [[Michelle Malkin]] wrote of the difficulties she was having becoming part of Google News."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/5477</ref>

Much of Google's business depends on pornography. For example, 25% of search engine requests are for pornography.<ref>http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html</ref>

In addition, although claiming to generally avoid getting involved in matters outside their field, Google officially supports the [[liberal]] and [[social libertarian]] cause of so-called "[[same sex marriage]]."<ref>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html , Our position on California's No on 8 campaign</ref> On June 21, 2009, Google displayed a special multicolored line for searches on the word "gay".

== Corporate Information ==

The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref> Google also owns [[YouTube]], the homemade [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] is suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

==History==
[[Image:Google2.gif|thumb|right|300px| Google's logo on [[Earth day]], April 22, 2007.]]
===Founding===
Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref> Google Code of Conduct "Don't be evil". On their investor relations website, it reads "It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards". <ref>[http://investor.google.com/conduct.html Google Code of Conduct]</ref> They are being held to that standard{{fact}} and they are missing the mark badly.

==Google versus Net neutrality==
Neil Stevens of Redstate.com notes that Google says one thing and does another, tarnishing their reputation in the process. He lists where Google emphasizes support then does what they want in regards to shutting down access. <ref>[http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2009/08/23/google-undermines-the-internet/ Google undermines the Internet, RedState.com, August 23, 2009]</ref>

*Exhibit A: Google supports ‘[[net neutrality]]’
*Exhibit B: Google is set to argue against Apple’s blocking of Google Voice from iPhones
*Exhibit C: Google blocks Skype from Android-based phones

==Secular Progressive Culture==
Google's West Coast headquarters hires a majority of left-leaning personalities, explicitly in executive decision-making.<ref>See [http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html] for a list of board members and senior staff.</ref> Google supports causes that are a radical departure from traditional American views, such as their public support of a 'no' vote for [[California]]'s [[Proposition 8]], which defined marriage as being between a husband and wife. Also in a subtle way, they favor politically-correct global liberalism, championed by secular progressives. They select certain ''days of importance'' for tribute, some of which are controversial. As such, ''Merry Christmas'' is replaced by ''Happy Holidays''. Even though, poll <ref>[http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/11/prweb1670824.htm Wish Me A Merry Christmas Campaign Crusades to Change Retail Culture] PRWeb, November 26, 2008</ref> after poll <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/68_prefer_merry_christmas_to_happy_holidays 68% Prefer “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays”] Rasmussen, November 27, 2008</ref> after poll <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/20/poll.season/ Poll: More Americans prefer 'Merry Christmas' greeting] CNN, December 20, 2005</ref> shows the public prefers 'Merry Christmas'. The problem may be that Google doesn't respect traditional [[Christian]] holidays, in favor of a 'culturally-correct' approach. In addition, Google accepts the [[Theory of Evolution]] by [[Charles Darwin]] as fact, promotes Darwin on their homepage with a Google Doodle logo. <ref>[Scientists unveil fossil of Darwinius masillae]</ref>

Google often honors Russia with their logo of Sputnik and for composer Igor Stravinsky. June 14 Flag Day in the [[United States]], Google did not honor.

=== Google versus Conservatives ===
Many instances whereby [[information]] is comprised ideologically and displayed for the masses. Watchdog website NewsBusters.org published that Google had in fact labeled [[conservative]] [[American Spectator]] as "This site may harm your computer." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/28/google-claims-american-spectator-site-may-harm-your-computer Google Claims Conservative Website ‘May Harm Your Computer’] December 28,2007</ref>

Google continues to block pro-family website [http://www.massresistance.org/ MassResistance]. Some people complain his organization promotes hatred towards homosexuals. Google gives the standard legal trash as an excuse "'Users may not publish material that promotes hate towards groups based on race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity.'" MassResistance replies "Of course we are not promoting hate against anybody." <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=603372 Accusation: Google targets, blocks pro-family website again OneNewsNow.com, July 15,2009]</ref>

[[YouTube]] owner, Google continues to protect [[Planned Parenthood]] by removing undercover videos exposing abortion clinic law-breaking. <ref>[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7416111014.html YouTube Bans Student Group's Video Showing Abuse at Planned Parenthood Christian News Wire, July 21, 2009]</ref>

=== Google versus Anti- Obama Blogs ===
The question immediately raised, "Did Google Silence [[Barack Obama]] critics?" It turns out, no they did not. A group of separate blogs were targeted by their spam filter as a result of manipulating the 'flag' feature. This caused a temporary blockage for five days. Sites affected were Hillary supporters and all anti-Obama. They include http://bluelyon.blogspot.com, http://comealongway.blogspot.com, http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com and http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com and their main associate JustSayNoDeal.com <ref>[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/google-and-the-anti-obama-bloggers/ Google and the Anti-Obama Bloggers] NYTimes June 30, 2008</ref>

== Google versus Bing ==
Microsoft has been aggressively competing with Google for a larger share of the search market. Their latest effort Bing.com, is the next generation search service which looks very promising. June 14 Flag Day, Google refused to honor with an American flag, Bing prominently displayed [[Old Glory]].

==Google Goes Public==
===Growth===
The year Google was created 1998, it had amassed 26 million unique URLs in their database. By 2000, Google had indexed more than 1 billion pages. As of July 2008, Google has indexed over 1 [[trillion]] pages. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9999814-93.html Google reveals scope of Web-crawling task] CNET News, July 25, 2008</ref>

===Purchase of Smaller Parties===

==Google bombing ==
Perhaps the most innovative contribution Google has made to internet searching is its '''PageRank''' algorithm. This system works by counting the number of sites that link to another site; the more links pointing to a page, the higher that page will be ranked. The engine also takes note of how often the page is updated. Due to this, [[Wikipedia]] is consistently ranked very highly by Google, due to its constant updating and heavy linkage. More recently, internet-savvy Googlers have discovered ways to game the system; creating massive numbers of pages with links pointing to one page to form what is known as a "Google Bomb". Some examples can be found below.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040614/news_mz1b14google.html Dropping 'Google-bombs']</ref>

*'''"Miserable Failure"''': For nearly two years, typing "miserable failure" (or even just "miserable", or "failure") and then clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky" in the Google search engine would return the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm 'Miserable failure' links to Bush]</ref> This was orchestrated by [[Democratic]] Party supporters in late 2003,<ref>[http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/26/BUG3M4GVDS1.DTL In October, Johnson, a Democrat, added the phrase "miserable failure" to his Web site, Old Fashioned Patriot. He then linked the site to the online White House biography of President Bush and asked others to follow his lead]</ref> as part of the 2004 Presidential election. However, at times, [[Conservative]] supporters were able to shift the phrase to [[Jimmy Carter]], [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Michael Moore]].
*''''"Great President"''': returns the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].
*'''"Waffles"''': Also as part of the 2004 Presidential election, Conservative supporters managed to link the term "waffles" to the official website of [[John Kerry]].
*'''"French Military Victories"''': Hitting "I'm Feeling Lucky" for this term directs you to a fake Google page (in reality, it is an [[AlbinoBlackSheep]].com page, styled to look exactly like a Google page, [http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html here]) giving no matches, and asking if you meant "French military defeats?".
*'''"Weapons of Mass Destruction"''' would bring up a similar page with the error message 'not found.'

On January 25, 2007, Google claimed to have modified their PageRank algorithm to lessen the likelihood of future Google bombs<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2007/01/26/bush_no_longer_miser.html Bush no longer "miserable failure": Google tackles googlebombs]</ref>

== Privacy Concerns==

Google has been criticized by privacy activists and others. Recently, Google chief executive Eric Schmidt said, "We cannot even answer the most basic questions because we don’t know enough about you. That is the most important aspect of Google’s expansion." <ref>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c3e49548-088e-11dc-b11e-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html</ref> Google has attempted to "remedy" this situation by storing search information, in effect, keeping tabs on people for two years after they search. This has led Google critic Daniel Brandt to create "Scroogle.org", which runs Google searches that users conduct through his organization's personal servers to prevent Google from being able to connect any personal information to the searchers. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55935</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Google]]
[[Category:Websites]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-09-11T15:00:24Z

MICasey: /* Soetoro citation flaws */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-09-11T03:39:17Z

MICasey: /* Soetoro citation flaws */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-09-11T03:38:43Z

MICasey: /* Soetoro citation flaws */

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

==Obama clueless about American history==
In introducing Sotomayor, he flubs the constitution being the paper written over 200 years ago, mistakenly says 20 centuries ago. Maybe Totus was thinking the other paper written 20 centuries ago, the Bible! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiRhHqlzaG4 Video Obama: Constitution written "20 centuries" ago]
::A much as I hate to say this, I think taht was simply a slip of the tongue nothing more, also sign your comments please--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:02, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

::This really says more about you than about Obama, you're willing to think that a person with a Harvard education is below the line of mental retardation when it comes to History - US history in particular. It was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. If everytime Obama made a slip of the tongue you overreacted like this then you wouldn't be able to see the actual substance and be unable critisize his legislation or his political way. Really, grow up and stop looking for mistakes like that as it makes conservatives and you in particular look stupid and petty.

== Unlock article? ==

Can this article be unlocked? [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:22, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Specifically I want to delete this

"# Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. "

This doesn't offer any evidence of Obama being a Muslim. [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

:Actually, it does. For example, if this practice didn't exist, somebody might say, "Obama can't be a practicing muslim because a practicing muslim wouldn't deny Islam." The existence of this practice makes all of Obama's claims to Christianity irrelevant, because it proves he would make those assertions regardless of his actual religion. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 00:05, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Obama Received Aid as Foreign Student?==

I've seen this reported in several places. Apparently, Obama (under the name "Barry Soetoro") received financial aid as "a foreign student from Indonesia." The mainstream media seems to have basically ignored this; does anyone know more about it? This would lend quite a bit of credence to those who question his American citizenship. <ref>http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/obama-receives-foreign-student-tuition-aid-smoking-gun-finally-found/#more-6734</ref> <ref>http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1995743.aspx</ref>

==The Muslim Section==
The call to prayer is very beautiful, one need not be a muslim to appreciate it.

"Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them" Anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension could see that he was referring to having muslim in his family (he does) and lliving in a Muslim-majority country (he did) Neither of these prove him to be a muslim.

"He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." That proves him to be a muslim? So if you don't muslims have to either convert or live in the stone age, you're must be a muslim yourself?

"Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President" I believe there's some requirement for using your middle name in the oath.

"Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." Did he use a Koran, where is anything Islamic found there. Perhaps he's just not a very devout christian, is that a problem?

"On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[34] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view" Yes, Fareed Zakaria is a muslim, if one day, I turn on CNN and watch his show am I now a muslim? All of these prove not that Obama is a muslim, but that he simply isn't a anti-muslim fanatic and is open to all beliefs.

"Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior" It's absurd to think he was using the conventional use?

"Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth."
Malcolm X has inspired millions for his activity in the civil rights movement. The Nation of Islam was a radical group, but I can understand radicalism in the face of what had been done to african-americans at the time. Malcolm X left the group because he disagreed with their radical views. I fail to see how seeing him as an inspiration makes someone a muslim. I'm jewish, I'm inspired by Martin Luther King, that makes me a christian?

I could go on on and on, but I won't. Aside from all of this, what if he is muslim? Are muslims not allowed to be president? Can a muslim child not dream to one day be president just like every other kid? --[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well, it is an open question, IMO, or should be. The open question about his place of birth is another. The Koran actually calls for the use of deceit and violence against those who do not accept it 100%. That, in and of itself gives one pause. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:13, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

::I will add that since Israelis were prominent in U.S. politics circa '70's, from that time forward Muslim American's began to be heavily invested thanks to Middle East states such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait. Their ultimate goal was to get Muslims into U.S. politics. Today are the fruits from that investment, Illinois's Barack Obama and Keith Ellis. Chicago has over 400 Mosques, some capacity over 1,000. Home to Muslim Farrakhan, U.S. Muslim Brotherhood ties, big Saudi charities, Fundraising for dead Palestine suicide bombers. Obama bows out of great thanks and respect for the King.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:24, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Keith Ellis is from Minnesota not Illinois. Neither Keith Ellis or Barack Obama received donations from Middle Eastern countries.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: Then why is he keeping his campaign donations secret? Answer: they are coming from compromised foreign Muslim sources.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:15, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

I fail to see how it is relevant that President Obama may or may not be of the muslum faith. If he came out and said that he was muslum, then you could put that as his faith, but it is not important enough to have an entire section about

== Article in disrepair ==

Please, we need to either unlock the article or the moderators need to be responsive to the talk page. The frequency of updates is embarrassing for such a high value article. Several sections need to be cleaned up, which is too tedious for just a handful of administrators. This man is destroying our country and we are not keeping up. If we do this right, we can become one of the best repositories of Obama scandals and transgressions, but we have to be at least current.

Now as far as specific content, I'd like to expand on the Ayres ghost writing ''Dreams From My Father''. Jack Cashill updated his argument two days ago (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html), and frankly, I think is proven well enough to warrant sufficient detail in the article. I'd propose a paragraph here on the talk page, but I feel it may be ignored like my last suggestion. [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: Here is the other proposal I had. I suggest the following paragraph be added to the end of the section "Obama and Elitism":
<blockquote>
:Obama clearly exhibited his elitism on his May 5, 2009 limousine trip to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, VA.<re.f>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE</ref> Intended to showcase a connection to the ways of common Americans, Obama instead struggled to compose his order, finally settling on a cheeseburger with fancy Grey Poupon french mustard. This combination is rare among those who frequent burger joints in the United States, demonstrating Obama's lack of familiarity with U. S. culture and lack of American upbringing. Naturally, the liberal media abetted Obama by covering this up during their doting coverage <r.ef>http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html</ref>, in which he purchased burgers for liberal reporters.<r.ef>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/05/barack-and-joe-go-to-white-castle-%E2%80%A6-i-mean-ray%E2%80%99s-hell-burger/</ref>
</blockquote>

:(I broke the ref tags so it would be easier to copy and paste.) There are a lot of ways to attack him, but roughly since the election, little is making its way into the article. The time for mourning is over; now we catalog! [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:*''Fancy French mustard?'' Are you being serious? I have been to a place in Madison, Wisconsin that has a "Dijon Burger". And the area is known for its sausages, Brats, and most places routinely offer that kind of mustard. Granted Madison is a bastion of fuzzy liberal thinking, but still... And your statement about their being "lots of ways to attack him" is totally out of place here. We are an encyclopedia, and therefore do not "attack". If you, or anyone, want to think adding facts is the same as attacking, that is just clap-trap. Your Grey Poupon suggestion smacks of disingenuous mischief. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:35, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: The best criticism of Obama you can think of, is he isn't familiar with American burger joints? I personally find the average burger joint greasy and disgusting (and usually trayf), that doesn't mean I'm un-American.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:06, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

First, thanks for following up with me. The reason my proposal is not "disingenuous mischief" is that it is not my creation. As I linked, the criticism comes from reputable sources like Sean Hannity, as well as Ingraham, Limbaugh and many others I forget. Also, and very importantly, it is not merely about mustard but about the media fawning over him (see the legal insurrection link). It is popular conservative discussion. Thus, if we are to have a section on elitism, and given the solid sources, it merits discussion. If it then does not make it in, or we decide that the Elitism section for some reason is not justified (I would object), then I will accept. Another point I was to argue is about the attack. Conservapedia does not have to be the attacker, but it should help the reader to formulate an attack. The best niche for our 'pedia is to be where conservatives go to help develop an attack on a liberal or anti-American position. If someone wants to show Obama is an elitist, he can come to the Elitism section, follow the links and choose which arguments to make. And if he wants to prove Obama's a Muslim, he can ignore Elitism completely. On the other hand, if we just want to be a synopsis facts without direction, we are competing with Google and Wikipedia. It thus helps to include as many attacks as possible as long as they are vetted. Maybe I'm wrong or in the minority. And BTW, River Falls.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:07, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

== Table of Contents ==

Seeing as so many people find the position to be a problem, and more importantly that moving the ToC up would bury important information on Obamas muslim faith, could we include the ToC into the muslim "faith" section, as a side colum perhaps? Just a suggestion --[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:47, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:I like that. How about the following: Make "Religion: Described in the article" link to the relevant section(s), shorten the intro and integrate many of the details into the body or into new sections, then bring up the ToC. That way, the ToC is early, but the Muslim section is not push very far down. (Note that one of my criticisms tacitly in mind above is that the intro section rambles and the TOC is not first.) [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:12, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:: The article in general is ordered in a completely bizarre fashion. Regardless of how important the list of facts linking Obama to Islam is, it's way to long to preempt the table of contents, which is stuck around the end of page two as it is. Is isn't that the question of Obama's faith isn't an important one, because it is; it's just that the list of facts - many of which even I would admit are pretty tangential - don't constitute an important portion of Obama's brief bio, which is what normally goes above the TOC. Toss a reference to the controversy over his faith into the intro, then bury the list of facts (I might be biased against them because they're sort of ugly) somewhere in the article, parallel to where faith is talked about in the articles about other famous people. Perhaps, due to its contentious nature, spin it off into its own article, where it can grow into a more encyclopedic format. There's also a bunch of random criticisms and negative observations which, while appropriate for the article, are scattered sort of hodgepodge. The second most important biographical fact about Obama is not that his aunt is living in the United States illegally. Note that I'm -not- saying that it's not an important fact, it's just not a basic fact about Obama. Regardless of what he gets from the MSM, he doesn't deserve any sort of special treatment from CP. His article should be formatted in the same order as anybody else's, with random controversies and criticisms going into a controversies and criticisms section, in their own articles, or woven into sections of the biography where they are -directly- relevant. Given the number of sort of disconnected criticisms (like the "statements" section, which is great to read, but sort of unsituated), I really think a separate page for miscellaneous controversies and criticisms is warranted.[[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 16:16, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== Pakistani pronounciation ==

"Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one." I don't see this as relevant evidence of anything, you gonna call World War II veterans french because they correctly pronounce Bastogne?

:Typical of liberal deflection, moral equivalence. Open your mind. It will indeed set you free. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:30, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

::Set me free? Sounds more like it will make me angry and make me start hating everybody that doesn't think the same thing as me.

:::Seems to me you already are, posting anonymously, not owning what you post. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:05, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

==Updating a link==
Earlier tonight, somebody mentioned the reference link was broken, and suggested we remove that content. I snapped at him, for suggesting to remove that content, but it turns out the link actually is broken. I did a simple google search for the quote, and found hundreds of sources. Here's a few of the working links:

http://middleeast.about.com/b/2009/04/06/obama-in-turkey-at-the-gates-of-islam.htm
http://www.freep.com/article/20090604/NEWS05/906040435/
http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=6235.4664.0.0

Can we replace the current reference 22 with this reference? [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:21, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:I've unlocked it for you to update the link. Please edit in a constructive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::I would like to point out that the user who pointed out the broken link was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ABush20082012&year=&month=-1 blocked] infinitely for pointing it out. [[User:InnocenceIntent|InnocenceIntent]] 11:19, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:::The reason provided for the block does not support your comment, and the user name chosen by the blocked user was ridiculous. But you want to spend your time as an advocate for that blocked user who has not made a single substantive edit, then please take it up with TK. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:23, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::: I hate to disagree, and if the block was based on his name I am, but the only edits he made were to this page, about the broken link. [[User:InnocenceIntent|InnocenceIntent]] 11:25, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Godspeed to you. I see you were previously blocked, or at least I intended to, because I deleted your user page:
<blockquote>
22:41, 12 April 2009 TK deleted "User:InnocenceIntent" ‎ (Troublemaker/Troll)
</blockquote>
Obviously I judged your intent not too innocent before, and your past edits show obvious trolling, including reverting an Admin:
<blockquote>
# 22:25, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (Undo revision 652421 by Jpatt (Talk) My original revision was undone by patt due to a personal bias by the user.)
# 22:18, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (adding information about how the ACLU has fought for Christians.)
</blockquote>
And I can now see why, again, since you didn't do what Aschlafly said to, and posted here again, rather than contacting me. Such actions (the reason(s) for so doing) are immediately obvious to those of us who have been around here for a while. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:34, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Andy, thank you for unlocking the page - I fixed the broken link, so if you'd like to re-lock, it should be fine now. I'm going to go ahead and check all the other links on the page, and if they're not working, find replacements. If I find anything, I'll post here. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Many Broken Links==
OK, this deserves its own section. There are many broken reference links, which I'm trying to find replacements for.

5, first link, doesn't seem to be working for me, but it might just be me. This link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104131/posts would provide a reference for the same statement.

9 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6051268.ece would provide a reference for the same statement.

12 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://news.chennaionline.com/newsitem.aspx?NEWSID=9fab8324-a1a1-4ad6-840f-76b04a405a65&CATEGORYNAME=INTER would provie a reference for the same statement.

19 has the same link listed twice. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems kind of sloppy to me.

Reference (23) is broken, the page no longer exists. This is my fault, since I just added it, but (22) is just fine as a single reference. So we can eliminate this broken link without replacement, especially for a statement that returns as many google hits as this one does.

Reference (26) is broken. This is a toughie - most online references are copy-paste of the Wikipedia article, which itself sites these books:
:A Brief History of The Fourteen Infallibles. Qum: Ansariyan Publications. 2004.
:l-Qarashi, Baqir Shareef (2007). The life of Imam Husain. Qum: Ansariyan Publications.
I don't have these books, and I haven't read them, so I don't know if they back up the reference.

Reference (28) links to a video which, by the decription provided by the uploader, attempts to discredit the quote being referenced. A shorter video which arrives at the quote in question faster is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

Reference (49) redirects to the blog's main page, and blog does not have a search feature. Regardless of whether link is broken or not, we should replace with http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_No_bow_to_Saudi.html which is more to the point.

References (56) and (57) are the same link, we can delete one for neatness.

Reference (61) isn't even a reference. Suggest instead using http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26101

References (72), (73), and (75) are all broken. Suggest replacing all three with http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

Reference (89) is broken, but we can just link to Conservapedia's own [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]].

Reference (91) is broken, suggest replacement with http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/01/obama_campaign_to_return_aunts.html

References (97), (98), and (100) are broken. These were the same as (72), (73), (75), so we should have a single reference http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html and have all 6 of these citations be to this one article.

Reference (115) is broken, replace with http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Reference (128) is broken, suggest replacement with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/obamas-in-control-no-more_n_105407.html and rewrite of sentence which cites this reference.

References (129) and (130) are identical, suggest we delete one for neatness.

Reference (132) is broken, but will be difficult to replace. Citation is a direct reference to the reference and the authors of the reference. I'll work on this.

Reference (140) is broken, replace with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/11/john-lewis-warns-mccain-y_n_133903.html

(150) is broken, replace with http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

(152-154, 158) each have two identical links, delete one each for neatness.

(163) isn't a reference, but maybe Andy has the review procedures lying around so we can cite them?

(171) Access denied - we shouldn't cite references that require subscriptions. Suggest http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753197/posts for same content, by Limbaugh.

(182) is broken, replace with http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28189

(184) is broken, replace with http://vodpod.com/watch/956078-obama-we-already-have-economic-disaster-from-john-mccains-president-george-w-bush

Suggest rewrite of last two paragraphs of "Politcal Views" section, to reflect his election and change "current president" to "George W. Bush"

(187-189) are broken, I'm still working on replacements.

(190) is broken, replace with http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts

(191) has two identical links, delete one for neatness

(201) is broken, replace with http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html

(203) is broken, replace with http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370529,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g12:r1:c0.487981:b25437592:z0

(209) is broken, replace with http://www.politicalbase.com/forums/topic/obama-rebukes-mccain-camp-on-terrorism-criticism/3781/

(215) and (217) are broken, replace both with http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

[[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

That should be everything, though I might have missed something. Since it appears I can still edit the Obama page, I'm gonna go ahead and start this. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:We should lock this article again, it's being vandalized already. I'll just copy the source into a word document, make the necessary changes, and alert a sysop when it's ready to go up. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:51, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for identifying the broken links, but why not simply fix it directly? The entry is unprotected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Great work! I wonder why you deleted this, however: "After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: The source for that was missing, and I found a new link which supported the relevant statement in the article, but not that addendum in the references. The new reference I found does not make that statement verbatim, although, it's basically implied - I'll continue to look for a reference for that sentence. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 21:59, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::: I have been looking, and I can't find a source for this statement. I've re-added it with a citation needed. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 23:12, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Can someone insert this?==
My browser can't handle editing the page, can someone insert this under 'Election': In the weeks leading up to the election, Obama's staff worked to delay investigations by the [[Justice Department]] into allegations of voter fraud committed by [[ACORN]], Obama's former employer. In this way, hundreds of thousands, if not many more, votes may have been overcounted. [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=297446] --[[User:JDelaney|JDelaney]] 21:28, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:The link checks out, content's relevant, I added this material to the election section, but maybe it might be better placed in presidential campaign? Dunno. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 21:35, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks, Mr. JDBowen! It may be better there; but I think that, since more people look at this page, it may be okay here, too. Whatever you decide, I'm just happy it's out here! --[[User:JDelaney|JDelaney]] 21:45, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

==liberal vandalism: mulatto==
While an accurate statement, it may be a derogatory slang (mule-like). User remains blocked for disobeying sysop, lying. Remove--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:34, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
:Um... yeah, it's extremely derogatory and it's still up. We might as well call him.. well, n******. I see you have the last edit, so I won't remove it - but is that an accident that it's still up? Can we please take that down? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 09:40, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::It's obvious liberal vandalism, JacobB, and you could have fixed it directly yourself. Please do fix vandalism directly in the future as that is more efficient. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

==Animal rights==

In an article entitled "Does President-Elect Obama Bring Hope for Animals?" [[PETA]] quotes Obama as saying,
:"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." [http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/11/does_president-.php]
Interesting. Wikipedia reports in its Animal Rights article,
:"On November 24, 1933, the ...animal protection law, was introduced, with [[Adolf Hitler]] announcing an end to animal cruelty: ..."In the new Reich, no more animal cruelty will be allowed." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#1933:_Tierschutzgesetz]
[[Himmler]] likewise is famous for preaching kindness to animals [http://www.manasjournal.org/pdf_library/VolumeXIII_1960/XIII-11.pdf p.2]

Perhpas this area needs more study. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:17, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

::Great find! This is absolutely chilling. May God help us.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:48, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

== Kenya ==
Now that he have absolute proof that Obama was born in Kenya, can we change his place of birth ot Kenya? An image of the REAL Kenyan certificate was posted on the mainpage! Thanks!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 13:42, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

*No. A news report, of such a certificate submitted to the U.S. District Court, is just that, a report, not a fact. Some of the other information, in the Main Page News section, about Obama's failure to disclose other information, if not already there, will be added. If and when the purported birth certificate is authenticated, we certainly will add that in! As for now, the article reads, ''as it always has, factually...his actual place of birth is open to question.'' --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:00, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

== George Obama article for upcoming content of CP Obama article ==

George Obama article for upcoming content of CP Obama article: http://www.zimbio.com/George+Hussein+Onyango+Obama/articles/3/George+Obama+Barack+Obama+Brother+Fights+Life [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:42, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

:Excellent work. And long overdue. Much of this material is available, it just need to consolidate in one place. ty [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

== Praise! ==
I applaud the men and women who have edited this article since the start of August! I cannot believe how much this evil man has done and tried to do in less than a month! Great job on revealing the lies and evil that surround this crook!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 09:32, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

==Soetoro citation flaws==

The reference in the article's introduction to Obama's former/current(?) name of "Barry Soetoro" is sourced only to a short article on Pravda (RU). The first issue I take with this is the fact that the article itself does not concern Obama's/"Soetoro"'s true name, and doesn't seem to draw on any evidence regarding such, either. While, yes, the articles title is "Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama vs World Leaders", the only mention within the article is that "no one knows his real name" - yet the article's title seems to assert that Pravda (possibly as part of a larger movement) does, in fact, know just that.

Secondly, the article's overall professionalism and coherence is in doubt. Note the claim that America is "a Nation under the control of mob rule." (Be aware of the false capitalization, also - a classic sign of non-intellect, mind you). Now, Conservapedia defines [[Mobocracy|mob rule]] as "the rule by a group of people unrestrained by any meaningful principles". Now, this seems an odd thing for Conservapedia to grant audience to, as this Obama article makes it quite clear that Obama/"Soetoro" ''has'' principles, immoral and anti-American has they may be, they remain principles (much as one may say atrocious actions make the perpetrator inhuman, but this allegation does not affect their biological status as a human).

So the point must be made that either Obama/"Soetoro" is a dictator (the homepage often makes that viewpoint quite clear) or America is under the rule of the people. It can not be both, without delving into figurative speaking.

So I ask, given all these flaws in logic, argument, sentiment, and general intelligence on the subject, why is this article given what amounts to top-billing on this prominent Conservative site, when it does little, if anything, to back-up the point? I imagine other editors out there have brought this up before, and I'm curious what consensus or reasoning, if any, was reached on the issue. Thank you for your time. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 07:29, 7 September 2009 (EDT)
:Not only does ''Pravda'' state no one knows his real name, it also states no one knows where he's from. Then it raises the issue, if he is indeed barred from holding office of president, do foreign agreements and treaties he signs have the force of law? While this issue is being discussed elsewhere in the world, it hasn't been considered in the United States at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

::Perhaps I wasn't very clear there. I'm aware of the related cover-up regarding Obama/Soetoro's origin, but the problem lies with the citation itself (however, if you wish to improve the page by elaborating on the "origin" controversy as well, be my guest). I found it odd that such a scatter-shot, incoherent source article (from ''Pravda'') was used to make this point.

'''Basically, if the ''Pravda'' article states that ''no one knows his real name'', why is it used as a citation for the name of "Barry Soetoro"? Surely there is a source out there which details the methods by which the "Barry Soetoro" name was discovered in the first place. The only mention of it within the ''Pravda'' article is in the title.'''

[[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 23:38, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Infant mortality rate

2009-09-10T12:21:09Z

MICasey: Created page with ''''Infant mortality''' refers to the number of deaths per 1,000 infants (1 year old or below). It is considered one of several indicators of a nations industrial and social devel...'

'''Infant mortality''' refers to the number of deaths per 1,000 infants (1 year old or below). It is considered one of several indicators of a nations industrial and social development.

==Global infant mortality rankings==

All information courtesy of the CIA World Factbook.

Currently, the world's highest infant mortality rates exist in [[Angola]], [[Sierra Leone]], and [[Afghanistan]], while the lowest rate is in the nation of [[Singapore]]. The rate within the [[United States]] currently stands at or around 6.3 deaths per 1,000 births, placing it at 46th on the list, behind [[Guam]] but ahead of the [[Faroe Islands]].

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2009-09-09T14:48:20Z

MICasey:

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Vic Eliason passage should be removed ==

I write this because I have met VE here in Wisconsin and believe he'd be uncomfortable with the logic of including this information in this particular article. The passage: "Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies." Nobody believes that homosexuality is contagious, like a virus, and the probability is 0% that "all Americans" would turn homosexual. I doubt that any homosexual, including activist leaders, would think it would be possible at all or even desirable. There is as little temptation for a heterosexual to want homosexual sex as there is for homosexuals to want heterosexual sex. Also, the comment about the US being more vulnerable to attack because the country doesn't procreate also makes no sense, given that the likelihood of that happening for this reason is 0%. Three other potential problems. 1) The passage is completely undocumented. 2) The link for biographical information for VE is to Wikipedia. Couldn't someone here write an article about him for CP? He has been, after all, a leading figure in Christian radio for 40+ years. 3) Besides being unrelated to the topic of the article and having 0% possibility of describing a real situation, the passage detracts from the credibility of the article and CP. This passage should be removed.

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==

This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism.

:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]

:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''Keep:'''Let's assume for one moment that the homosexual agenda is complete hogwash and homosexual activists don't believe in it: Isn't the fact that Conservative Christians do believe in it enough to keep the article so that the "opinions" of Christians about homosexual activists be here. The fact that many talk about it is clear evidence that this is a valid article--[[User:Djcreativity|Djcreativity]] 15:47, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
::Shouldn't we present information that is factual, and not misleading, though? If the intention of the article was to present Christian responses to gay rights activism, it should be presented as such. Given that ''After the Ball'' was published twenty years ago, presenting it as an active force in the gay rights movement (rather than as a foundation of the movement as a whole) is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? If we were talking about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam we could reference Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan, but to act as though their works were part of current politics and national discourse would be misguided at best, and flatly wrong, at worst. --[[User:Jfavor|Jfavor]] 00:40, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think it's not nearly explicit enough. More than anything else except perhaps abortion, the homosexual subversion of Christian values is illustrative of the influence of Satan upon liberals and other leftists, and his influence through them on our society. Should I rework the section to include such? --[[User:Nathan|Nathan]] 22:20, 11 February 2009 (EST)

== Improvements ==

Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yes they did, but it was because of Hitler. NOT homosexuality. And waaay more Jews were killed than homosexuals, giving Jews a larger spotlight. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] I'm liberal, but I don't edit pages-just [[User talk:Clorox|talk page]]s. don't worry. 23:25, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

'''
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."

Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.

== Very Informative ==
'''

Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia

Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?

== Is this real? ==

This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

== Agendas ==
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion).
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion.

I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:ListUsers/sysop sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.

== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I don't really understand why people even care if someone is homosexual or not. If you're not a homosexual yourself you're not gonna be involved with homosexuality so why even care? It doesn't affect you in that case. If someones is homosexual, then fine. Let them be. Has nothing to do with you. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:33, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Do you not care about God, JohnKite? Do you not care about His society? Do you not acre about moral erosion, disease, and the future of humanity? Do you not care about what is right and what is wrong? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 11:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)

==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Numbers 1-5 on there are kinda wrong, and number 6 tops it off as crap. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:11, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Hey, now... ==
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==What the hell?==

The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

==Politics and science==

Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf]
==Liberal Deceit==
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
*Good idea! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
::Bad idea. It's not deceit. [[User:Clorox|Clorox]] 23:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Sources?==

Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Specific suggestion:
:Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement which outlines the points of the homosexual agenda:
There is no source cited here. The source is "The Overhauling of Straight America," an article which appeared in the November 1987 issue of a gay magazine called ''The Guide''. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 22:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: Thanks, I just added an online link to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== Mottos? ==

The edit replacing "beliefs" with "mottos" was unjustified. There is a (baseless) belief system inherent in the homosexual agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:41, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== References: "small looks better" ==

Why? All the other articles I've seen have references at regular text size. What's particular about this article that it needs to have really tiny footnotes? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 17:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

==Homosexuality in Congress==

In a recent discussion with a friend of mine, we discussed what is here called the "homosexual agenda". In addition to the notion of whether "everyone has an agenda" (something I would consider adding to the Debate pool if anyone would like clarification of my terms/beliefs here, I brought up the notion of whether or not there exists a disproportionate number of homosexuals or, unfortunately, scandals regarding previously latent homosexual desires among otherwise Conservative men (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, the Glenn Murphy scandal), and whether this constitutes the corrupting nature of power, or, as my friend (a somewhat eccentric, Ron Paul-supporter type) suggests, whether these men are "moles" (his term, not mine) representing a quote, "homo infiltration". To put it bluntly, imagine the Manchurian Candidate, but with sodomy.

I was wondering if anyone here (I imagine you have all put some effort into the research and sourcing for this article) had ever heard trustworthy sources, blogs, or essays dealing with such a belief. I obviously don't support the endorsement of wingnut theories, but if it is a more widespread belief among self-avowed Republicans and conservatives, then I think it bears mentioning. I wait to see if any such evidence exists. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 10:48, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Gary Locke

2009-09-09T12:24:52Z

MICasey: fixed Washington link

'''Gary Faye Locke''' is a [[Chinese]]-[[American]] politician who served as [[Governor]] of [[Washington]] from 1997 to 2005. He is the current [[United States Secretary of Commerce]]. To this day, he remains the only Chinese-American to serve as a [[United States]] governor.

Throughout much of his career, Locke was considered a possible [[Vice President of the United States|Vice Presidential]] candidate by the Democratic Party.

In 2003, after rebutting President [[George W. Bush]]'s 2003 [[State of the Union]] address, Locke is said to have received hundreds of threats in letter and e-mail form, with several threatening the safety of Locke's children. This is said to have contributed to his decision to leave office.

In 2008, Locke was considered a forerunner for the position of [[Secretary of the Interior]] in the [[Barack Hussein Obama|Obama]] administration. Eventually, however, Ken Salazar was chosen for that position.

Locke was sworn in as Secretary of Commerce on March 26, 2009.

Gary Locke

2009-09-09T12:23:51Z

MICasey: Created page with ''''Gary Faye Locke''' is a Chinese-American politician who served as Governor of Washington from 1997 to 2005. He is the current [[United State...'

'''Gary Faye Locke''' is a [[Chinese]]-[[American]] politician who served as [[Governor]] of [[Washington (state)|Washington]] from 1997 to 2005. He is the current [[United States Secretary of Commerce]]. To this day, he remains the only Chinese-American to serve as a [[United States]] governor.

Throughout much of his career, Locke was considered a possible [[Vice President of the United States|Vice Presidential]] candidate by the Democratic Party.

In 2003, after rebutting President [[George W. Bush]]'s 2003 [[State of the Union]] address, Locke is said to have received hundreds of threats in letter and e-mail form, with several threatening the safety of Locke's children. This is said to have contributed to his decision to leave office.

In 2008, Locke was considered a forerunner for the position of [[Secretary of the Interior]] in the [[Barack Hussein Obama|Obama]] administration. Eventually, however, Ken Salazar was chosen for that position.

Locke was sworn in as Secretary of Commerce on March 26, 2009.

Omphalism

2009-09-07T14:00:48Z

MICasey:

'''Omphalism''' is a school of thought (titled after the [[Philip Henry Gosse]] work ''Omphalos'') which holds that the entire universe was created with the appearance of age, and thus no date of [[creation]] for the [[Universe]] can be definitively proven.

Examples of Omphalism:

*The belief that our memories, experiences, and physical appearances were "implanted" into us at our creation, possibly at a time during what we imagine to be our own lifetimes.

*That nature shows signs of growth, renewal and damage which were posited into being, rather than occuring "naturally". These include trees (growth rings, fire scares), mountains (upheaval, erosion), and animals (offspring or supposed "evolution").

*That starlight was "already" moving towards [[Earth]] when [[God]] created it, thus disallowing accurate gauging of the Universe's age.

==Reception among philosophers==

Omphalism has been declaimed by many creationists, as it appears to accuse God of deceit. The movement has been mocked by both creationists and evolutionist atheists as "Last Thursdayism", with the claim that the entire Universe, with all the appearances of age and function, could very well have been created at some point in the past (such as "Last Thursday").

Omphalism occupies a strange place in theology, as, while supporting the notion of God as an omnipotent being, who has provided us with all the signs of a growing, changing word to give our lives context and function (in addition to instilling many humans with the love and faith of Christ), it does in fact appear to accuse God of deceit, since these emotions and sentiments can be said to be "programmed" into humans [[ex nihilo]]. It can thus be described as heretical.

Omphalism

2009-09-07T14:00:12Z

MICasey: New article, please help to expand!

'''Omphalism''' is a school of thought (titled after the [[Philip Henry Gosse]] work ''Omphalos'') which holds that the entire universe was created with the appearance of age, and thus no date of [[creation]] for the [[Universe]] can be definitively proven.

Examples of Omphalism:

*The belief that our memories, experiences, and physical appearances were "implanted" into us at our creation, possibly at a time during what we imagine to be our own lifetimes.

*That nature shows signs of growth, renewal and damage which were posited into being, rather than occuring "naturally". These include trees (growth rings, fire scares), mountains (upheaval, erosion), and animals (offspring or supposed "evolution").

*That starlight was "already" moving towards Earth when God created it, thus disallowing accurate gauging of the Universe's age.

==Reception among philosophers==

Omphalism has been declaimed by many creationists, as it appears to accuse God of deceit. The movement has been mocked by both creationists and evolutionist atheists as "Last Thursdayism", with the claim that the entire Universe, with all the appearances of age and function, could very well have been created at some point in the past (such as "Last Thursday").

Omphalism occupies a strange place in theology, as, while supporting the notion of God as an omnipotent being, who has provided us with all the signs of a growing, changing word to give our lives context and function (in addition to instilling many humans with the love and faith of Christ), it does in fact appear to accuse God of deceit, since these emotions and sentiments can be said to be "programmed" into humans [[ex nihilo]]. It can thus be described as heretical.

Conservative

2009-09-07T12:42:24Z

MICasey: conservatism has changed over the years, the caption was changed to reflect this.

{|align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Conservatives| Previous Breaking News: Conservatives]]
|}

A '''conservative''' adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values, agreeing with [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref><ref>Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>

Reagan said:
* The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom . . . [http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html]
[[Image:Aaag.jpg|thumb|Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of modern American conservatism.]]

The ''sine qua non'' of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

* [[Classroom prayer]]
* Prohibition of [[abortion]]
* Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
* Laws against pornography
* The [[Second Amendment]] right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* The death penalty
* Parental control of education
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Canceling failed social support programs
* No world government
* Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
* Respect for our military ... past and present
* Rejection of [[junk science]] such as [[evolutionism]] and [[global warming]]
* Low taxes, especially for families
* Federalism (less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments)
* A strong national defense

Periodically a conservative has been elected president of the United States. In the last 125 years the most prominent conservative presidents include:

*[[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889, 1893-1897)
*[[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)
*[[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)
*[[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
*[[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)
*[[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
*[[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009) (with respect to taxes, Supreme Court nominations, and national security)

The most prominent conservative Congresses have been:

*The 80th Congress (elected in 1946)
*The 104th Congress (elected in 1994)

[[Movement conservatives]] are those who accept the logic of conservatism across-the-board, and stand up for its powerful principles despite [[liberal]] hatred and baseless ridicule. Movement conservative thinkers include:

*[[Phyllis Schlafly]]
*[[Jesse Helms]]
*[[Pat Buchanan]]
*[[Jerry Falwell]]
*[[Ann Coulter]]
*[[Rush Limbaugh]]
*[[Michelle Malkin]]

Partial [[conservatives]] include:

*[[Barry Goldwater]] - 1964 Republican candidate, lost to liberal Democrat [[Lyndon Johnson]] but revived the conservative movement inside the GOP
*[[Russell Kirk]] - Theorist & intellectual
*[[Irving Kristol|Irving]] and [[William Kristol]] - Notable [[neoconservatives]]
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - [[British]] prime minister between 1979 and 1990, held similar views as Ronald Reagan
*[[Milton Friedman]] - Chicago-school [[libertarian]] economist, influential during Reagan administration; leader of the [[Chicago School of Economics]]
__TOC__ 
==US Voters==
In America, most conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so. In the 2008 election, 35% of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Of them, 78% voted for McCain and 20% for Obama, with the 20% accounting for Obama's margin of victory. Only 22% of the voters were liberal; they favored Obama 89%-10%. In the middle were 44% who called themselves moderates. They split for Obama by 60%-39%. (Minor candidates won 2% of the vote.)<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 Presidential 2008 Exit Poll]</ref>
===Religious differences between political conservatives and political liberals===
The Barna poll conducted in November 2008 shows significant differences between the 32% of Americans who called themselves as “mostly conservative” on social and political matters; and the 17% who called themselves “mostly liberal” on social and political matters. The others --50%--were moderates with positions somewhere in-between.<ref> See [http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/258-survey-shows-how-liberals-and-conservatives-differ-on-matters-of-faith on line results] </ref>

Some findings:
Political liberals are less than half as likely as political conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% versus 63%, respectively); to strongly believe that Satan is real (17% versus 36%); and to firmly contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others (23% versus 48%).

[Note: "Liberal" and "conservative" in this survey are based on politics]

Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
*their religious faith is very important in their life (54% of liberals vs. 82% of conservatives);
*a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%);
*their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%);
*the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%);
*their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%);

political conservatives were more likely than liberals to:
*read the Bible, other than at church events, during the past week (57% vs. 33%, respectively)
*attend a religious service during the past week (62% vs. 35%)
*pray to God, other than at a religious service, during the past week (91% vs. 76%)
*share their religious beliefs with others, during the past year (56% vs. 39%, among the born again Christians interviewed from each segment)
*have ever participated in a short-term missions trip, either within the U.S. or in another country (12% vs. 6%)

*2% of conservatives and 11% of liberals were atheist or agnostic
*15% of conservatives and 2% of liberals were Christian evangelicals
*conservatives were twice as likely as liberals to be categorized as born again, based on their theological views about salvation (63% vs. 32%)
*21% of conservatives were associated with the Catholic church, compared to 30% among the liberals.

== Conservative news organizations ==
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[WorldNetDaily]] and [[NewsMax]]. [[Fox News]], though often called conservative, tends to be more [[neoconservative]] than [[conservative]].

== Conservative magazines and blogs ==
Well known conservative magazines in the United States include ''[[National Review]]'', ''[[Policy Review]]'', ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' and others.

Some notable [[Conservative blogs|conservative political blogs]] include the [[Heritage Foundation]]'s Policy Weblog, ''[[Human Events]]'', [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, Townhall.com and others.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# Support of limited government.
# A preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of result.
# Patriotism, nationalism, and support of a strong defense.
# Support of the institution of marriage.
# Emphasis on social values, like prayer and pro-life principles.

In contrast, neoconservatives generally support bigger government and globalism, and tend to downplay the significance of social values.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on opposing [[multiculturalism]], and suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean more towards isolating America from the problems of other continents. Neoconservatives might criticize this as "isolationism", as they believe we can promote [[democracy]] worldwide.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of Western Goals. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the Soviets in 1983.

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterized by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.
==History of American conservatism==
===Founding Fathers===
The [[Loyalists]] of the [[American Revolution]] were mostly political conservatives, some of whom produced political discourse of a high order, including lawyer [[Joseph Galloway]] and governor-historian [[Thomas Hutchinson]]. After the war, the great majority remained in the U.S. and became citizens, but some leaders emigrated to other places in the British Empire. [[Samuel Seabury]] was a Loyalist who stayed and as the first American bishop played a major role in shaping the Episcopal religion, a stronghold of conservative social values. However the Loyalist political tradition died out totally it the U.S.; it survives in Canadian conservatism.

The Founding Fathers created the single most important set of political ideas in American history, known as [[Republicanism]], which all groups, liberal and conservative alike, have drawn from. Two parties were named "Republican"-- the one founded in 1794 by Jefferson and Madison (it disappeared in the 1820s), and the modern GOP founded in 1854.

During the [[First Party System]] (1790s-1820s) the [[Federalist Party]], led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], developed an important variation of republicanism that can be considered conservative. Rejecting monarchy and aristocracy, they emphasized civic virtue as the core American value. The Federalists spoke for the propertied interests and the upper classes of the cities. They envisioned a modernizing land of banks and factories, with a strong army and navy. [[George Washington]] was their great hero.

On many issues American conservatism also derives from the republicanism of [[Thomas Jefferson]] and his followers, especially [[John Randolph of Roanoke]] and his "Old Republicans" or "Quids." They idealized the yeoman farmer as the epitome of civic virtue, warned that banking and industry led to corruption, that is to the illegitimate use of government power for private ends. Jefferson himself was a vehement opponent of what today is called "judicial activism".
<ref>[http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm]</ref> The Jeffersonians stressed small government.

===Ante-Bellum: Calhoun and Webster===
During the [[Second Party System]] (1830-54) the [[Whig Party]] attracted most conservatives, such as [[Daniel Webster]] of New England. [[Daniel Webster]] and other leaders of the [[Whig Party]], called it the conservative party in the late 1830s.<ref>The word was originally used in the French Revolution. The British used it after 1839 to describe a major party. The first American usage is by Whigs who called themselves "Conservatives" in the late 1830s. Hans Sperber and Travis Trittschuh, ''American Political terms: An Historical Dictionary'' (1962) 94-97.</ref> [[John C. Calhoun]], a Democrat, articulated a sophisticated conservatism in his writings. Richard Hofstadter (1948) called him "The Marx of the Master Class." Calhoun argued that a conservative minority should be able to limit the power of a "majority dictatorship" because tradition represents the wisdom of past generations. (This argument echoes one made by [[Edmund Burke]], the founder of British conservatism, in ''Reflections on the Revolution in France'' (1790)). Calhoun is considered the father of the idea of minority rights, a position adopted by liberals in the 1960s in dealing with Civil Rights.

The conservatism of the antebellum period is contested territory; conservatives of the 21st century disagree over what comprises their heritage. Thus William J. Bennett (2006) a prominent conservative leader, warns conservatives to NOT honor Calhoun, [[Know-Nothings]], [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] and 20th century isolationists.

===Lincoln to Cleveland===
Since 1865 the [[History of the United States Republican Party|Republican party]] has identified itself with President [[Abraham Lincoln]], who was the ideological heir of the Whigs and of both Jefferson and Hamilton. As the [[Gettysburg Address]] shows, Lincoln cast himself as a second Jefferson bringing a second birth of freedom to the nation that had been born 86 years before in Jefferson's Declaration. The [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] of the Civil War reflected a reactionary opposition to modernity of the sort repudiated by modern conservatives. A few libertarians have adopted a neo-Copperhead position, arguing Lincoln was a dictator who created an all-powerful government.

In the late 19th century the [[Bourbon Democrat]]s, led by President [[Grover Cleveland]], preached against corruption, high taxes (protective tariffs), and imperialism, and supported the [[gold standard]] and business interests. They were overthrown by [[William Jennings Bryan]] in 1896, who moved the mainstream of the Democratic Party permanently to the left.

The 1896 presidential election was the first with a conservative versus liberal theme in the way in which these terms are now understood. Republican [[William McKinley]] won using the pro-business slogan "[[sound money]] and protection," while Bryan's anti-bank populism had a lasting effect on economic policies of the Democratic Party.

[[William Graham Sumner]], Yale professor (1872-1910) and polymath, vigorously promoted a libertarian conservative ethic. After dallying with [[Social Darwinism]] under the influence of [[Herbert Spencer]], he rejected evolution in his later works, and strongly opposed imperialism. He opposed monopoly and [[paternalism]] in theory as a threat to equality, democracy and middle class values, but was vague on what to do about it.<ref>Curtis, Bruce. "William Graham Sumner 'On the Concentration of Wealth.'" Journal of American History 1969 55(4): 823-832.</ref>

===Early 20th century===
In the [[Progressive Era]] (1890s-1932), regulation of industry expanded as conservatives led by Senator [[Nelson Aldrich]] of Rhode Island were put on the defensive. However, Aldrich's proposal for a strong national banking system was enacted as the [[Federal Reserve System]] in 1913. [[Theodore Roosevelt]], the dominant personality of the era, was both liberal and conservative by turns. As a conservative he led the fight to make the country a major naval power, and demanded entry into [[World War I]] to stop what he saw as the German attacks on civilization. [[William Howard Taft]] promoted a strong federal judiciary that would overrule excessive legislation. Taft defeated Roosevelt on that issue in 1912, forcing Roosevelt out of the GOP and turning it to the right for decades. As president, Taft remade the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] with five appointments; he himself presided as chief justice in 1921-30, the only former president ever to do so.

Pro-business Republicans returned to dominance in 1920 with the election of President [[Warren G. Harding]]. The presidency of [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-29) was a high water mark for conservatism, both politically and intellectually. Classic writing of the period includes ''Democracy and Leadership'' (1924) by Irving Babbitt and H.L. Mencken's magazine ''American Mercury'' (1924-33). The [[Efficiency Movement]] attracted many conservatives such as [[Herbert Hoover]] with its pro-business, pro-engineer approach to solving social and economic problems. In the 1920s many American conservatives generally maintained anti-foreign attitudes and, as usual, were disinclined toward changes to the healthy economic climate of the age.

During the [[Great Depression, U.S.|Great Depression]], other conservatives participated in the taxpayers' revolt at the local level. From 1930 to 1933, Americans formed as many as 3,000 taxpayers' leagues to protest high [[property tax]]es. These groups endorsed measures to limit and rollback taxes, lowered penalties on tax delinquents, and cuts in government spending. A few also called for illegal resistance (or tax strikes). The best known of these was led by the Association of Real Estate Taxpayers in Chicago which, at its height, had 30,000 dues-paying members.

An important intellectual movement, calling itself [[Southern Agrarians]] and based in Nashville, brought together like-minded novelists, poets and historians who argued that modern values undermined the traditions of American [[Republicanism]] and civic virtue.

The Depression brought liberals to power under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1933). Indeed the term "liberal" now came to mean a supporter of the [[New Deal]] and Roosevelt's powerful [[New Deal Coalition]]. In 1934 [[Al Smith]] and pro-business Democrats formed the [[American Liberty League]] to fight the new liberalism, but failed to stop Roosevelt's shifting the Democratic party to the left. In 1936 the Republicans rejected Hoover and tried the more liberal [[Alf Landon]], who carried only Maine and Vermont. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 the conservatives finally cooperated across party lines and defeated it with help from Vice President [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to purge the conservative Democrats in the 1938 election. The conservatives in Congress then formed a bipartisan informal [[Conservative Coalition]] of Republicans and southern Democrats. It largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1964. Its most prominent leaders were Senator [[Robert Taft]], a Republican of Ohio, and Senator [[Richard Russell]], Democrat of Georgia.
[[Image:Gop-plank.JPG|thumb|275px|1936 cartoon shows GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the Democrats]]

In the United States, the [[Old Right]], also called the Old Guard, was a group of [[libertarianism|libertarian]], free-market anti-interventionists, originally associated with Midwestern Republicans and Southern Democrats. The Republicans (but not the southern Democrats) were isolationists in 1939-41, (see [[America First]]), and later opposed [[NATO]] and U.S. military intervention in the Korean War.

===Later 20th century: Goldwater, Buckley, the Dixiecrats===
By 1950, American liberalism was so dominant intellectually that liberal critic [[Lionel Trilling]] could dismiss contemporary conservatism as "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." <ref>Lapham 2004</ref> But just as Trilling was writing a revival was underway. In the 1950s, principles for a conservative political movement were hashed out in books like Russell Kirk's ''The Conservative Mind'' (1953) and in the highly influential new magazine ''National Review'', founded by [[William F. Buckley Jr.]] in 1955.

Whereas Taft's [[Old Right]] had been isolationist the new conservatism favored American intervention overseas to oppose communism. It looked to the Founding Fathers for historical inspiration as opposed to Calhoun and the antebellum South.

The success of the Civil Rights movement came in the Civil Rights Act of 1864 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Most conservatives supported both, but [[Barry Goldwater]] opposed them. Until then southern whites (both liberal and conservative) had been locked into the Democratic party. That lock was now broken and southern conservatives started voting for Republican candidates for president in 1964-68, and by the 1990s they were also voting for GOP candidates for state and local office. The southern blacks now began to vote in large numbers, and they became Democrats, moving that party in the south to the left. By 2000, for the first time, all southern states had a conservative GOP and a liberal Democratic party. The region favored the GOP heavily in presidential elections, but split in state contests. In 2008, however, the Obama campaign broke into the solid Republican South, carrying Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.

Goldwater, a charismatic figure whose intense opposition to all New Deal programs angered liberals, was defeated in a landslide in 1964. Goldwater faded and his supporters regrouped under new leadership, especially that of [[Ronald Reagan]] in California, and regained strength nationally in the 1966 elections. Conservatives voted for [[Richard Nixon]] in 1968, who narrowly defeated the New Deal champion [[Hubert Humphrey]], and southern demagogue [[George Wallace]]. Nixon had come to terms with both the Goldwater wing of the party and the still-influential Rockefeller Republicans (Republicans from the Northeast who supported many New Deal programs).

===Nixon, Reagan, and Bush===

The Republican administrations of President [[Richard Nixon]] in the [[1970s]] were characterized more by their emphasis on ''[[realpolitik]]'', [[détente]], and economic policies such as wage and price controls, than by their adherence to conservative rhetoric and more liberal actions.

In the eight years of [[Ronald Reagan]]'s presidency 1981-89 the American conservative movement achieved ascendancy. In 1980 the GOP took control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and conservative principles dominated Reagan's economic and foreign policies, with [[supply side economics]] as well as a strict opposition to Soviet Communism. Reagan promised to cut welfare spending but failed to do so. He did cut taxes, but raised military spending and created large federal deficits of the sort conservatives had complained about for decades. They stopped complaining, as the deficit issue switched to favor the Democrats (who did balance the budget in the late 1990s).

An icon of the American conservative movement, Reagan is credited by his supporters with transforming American politics, galvanizing the Republican Party, uniting a coalition of economic conservatives who supported his supply side economic policies, known as "[[Reaganomics]]," foreign policy conservatives who favored his success in stopping and rolling back Communism, and social conservatives who identified with Reagan's conservative religious and social ideals.

==Conservatives in Britain==

In the United Kingdom the present parliamentary opposition party since 1997 is the [[Conservative Party]]. Its current leader is [[David Cameron]].<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref>

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, British conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterized it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for abortion on demand and gay civil partnership and the Kyoto Treaty and to oppose capital punishment (although it should be noted that such policies have little support among the party's grassroots membership) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830'', (2nd ed. 2008) </ref>

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in England and Wales than in the U.S., and religious issues thereby play less of a role in public discourse. However, religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, British Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than internationalist outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

The broadcast media (dominated by the [[BBC]]) is almost exclusively liberal in tone. The print media is different with pro-Conservative newspapers like the ''Daily Mail'' , ''Daily Express'' and ''Daily Telegraph'' selling more copies than their rivals.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== Conservatism and the French Revolution ==

Conservatism in France and the continent generally arose in the after 1790 as a response to the radicalism of the [[French Revolution]].

== See also ==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Essay:Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform]]
==Further reading==
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007)
* Filler, Louis. ''Dictionary of American Conservatism The First Complete Guide to Issues, People, Organizations and Events'' (1987), useful older encyclopedia
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal perspective [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685789&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Frohnen, Bruce et al eds. ''American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia'' (2006), the most detailed reference
* Judis, John B. ''William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives'' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Conservatives/dp/0743217977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207759425&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kirk, Russell. ''The Conservative Mind''. (7th ed. 2001). highly influential conservative history of ideas [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Link, William A. ''Righteous warrior: Jesse Helms and the rise of modern conservatism'' (2008) 643 pages
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''The Right Nation,'' (2004) influential survey [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205919226&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World'' (2009)
* Nash, George. ''The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945'' (2006), excellent scholarly history. [http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Intellectual-Movement-America-Since/dp/1933859121/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241925238&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/exit-with-honor-the-life-and-presidency-of-ronald-reagan-by-william-e-pemberton.jsp online edition]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2004) on 1964 [http://www.amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/0809028581/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193684721&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixonland-Rise-President-Fracturing-America/dp/074324303X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241924189&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schneider, Gregory L. ed. ''Conservatism in America Since 1930: A Reader'' (2003)
*Schoenwald; Jonathan . ''A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104931191 online edition] also [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Schweizer, Peter, and Wynton C. Hall, eds. ''Landmark Speeches of the American Conservative Movement'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Landmark-Speeches-American-Conservative-Movement/dp/1585445983/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685365&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Taxation]]
[[Category:American History]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]

{{Conservatism}}

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-09-07T11:29:08Z

MICasey:

Mother Teresa

2009-09-06T15:48:41Z

MICasey: /* Liberal Disdain */

[[Image:Madre teresa calcutta.jpg|right|thumb|150px]]
'''Blessed Mother Teresa''' (b. August 26, 1910; d. September 5, 1997) was a remarkable [[Roman Catholic]] [[nun]] from [[Albania]]n who founded the world renowned [[Missionaries of Charity]] in [[Calcutta]], [[India]]. She remarked, ''"By blood, I am Albanian. By citizenship, an Indian. By faith, I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the world. As to my heart, I belong entirely to the Heart of Jesus.”'' Her mission and for the organization was to care for the homeless, the needy, abandoned and diseased people who felt that they had become a burden to society. Over 600 missionaries around the globe continue to care for anybody in need. The [[Vatican]] began the [[beatification]] process for Mother Teresa in 1997. Teresa's widespread reputation of holiness and the favours being reported, Pope [[John Paul II]] permitted the opening of her ''Cause of Canonization'' December 20 2002 as Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. <ref>[http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20031019_madre-teresa_en.html Mother Teresa of Calcutta (1910-1997), Vatican.va]</ref> <ref>http://www.motherteresa.org/layout.html</ref> This process will ultimately lead to Sainthood. Celebration in honor of her 100th birthday is planned for by the Vatican.

The [[Nobel Peace Prize]] was awarded to Mother Teresa in 1979 for everything that she had done to help those in need. <ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/press.html</ref> She was a staunch critic of the [[United Nations]]' pro-abortion agenda who abhorred injustice to the unborn. "The fruit of abortion is nuclear war. What you do to the unborn child, you do to Jesus." <ref>[http://www.tldm.org/directives/d23.htm #23- Abortion, Our Lady of the Rosary Shrine]</ref>

==Early Life==
Agnes Bojaxhiu was born in Skopje, Macedonia, a Balkan city during the [[Ottoman Empire]]. Teresa was the youngest child born to Nikola and Drane Bojaxhiu. She was baptised Gonxha (Rosebud) Agnes and received her First Communion at the age of five and a half. At the age of eight her father died and the family would struggle financially with Drane. Her mother was firm and loving, greatly influencing Teresa's character and vocation.

==Clinton usurps a Catholic icon==
In May 2007, U.S. Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]'s presidential election committee released a video targeted to manipulate [[Roman Catholic]] voter sentiment; the video is narrated by her husband, former U.S. President [[Bill Clinton]]. A Catholic spokesman has responded to what has been viewed as cynical manipulation by the [[Democratic]] candidate:

{{Cquote|It is wholly inappropriate, disrespectful and disturbing that Hillary Clinton is using an image of blessed Mother Teresa as a political tool, especially given their radically different views on [[abortion]].

Mother Teresa tirelessly fought to protect unborn children, while Hillary Clinton staunchly supports [[abortion]] on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, including [[partial birth abortion]] and taxpayer funding of abortion.}}

The video contains an image of Hillary and Mother Teresa and then goes to a clip of the former First Lady’s address at the 1995 Beijing Conference, where a push was made to declare abortion a fundamental “[[human rights|human right]].”<ref>[http://www.fidelis.org/gw3/articles-news/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1456&CMSCategoryID=10 Fidelis Covered by Catholic News Agency on Mother Teresa Video Controversy], ''Catholic News Agency,'' 05-18-2007.</ref>

==Liberal Disdain==
There is a continual obsession by the mainstream media to cast a Catholic in a bad light. Mother Teresa had so many accomplishments and miracles that she may possibly be a canonized saint. The media found a flaw and jumped all over it. They had interpreted her writings as ''she stopped praying'' and ''she lost her faith.'' <ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9071751/Blessed-Mother-Teresa Blessed Mother Teresa, Britannica.com]</ref> <ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/23/eveningnews/main3199062.shtml</ref>

People that met her know differently, says Father Corapi. Not only did she pray with confidence, she never went anywhere without her rosary. She prayed every moment she could. Mother Teresa believed there was no excuse for not praying. She heard many excuses for why one would not pray, such as being "too busy". In the face of such claims, she would remark, "Are you busier than the Pope?", "because he finds time to pray and nobody is busier than the Pope." <ref>[Father Corapi speaking when he met Mother Teresa]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Teresa, Mother}}
[[Category:Religious People]]
[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Catholic Church]]

Athens, Georgia

2009-09-05T23:37:35Z

MICasey: Created page, will continue my efforts in the future.

'''Athens, Georgia''' is the major body of Athens-Clarke county, a unified city-county located in the north of the state. The population of this consolidated municipality currently stands at just over 100,000 people; a majority of this being made up of residents involved with the [[University of Georgia]], the first state-chartered university in the [[United States]].

The city and surrounding region are well-known for their musical and artistic output. Famous groups from the area include R.E.M. and The B-52s, both major musical acts of the 1980s.

User talk:RJJensen

2009-09-05T23:29:39Z

MICasey: /* Chesterton edits */

[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:49, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your fascinating addition to [[Barack Obama]] re: financing. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

== Welcome ==
Welcome indeed to CP! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:18, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==China==
Chinese history would appear not to be your forte. How describing the fluctuating state of authority in the warlord period counts as 'red propaganda', I am at a loss to understand. Please don't cause damage to other Chinese history articles. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah but I am fairly familiar with 20c Chinese history. the article was full of Red propaganda (not that particular example)--which is bad for a conservative encyclopedia. for examples:
#the very title, and many of the pinyin terms, are the ones created in the 1950s by Communists in Beijing, and not used at the time or by the anti-communists in Taiwan.
#" However, Chiang was aided by the 'Guangxi Clique' of nationally-minded warlords; and the northern progress of the expedition was aided by carefully-timed popular uprisings planned by the CCP against local warlords."
#" Chiang again turned on the communists in the 'Shanghai Coup'. Aided by the police of the International Settlement and the French Concession in the city, and by gunmen of the influential 'Green Gang' criminal network, Chiang's troops and police rounded up and executed hundred of communists and trade unionists"
# "that to build a strong China it was necessary to defeat communism first, to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic."
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

All those are established facts, however unpalatable some of them may be. At Conservapedia we deal in truth, not propaganda. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

In addition, it is a very bad idea to build up Chiang as a conservative ideal type. He was - to put it mildly - an unsavoury and unscrupulous thug, who was portrayed as a democratic leader in the west for the sake of wartime unity, and wwas later loyal to the US as he had no choice but to be so. He was the very opposite of loyal at other stages of his career: vide his flirtation with [[Nazism]], and his cavalier treatment of General Stilwell. In terms of opersonal morality, well.... suffice to say that his avowal of Christianity was purely opportunistic; he presided over a regime of brutality and corruption that alienated all potential allies; he was the sort of man who actually made Communism look like a desirable alternative. How bad do you have to be to do that? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::- ::No, you have to read some of the history. I actually worked through the books in the bibliography. For example, who cliams " to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic." (answer: the far left). The story of the Nanchang uprising ("carefully-timed popular uprisings planned" is from Communist folklore as told to Edgar Snow in "Red Star over China", a notorous far-left book. As for Chiang's character, it is NOT white washed here. He was a rough character and I do not call him democratic. As for Stillwell, I think Chiang and Chennault were mostly right and Stillwell mostly wrong. (My articles on Stillwell and Chennault are coming soon--they are now both at Citizensium--take a look also atmy CBI article there. I have read the major studies for China in the 1940s.). Corruption--alas that is the history of China for the last 150 years, continuously (for example, don't feed your baby on Chinese formula--or feed your cat with their stuff. That is 2008 corrpution.
:::I too know a bit about that period - the Americans backed a loser in Chiang; and the real blame for the fall of China to communism lies with him - not with Service or Lattimore or any of the other John Birch Society bugaboos. Chiang was a late era warlord who used the KMT as a personal vehicle, and whose corruption and nepotism ruined the infant republic. There were better warlords for the west to have dealt with - Yan Xishan at least would have kept his hands out of the till - or Li Zongren. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::well everyone to his own warlord. Fact is Chiang came to power in 1920s and remained so to 1940 with zero American help. I think we agree the US policy to support China in order to defeat Japan was a fiasco (this was Stillwell's idea.) --More on this in my WW2 articles to come. I did not drop the conspiracy interpretation of the late 1940s which was in the article for a months or years.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::''well everyone to his own warlord'' hehe - I once attended a lecture by Jack Gray who was an ardent fan of Wu Peifu. I think his argument was that because he had no fixed territorial power base, this showed not that he had drawn the short straw geographically, but that it meant he was a truly 'national' leader rather than all those regionalist cliques, Zhang Zuolin in Manchuria, Feng in the north-west, etc. I thought it a dubious argument then and still do. But anyway... Chiang held power from the 20s to the 40s, but he certainly relied on Communist help both in 1925-27 (and he was plotted against as much as plotting, I have no doubt), and at the Xian incident. If the Young Marshal had had him put up against a wall, and seized power for himself, rather than bottling it.... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::the happy fact (not yet in the article) is that he created a regime on Taiwan with far less corruption and it historically led to a pro-US nation with capitalism and democracy. As for Christianity, the issue was active persecution of the missionaries. Chiang's highly public conversion helped change the status of Christians and reduced the persecution they sufferedin 1930s. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Latino ==

Could we please talk about it before reverting? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::Yes indeed--I have explained my edits. I fixed a several little grammar issues, enlarged the map to make it legible, expanded the caption. We don't want to illustrate a U.S. article with a Mexican coach in Spain. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::: The image shows a latino, beening in the US or not he is a latino; it is illustrating the very first part of the article. It also shows that not all latinos are illegals or land workers. This is enough to have a place there. The map is much better where it was before according to the subject. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::get a better image. This person is a Mexican living in Spain. The map was to small to figure out. The article makes it very clear that only a minority of latinos are illegal[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

We use to lock the articles while in the Main Page. If you need to edit it, please let me know. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:00, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
::OK, no problem. I won't be working on it for a while. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:06, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Warning ==

Please be more accurate in your edit summaries of "minor" edits. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
::sorry about that. I tried to change categories (Bryan was never a jurist) and the result was a bizarre edit I did not intend. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Newton ==

Hi, your calculus section in the [[Isaac Newton]] article had some conceptual errors in it -- I've rewritten the mathematics of this section appropriately. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 04:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::very nice job--thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:25, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==National Socialist German Workers Party==

Just to let you know, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, but the listing of the Allies led by the US, Russia and Britain is inaccurate. The term Allies (for WWII) applies to all the countries that opposed the Axis powers, and that list included 21 countries or blocs before the US joined in 1941. Obviously the effort of the Allies had to be co-ordinated in the years between 1939-41 so the question of who led the Allies during WWII is, at best, not something that can be easily dispensed with a single sentence. Furthermore, saying that Russia was an member of the Allies is inaccurate, it was the USSR which was a member of the Allies, of which Russia was a part (an equivalent example would be if the sentence had read that .....by the Allies, led by Texas, Russia and Britain).

As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. [[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)
::the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941. You are right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. The debate should be on the article talk page, not here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Copied the debate over to the talk page.

== ''Germania'' ==

I loved to read your article on the German Americans. Thanks for posting it! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:49, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Roosevelt ==

Why are you deleting sourced material from this article? Remember that the removal of relevant, sourced material from Conservapedia is considered vandalism. Please do not try to insert your own [[opinion]] into articles by censoring [[facts]]. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]] 14:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::the article is supposed to be about FDR and introducing red herrings hurts students. CZ rules clearly state: "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==[[Holocaust]] article==
The additions you placed in there now make that article repetative; things are said twice. It needs to be fixed so it runs smoothly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::you're right and I will try to smooth it out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:59, 10 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Military history ==

Thank you for your work on the project. When we create categories we use capitalization so the category should be Military History. I would also recommend that if you do feel that category is important, that it covers a specifically defined area. Perhaps it should probably deal with overlying changes in tactics or doctrine that has guided military functioning that has had a profound impact. I would not use it for things like Wars or Battles which already have their own categories.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:32, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::thanks for the tip. I think the demand for article on military history is enormous--look at the very heavy emphasis at Borders and Barnes and Noble, for example. My college courses on military history attracted far more students than other history topics. Of course a specific topic may well overlap several categories. People will want to use our category pages as an index to what is available here. Discussions of tactics, strategy, technology and doctrine, for example, are often included in articles on specific wars. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:41, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President ==

Hello, please do not censor correct information in the [[First Black president]] article. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::what information was correct? it did not check out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I notice you are a controversial editor who has never geneflected before Mr. Schlafly, and neither have you praised his wisdom and judgement in his fascinating revelation that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. Are you a Muslim sir? [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:57, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well actually more of a Catholic (a graduate of Notre Dame University class of 1962).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:01, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Are you more like Barack Obama, a [[Liberal]] who lies about his religion, and then subverts the office of the United States, and then deceives the American people and then institutes an Islamic Caliphate, giving control of our nuclear arsenal to Iran and Bin Laden? If this is what you are, then we are better off without you. [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:05, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well no--but I was hoping Biden would be president--as a Catholic he will bring the Pope over to straighten us all aout. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I would rather the pope as my slavemaster than Bin Laden! Obama will, any day now I'm sure, give the nuclear launch codes to all of our enemies - Bin Laden, Iran, Satan, Green Goblin, France - and introduce an Islamic Caliphate to our great and glorious nation! Heel before the almighty Schlafly, only his logic and truth can save the world from the dark precipice it has gotten itself under! Only the bright and free can be saved! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:16, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==English and UK categories==

Question for you at [[Talk:William the Conqueror]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:26, 21 November 2008 (EST)

*Thanks for meeting me there, and now a question on ...

==World War II fatalities==

Thank for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Japan&curid=11154&diff=564889&oldid=555832&rcid=615850 this addition]. I had simply assumed that every Japanes soldier who died in WWII was directly killed by the US and its allies. Except maybe an insignificant number of accidents - oh, and the suicidal heroics of the [[Kamikaze]].

If a soldier dies from starvation, I'd lay that death at the feet of the man who sent him out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:01, 21 November 2008 (EST)
::I was also surprised at the numbers. I knew about the starvation on the isolated Pacific islands but was surprised at China numbers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:10, 21 November 2008 (EST)

== Shays' Rebellion ==

I wander why the ''Block quote'' was deleted? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::it was too vague and did not add information to what was already covered regarding the impact of Shays' on the government. It took a left-wing approach that did not help any. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== The so-called Progressive Era? ==

*Sorry for removing a category you only created today, but CP likes to not make stand-alone narrow cats. Somehow we need an over-arching category to easily facilitate searches, and not just one per person. It might be easier to discuss adding categories somewhere, rather than just doing it.....or at least leaving a trail of bread crumbs for the less historically blessed to follow! :-D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:57, 30 November 2008 (EST)
::I agree. We need a page on CP where technical issues can be discussed and conventions established. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Additional privileges ==

Congratulations, you've earned the additional privileges of 24-hour editing, uploading images, and blocking others. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks--I appreciate that! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:55, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Congrats. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:01, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::::Congratulations from me too. Well deserved! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:41, 2 December 2008 (EST)

==Oz pic==
Just uploaded it for the article: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Woz_movie.jpg] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:12, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::thanks--the visuals are great. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[Barry Goldwater]] ==

I see some recent stretching to include people like Goldwater as libertarians. You are too good a historian to muddle the waters with throw-away lines such as "many of his later views were libertarian". Yes? So? Many of his views would, today, be considered near leftist as well. ''Historians need to resist revisionism''. In his time, by his own definition, Goldwater rejected libertarianism, and self-branded himself a conservative. Goldwater did not believe in abortion as a substitute for abstaining or birth control, nor did he support "abortion on demand". Many views held by even Ted Kennedy could be considered "conservative", but that hardly gives license to brand him one, or make the statement "some of his views are conservative", that would be misleading, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:well I knew Goldater personally since 1958 and followed his career very closely. After 1980 or so he was libertarian on most social issues, while remaining conservative on defense and spending issues. In his heyday as a conservative leader (1960-64) he rarely mentioned social issues and they were seldom on the agenda. Here is what Bill Buckley said of Goldwater:
<blockquote>
''Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.''[http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200412101327.asp from National RreviewDec10, 2004]</blockquote>
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*Ditto for me. My family were neighbors at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, CA, for several decades. But this is straw snatching, trying to paint the man as a libertarian, by a few high-profile pronouncements later in life, to somehow add cred to the libertarian cause. Find your own hero's, but kindly do not snatch our conservative ones! I do not disagree with showing, with cites, his later libertarian views (many of which I agreed with), but putting him, and others, with the help of another libertarian editor, into the libertarian category, and implying some "conversion" isn't being honest. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::Conversion? well, I think Barry was always a libertarian but only became outspoken about it in the 1980s when social issues got high on the political agenda. When he was a leader of the conservative movement (1958-64) he rarely mentioned social issues of any kind--he never mentioned abortion, for example. (he did mention gays in 1964 in the Walter Jenkins scandal--a top LBJ aide was arrested during the election campaign-- but did not condemn it.) His libertarianism after 1980 was not a "few" statements it was his high profile fight to get O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He was at that time a very powerful Senator and his views are quite important. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*We mostly agree. Just please don't go adding him to the libertarian category, or make it seem he was not a conservative. We are obviously near-contemporary, and no doubt share the acquaintanceship/friendship of many, it seems. However to use your friendship and personal assumptions as to what he was, absent of his repudiating being a conservative, is wrong and purely anecdotal. That is my only objection. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm glad we agree. I was not the one who added the libertarian category. But he publicly announced his positions and angered a lot of Arizona conservatives by so doing. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I well remember! We should have a libation one day and swap old stories. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::::::I'll drink to that. I left Arizona this summer and we moved to Montana, but there's a bar and a casino on every corner here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[French Revolution]] ==
Hey, I noticed you're doing a bit of work around this area, and as you seem to be the resident historian, I thought I'd volunteer my services here, so you're free to do other area's that need some touching up or expanding. If there's any articles or stubs in the French Revolution section that need to be fixed, just let me know. Thanks [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)
::GREAT! we can use short articles on the major players and events. Suggestion use the facts from the online Columbia Encyclopedia at [http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col65&query=French+Revolution&x=0&y=0 Columbia Enyc srticles on French Rev.] -- it's very good. Be sure to summarize & rewrite the facts, not quote exactly. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:02, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:::OK I'll get right onto it. Thanks for the suggestion! [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:05, 8 December 2008 (EST)

==Medieval Cats==
As the person who has probably edited more articles on medieval history in the last few months than all other editors put together (including six pages in the last hour or two, if I had been told that there was a new category for "Medieval history" I could have saved you a heckova lotta work.:) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::you're doing a great job and I've been trying to clean up all sorts of categories. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:58, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::But are there any others I should know about? You see, on the 22nd I changed the cats of about 2 dozen English/British history entries. This new one could have been done at the same time. (And - just to let ''you'' know: I am thinking of starting a cat (sub-cat, whatever) for the "Wars of the Roses"....)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:16, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::what I did was go though all the articles in Category:European History and change the specific ones to specific countries, or eras. That cleans up European History and makes the other sub categories more useful. yes' War of Roses" car would be good idea [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:44, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Invitation to join Wikiproject:News ==

RJJensen, since you have contributed a wanted page in the past, you are invited to [[Wikiproject:News#Members|sign up]] as a member of [[Wikiproject:News]]. <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]]</nowiki> the Guidelines. Make your news suggestions <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]]</nowiki>. Add wanted pages [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page#Wanted_Pages_for_.22In_the_news.22_section_-_To_be_created|here]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:04, 28 December 2008 (EST)
::thanks for the invite; i just signed up. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==Dutch History==
RJ (if I may call you that), I see that you have replaced the material on Dutch fascism in the 1930s. I'm pleased that this was done under a separate heading, but I am still concerned that this gives a misleading impression of Dutch politics at the time (an analogy might be an assessment of American politics in the 1930s which only mentioned Charles Coughlin and the German 'Bund'). Would it be possible for you to give an overview of mainstream Dutch politics at this time, as even the NSB was a fringe organisation. As it stands, the article presents the Netherlands as a quasi-fascist nation. As the grandson of a Dutch patriot active in the resistance in the war years, this is extremely hurtful. I also altered the reference to liberation by Canadian troops to one recognising the role of all the allied forces - including my father, in the British Army. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:50, 31 December 2008 (EST)
::Thanks for the note. My intention all along is to emphasize the fascists were a fringe group. I'll rework it again to make that clear and give more emphasis to what the main parties were up to (following the Kossman book).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:48, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thank you very much. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:37, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy New Year! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:24, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations on your promotion to Sysop (Admin) status! This gives you many new privileges. Well deserved!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:42, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:Indeed! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 00:12, 1 January 2009 (EST)
Congrats RJJensen. I look forward to working with you this year. Now you can protect all the great images you upload. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:31, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::hey THANKS EVERYBODY--I promise that 2009 will be better than 2008. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 04:10, 1 January 2009 (EST)
:::Well done RJJensen, you have been a prodigious contributor here and the promotion is deserved. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:47, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::::and many congratulations (and happy new year!) from me too. I look forward to working even closer with you this year. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 06:23, 1 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:05, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Congrats and Happy New year! [[User:AddisonDM]]

::::: Happy New Year!

:::::: Congratulations on your promotion! --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

==Tuskegee==
They were real. Can I suggest an undelete minus the parody?--Jpatt 20:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::they were indeed real. They did not fight the Japanese. Booker T Washington died many years before. The article has to be redone from start, since all the "facts" in this version are now suspect. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::: Following Jpatt's suggestion, I wrote a new article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:49, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::::Looks fantastic--Jpatt 23:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:::::thanks :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:53, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==US Civil War==

Thanks for your massive additions (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=American_Civil_War_homefront&curid=84224&diff=603647&oldid=603640 this one]). How do you find the time to do so much writing? --
::hey THANKS. It's retirement --I used to spend all that good time in committees. Now I just write. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:55, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Protecting images ==

I protected a number of images you uploaded (Image:Sherman2.jpg, Image:Weyrich.jpg, Image:1900HA.jpg, Image:~HANNA96.jpg). Please remember our policy of protecting all images. Thanks for your contributions to Conservpedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:42, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::thanks--I'll keep protecting them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:19, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: Thanks much for your insights. I've learned tremendously from them. However, as Dean says, it would be great if you could click "protect" at the bottom after you upload a new image, and then click on "Administrators Only" to give them the greatest protection. I just did that for your two most recent uploads. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== Third Party v Third Party System ==

Your opinion is sought! [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Third_Party_System#Merge.3F] --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:01, 13 January 2009 (EST)

== Democratic Governors category ==
There is already a [[:Category:Democrat Governors]]. If you are planning a move from that category to the new one, then please disregard this message. Otherwise, I wanted to catch you before you got halfway through. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 20:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
::OK --it was my mistake (I have been trying to repair lost edits from the last week). [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:56, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::Yeah, me too. I lost about 300 edits, including the lists of governors you were kind enough to add bibliologs to. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 11:36, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Blago ==

I understand what your thinking is, RJ, but in this case you are too idealogical, and giving the liberals far too much credit. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:52, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::when we make serious allegations they have to be based on serious evidence or we are guilty of bearing false witness. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:50, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::No,we are using plain old conservative common sense, RJ. The legislature didn't have evidence of anything, and until the United States Attorney presents his case in a Federal Court, and a jury convicts him, the will of the people should never be overturned by some legislature, based solely upon some contrived "disability" of being unpopular, having low poll numbers. If you don't want to cooperate, and accept the ruling of a senior administrator, so be it. But Mr. Schlafly has made his position crystal clear on this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::::The rule throughout American history is that the legislature can impeach the executive for any reason. Conviction for crime is not necessary. What is the "will of the people"? The Founding Fathers were pretty clear that the will of the people resided in the legislature. My discussion with Schlafly was on an different issue; it had to do with the powers of the state supreme court to intervene (that is a moot question since it did not intervene).

== Economic Recovery Advisory Board ==

Is this an article you want to tackle, or perhaps have research or ancillary information on? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:51, 7 February 2009 (EST)

:good idea. I just wrote [[Economic Recovery Advisory Board]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:50, 13 February 2009 (EST)

::Super! And I was just being nice making sure you could log in, never thinking once about this article I knew was needed....;-) Glad it worked out. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:27, 13 February 2009 (EST)

==Velikovsky==
Richard, I left a question for you on the [[Talk:Immanuel_Velikovsky|Velikovsky talk page]], regarding category tags. --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 08:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:I left another comment regarding yours, on the [[Talk:Immanuel_Velikovsky|Velikovsky talk page]], --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 12:25, 14 February 2009 (EST)

== Your edits to [[Scopes trial]] ==

Dr. Jensen, your recent edits to the [[Scopes trial]] delete important information and introduce unjustified statements, like calling the [[atheist]] and stridently anti-Christian [[H.L. Mencken]] a "cultural conservative." We can discuss further on [[Talk:Scopes trial]] if you like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:40, 14 February 2009 (EST)
::Mencken is one of the most famous names in the history of American conservatism. He ignored the religious questions and ridiculed the backwoods types. That's true and important to know. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:42, 14 February 2009 (EST)

::: Mencken was one of worst anti-Christian bigots ever. It's indisputable and completely distorted his reporting on the Scopes trial. And it wasn't just Christians whom Mencken was bigoted against.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:01, 14 February 2009 (EST)
:::: all true enough but he was a cultural conservative and strongly influenced libertarian thinking against government--and many people's ridicule of the South. Bryan of course was the leading big government liberal of the 1890-1930 era, which made him Mencken's target.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:28, 14 February 2009 (EST)

This really should be discussed on the article's talk page, where I've just added my comments. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:15, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Category: Naval Battles ==

I don't think that Horatio Nelson belongs in that category. He is an admiral, not a battle. [[User:DuncanB|Duncan]][[User talk:DuncanB|Channel 16]] 15:34, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::the article is what gets categorized, and the article talks about naval battles in an important way.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:35, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I am trying to figure out why Trafalgar didn't make it into [[:Category:Naval Battles]], at least not when I click on it.. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:36, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::well it certainly belongs! please add it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:37, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:::What I was getting at was that although you had changed the cat to "Naval Battles", for some reason it wasn't showing up on the Cat. page. I deleted it on the Article then added it and it has now come up. A mystery. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:;::good job! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:12, 16 February 2009 (EST)

==Vandalism patrol==

RJ, thanks for your recent efforts to block vandals and undo their damage. I don't know why some people enjoy messing up other people's work. Maybe they are intellectually lazy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:16, 17 February 2009 (EST)
::well at least we attact a better class of vandals than Wikipedia! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:28, 17 February 2009 (EST)

:::LOL, I think. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)

==Criminals and folk heroes==

What about that [[Che Guevera]] guy? Why is it that people who say they care about the poor and the oppressed lionize (idolize, idealize) murderers like Che? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:14, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Cartoon ==

That pork factory thingy is a nice cartoon, but I'm not sure about the "fair use". Wouldn't "fair use" be if we put the image in an article ''about the cartoon itself'', or in an article about a controversy caused by the image?

From the copyright office's website:

<blockquote>
“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
</blockquote>

I'm worried this might get the site into hot water.

Sincerely,
[[User:EMaurice|EMaurice]] 11:24, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::no educational use has ever gotten into any legal hot water by using items like this that have been posted on the internet for free. CP uses the cartoon to comment upon a current news event, which is a legally protected form of fair use according to Congress. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:::I'm not sure that the fact that no-one has been prosecuted for it means it's legal. If we go down that road, we'll be just like the bums who get into debt and then ask the taxpayer to help them, claiming they didn't know what they were doing. And as for using the cartoon to comment, how is that under fair use? Fair use would be for commenting about the cartoon itself. Every big newspaper has a free online section. Would the Washington Post accept the Washington Times copying one of their cartoonists? Do you see what I mean? Thanks, [[User:EMaurice|EMaurice]] 11:46, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::::Congress says that fair use applies to nonprofit educational use, and the courts have always agreed. The Washington Times is a commercial operation and different rules apply to them. (The worst case scenario is that the copyright owner asks us to remove the cartoon, and we do so.) Conservatives need to uphold their legal and constutional rights or they lose them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 19 February 2009 (EST)

== Parodists ==
It would seem we have two users in need of a lengthy block, and you appear to be the only one present with block rights. See Ed Poor's talk page please! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::thanks for the heads-up. I'll be watching but so far I have not seen anthing more serious than a debate on chemistry. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:31, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:::The manganese edit was 100% wrong, so he's (KrisTree) a parodist. But everything which he's said about the other guy is actually pretty correct, and GFasten did indeed put up a stupid Bollywood video which was later reverted. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:34, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::::No the manganese edit was not 100% wrong (it is used in steel), and there is such a book as "Salters Chemistry". There may be errors but that is not the same as parody. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== The View From 1776...Tom Brewton ==

Presented for your inspection and consideration.....

* [http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/the_limitations_of_econometric_computer_models/ The Limitations of Econometric Computer Models]

* [http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/tooth_fairy_economics/ TOOTH FAIRY ECONOMICS]
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:42, 22 February 2009 (EST)
::Thanks-- I enjoyed reading that! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:51, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== Gibbs ==

Thank you, good Doctor! Whenever I read something where the basic, minimum essentials are missing, and people are already arguing over rather common political tricks, I see red. Thanks for jumping in, but let's not save the protagonists from having to do some due diligence as well, okay? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:39, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::right! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:13, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== CENTRISTS CONCERNED ==

[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/centrists_concerned/] It’s noteworthy that political moderates who supported President Obama in the election are worried that they may have been misled, that traditionalists’ forebodings may have been on the mark. Amazing! ;-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 6 March 2009 (EST)
::thanks for the tip. I don't see a connection between Obama and the Social Gospel Movement myself, and the Socialists of 1910 (who included just ONE Social Gospeller, an obscure professor at Vassar) wanted to destroy the banks, not subsidize them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:35, 6 March 2009 (EST)
:::Email Tom...he's a nice chap. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 6 March 2009 (EST)

==Pearl Harbor edit==
Had to revert your edit to Pearl Harbor. The Air Force did not exist until 1947; prior to that it was the U.S. Army Air Corps. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
::the name was changed in 1941 -- before Pearl Harbor--to US Army Air Forces. There was no longer an "Air Corps". [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:48, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Can you add Obama's ignorant, disgusting joke to the front page news? ==

Joke here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXcgpZwsBPY]. Obama apologist Olbermann's desperate plea to comedian Craig Furgeson(sp?) to find an excuse - any excuse - to allow Obama to get away with the joke here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD0EcujFSn8]. Note that Craig immediately recognizes the joke for what it is and doesn't give the kind of answer Olbermann was hoping for. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:15, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:On the [[Jay Leno]] show, Obama quipped that his bowling score of 129 was "like the [[Special Olympics]] or something". My question was whether he was putting himself down (i.e., being humble) in an innocent, lighthearted way - or whether (as his detractors are eager to say) he was making a derogatory reference to handicapped people. [[Craig Ferguson]] grimaced and called the reference "a misstep". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
:*I read later that he called up the Special Olympics and apologized - even before the show aired. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:::That's called "damage control." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Beating him up for a slip like that is called A "[[personal attack]]". I would rather we contributors focus on principles and facts than on personalities. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:55, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

==Stimulus bill==

Thank you for continuing to work with me. My text moves are not to be taken as Editorial Prerogative. Feel free to reverse my edits when they don't make sense. What I want to do is collaborate, to work together to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:53, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
::Ed--thanks for your stimulus to my thinking! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:54, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::LOL, there's a [[Volvo]] radio ad I've heard dozens of times which talks about "stimulating your stimulus". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

==Featured article==
Congrats on getting a weekly featured article! The financial crisis.
[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
::hey thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:13, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

==A Glitch?==
This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Gresham_Machen&diff=644407&oldid=644405] looks like a glitch. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 12:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
::yes my "oops" (I was trying to move the reflist). Thanks for the good work--Machen has never looked so good in the last 70 years. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:22, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== World History Lectures ==

I really enjoy your contributions. In fact, reading them drove me to Conservapedia. Couldn't you do some fact-checking on the '''World History Lectures''' of Aschlafly? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 15:56, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the nice words. I'll keep my eyes open. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:03, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Could you shed some light on [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:World_History_Lecture_Nine#Prussia_vs._Germany this discussion?] Thanks! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:13, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest the best approach is to propose an improved sentence for the text. think positive. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:21, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

==Thanks==
I see you've been doing some really good work this past week, and thanks! We need more editing like that. Great job. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 23:03, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
::HEY--thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:04, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

==Attribution==
Please endeavor to give proper attribution for the articles you are taking from Citizendium. A copy of our license is available on the front page of the site. Thank you. [[User:Citizendium|Citizendium]] 15:47, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

*'''He does, and was the original author of the items he has placed here.''' I was unaware, "Citizendium", you are a German encyclopedia, being that is where your ISP is located. Another fraud/troll bites the dust. Bye. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:57, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

==Historian?==

Are you really Richard Jensen? I read your midwest book when I was younger (If indeed you are) [[User:JamesFerguson|JamesFerguson]] 16:32, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
::yes. I wrote it when I was 24 years old. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:33, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

==Democrats and casual sex==

Jensen, I noticed that you deleted [[Democrats and casual sex|this article]], citing "inappropriate content". While I certainly find the actions of the Democrats to be inappropriate, I don't find the content of the article to be inappropriate. It was written without going into the lewd details of the online solicitations, but with enough evidence to incriminate the Democrats. Hard data doesn't lie: the Democratic convention had that spike in postings, while the RNC, which happened ''after'' and thus was under more scrutiny, did not have the spike in postings. It's a black and white testament to who actually lives family values, and therefore who has the family values in mind. Democrats may talk all they want about upholding morals, but their actions, ''especially'' those done in secret, tell a completely different story, one replete with [[duplicity]].

Furthermore, I'd argue precedent: this content has been listed in the articles on the [[2008 Democratic National Convention]] for some time. When I created the standalone article, I was pleasantly surprised to find the content had already been dutifully reported on CP. If you would, could you please restore the article? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:00, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::tens of thousands of people attend major conventions, so they all generate huge amounts of business. Not encyclopedic. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:19, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I agree with Jensen. Pot/Kettle? Given the sex scandals that have and continue to hit both parties, singling out one of them is not the best road to go down..... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:31, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
:::tk is ok. We have lots of middle school kids and tehy shouldn't be wasting their time on this stuff when they can read about Henry VIII. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:11, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Kingdom of the Netherlands ==

Could you move [[Kingdom of the Netherlands]] to the [[Netherlands]]? (See [[Talk:The_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands#The_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands_is_not_the_Netherlands.21|here]]) Thanks, [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:24, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::ok--good idea. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:::Thanks again! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:30, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Arguing only.... ==

This: [http://www.conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_Nine] is exactly what I was talking about. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:42, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Pilgrim's Progress ==

Hi - sorry to bother. When you edited [[Pilgrim's Progress]] earlier, did the images load ok? For some reason I am only seeing an empty frame, yet the code looks correct and I am about to pull my hair out figuring out what is wrong! --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:03, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
::the images did not load --probably because they are too big. I can resize them now if you want. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:12, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
:::I would really appreciate that! Thank you so much. (I know it is a physical impossibility, but it seems I too have blonde moments *grin*) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:17, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
::::yes it works! (I made the map smaller) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:37, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::Thank you again! That is one I owe you. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:49, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

== Fake Quotes ==
I will no longer use BrainyQuote.com, publishers of fake quotes. Thanks for the correction.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:05, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
::good idea. it's weird how so many quotes get faked these days. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:30, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

== Internet Vandals ==

Some of these anti-intellectual vandals and trolls were having some fun at your expense, Richard. If you've gotten wind of it, or hear of it at some point, pay it no mind. Mainly just a group of malcontented trolls who frequent several sites, and of course the usual gang of young teen vandals all too common to the Internet. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:28, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--yes they do get under my skin :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:30, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Oh, BTW:
<blockquote>
Lending at the biggest U.S. banks has fallen more sharply than realized, despite government efforts to pump billions of dollars into the financial sector.

According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Treasury Department data, the biggest recipients of taxpayer aid made or refinanced 23% less in new loans in February, the latest available data, than in October, the month the Treasury kicked off the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The total dollar amount of new loans declined in three of the four months the government has reported this data." [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124019360346233883.html#mod=rss_whats_news_us]
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:33, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the tip. I'll keep updating the article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:42, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

== Great effort ==

Great effort cleaning up the vandalism this morning! You might observe that vandalism is almost perfectly correlated with products of the political left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks. they are nettlesome gnats. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:54, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Redneck ==

Perhaps it would be more accurate to state it was historically a derogatory term, but that since the late 1950's it has been co-opted by the targets of the term, and in modern usage it isn't necessarily viewed as a negative? Think Jeff Foxworthy, etc. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
::good point! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:18, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Richard! I remember that cartoon, too! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:45, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
::::It's one of my favorites. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:51, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

== [[Socialism]] ==

RJ, when you get a moment, could you look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Socialism#Grammatical_Edit_and_Rebuttal this?] The editor wants to add what he feels is a needed rebuttal to what he feels is something too pro-socialist...I don't see what he's getting at, but do want to accommodate him if possible. Since most of the work there is now yours, I am deferring to your judgment. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:12, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
::OK I worked on it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:09, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Lenin ==

Hey RJJensen, so, you're ''much'' better at history than I am, but I do feel compelled to ask about your moving of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin to Lenin (I put the full reasons on the talk page) - simply because I feel precedent would have us use his full name, but the reason I'm posting here is just to clarify that I in no way mean to question you and the request is in no way meant as an insult - I have a lot of respect for you and I just want to make sure there won't be a misunderstanding. Thanks!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:20, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the note--no offense taken and i'm glad you asked disguise his identity and so it should not be treated like ordinary names. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:42, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Understood - thanks very much! --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:47, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Lol, sorry about the misspelled name! I can't believe I did that ... in all seriousness though it really is awesome to work with you - so if you ever need a template or anything done, lemme know.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:25, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
::hey thanks--I'm a klutz at progamming and appreciate the help. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:31, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

== Quotes ==
Trying to determine if a quote is a fake. I tried Google, it comes up everywhere with blogs only. I tried Google books, about 5 come up. I would think credible historical sites would list if true. Can you confirm Thomas Jefferson "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:02, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
::I searched around and it appears to be a fake. All genuine Jefferson quotes are well represented in books.google.com [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:20, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

== "the best"? ==

What constitutes the best prose writer? I would imagine that it is impossible to say in a way that does not involve a whole lot of personal opinion, which as you know is not the kind of objective fact you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. From what I gather you yourself are not an Italian literature scholar, and even if you can read Italian extremely well and have read a good deal of Italian prose I really don't think you can say "he is the best", simply because, as I just said, its subjective. thanks --[[User:MrEmerson|MrEmerson]] 20:48, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::objective fact---hmmm. what sort of facts are those? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:13, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

:::I suspect liberal "facts", RJ. What is indisputeable is he wasn't a very good sockmaster! Brendanw, EmersonW, MrEmerson and several accounts that look like IP's were all his. Sorry to ruin your fun with this guy...I didn't see you had engaged him until after I had begun shutting him down. Next time I will let you have fun with them! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:23, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::::yeah--my goal is to drive them away redfaced and yours is to catch them red-handed (red moused?) :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:30, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

ROFL! Whatever happened to the apparently archaic practice of playing outside? Worries me these little kids no longer play outside.... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:33, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::on Wikipedia I once was so annoyed by vandals that I complained to the school's principal in New Jersey. since they weren't harrassing HIM, he ignored my complaint. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:46, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Sherry Lansing, once in the motion picture business, has lived her business life by one rule: she never leaves the office without returning, or attempting to return ALL calls. No matter that she doesn't know the person, or they end up being someone complaining about a movie they saw. Once, at a charity deal, I asked her why. She winked and said several of those calls had made her millions in good ideas or a writer looking for someone to buy their script. She just hated the thought of being rude and not responding, saying her mother raised her better than that. Sounds like that principal is reaping what he sows. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:47, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

==Revert==
Please revert User:ForTheWin's edits (I would myself, but I can't revert past one edit :(

==Thanks==
Thanks for the nice comments on my page! I am very excited for Princeton in the fall. I'll also definitely look up Liz Jensen - aerospace engineering, wow, that's great! I am considering engineering also, with mechanical/aerospace engineering near the top of my list. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:56, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
::you might have Liz as your TA -- she loves to teach. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:04, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

== Upload ==

Can you give me upload picture rights?--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  00:42, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
::I don't have the power; ask [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]].--[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:47, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Just out of curiosity, would you give it to me if you could?--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  01:01, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Austria ==

Hello RJJensen. Just wanted to let you know that you mistakenly moved the picture of Stephansdom in Passau over to the page on Austria. Living in Austria myself, I can attest that Passau is indeed in Germany, and Vienna's Stephansdom looks nothing like this picture! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:33, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for that. my mistake. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:59, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

== Excuse me, sir! ==

Sir, you seem to be an in-charge-type around here. This being so, could you inform me how to upload images, as I can't find the button that I am so used to using on other wikis.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 00:17, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Furthermore... ==

What's more, the page D.C.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=D.C&redirect=no] is currently locked, and yet it's only a double-redirect. Could you, as an admin, fix this? Thank you.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 00:23, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

And while we're on the topic, [[President Harry S. Truman]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=President_Harry_S._Truman&redirect=no] has the same problem. Poor Harry.
Thanks again.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 00:26, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
:: technical pages (like the Truman and DC examples) should not be altered. To request a picture upload goto [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:31, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you for the response! While we're on the topic, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Gary_glitter] is completely devoid of content. Could you unlock it or, preferably, destroy it?--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 00:35, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::::I could partially fix a few. However, the Truman article is problematic inasmuch as it should be titled "Harry S. Truman" not "Harry Truman". Lots of links, however, so I will work on changing them and moving the main article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:38, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==Silly stuff==

Could you check Gianni's contribs? [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Gianni] I think a lot of it is just random silliness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:09, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
::I was just looking at those. agreed. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:10, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Plymouth Brethren ==

This article wasn´t accepted by liberal wikipedia, why you refuse it in Conservapedia, please give reasons.

== Conservapedia:Featured articles ==

Any proposal for new articles? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:45, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
::how about [[Atlanta]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:58, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::: Done, now you may vote. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:32, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

==Vandalism==

Please revert my bad joke (see [[Counter Reformation]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:44, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:Oh, so you '''are''' awake ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:00, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
::well I make too many typos when I write in my sleep, so I have a stiff cup of coffee right now. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:04, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

==new article==
Maybe you can add some historical background to my new article [[Melting pot]]. If so, thanks! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:24, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
::yes...it's a favorite topic of mine. Thanks for getting it started! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 05:12, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

== Labour Pary ==

*Why do you keep vandalizing my correction on the "Labour Party" article. Stop it! The Labour Party IS a socialist party. The party officially describes itself as "democratic socialist." And by the way, Tony Blair has never officially renounced socialism. American conservatives need to get over this ridiculous idea that just because Blair supported the War on Terror that means he is a conservative. He's not! --- [[User:AmerICan|AmerICan]] 19:00, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
::take it to the talk page first or you will get banned for vandalism. Thanks. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:01, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for your helpful corrections to my new pages for the Obama czars! I'm new here, and looks like I went a bit overboard with the speculation into non-neutrality -- my summaries were written more as an anti-wikipedia than as truly neutral articles. I'll try to be more neutral in the future!
::and thank you for taking the initiative! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:44, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

==Lusitania==
Whay are you insistant on hiding any information on the cargo of that ship, and why are you removing historical information? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:05, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::CP should condemn terrorism against helpless civilians, as all the world did at the time. The Germmans are the ones who tried to justify their actions, but they sank an unarmed undefended passenger ship deliberately in order to terrify the British. I added the German captain's own war diary account, which gives the German perspective. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:09, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Yes, I agree, and I would have posted the sub's war diary as well if and when I found it, but the fact remains that you have removed needed material from the article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:11, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::::well what historical material do you think should be included? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:22, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::The past and present allegations pertaining to its munitions cargo and the current archaeological findings as reported in ''Archaeology'' Magazine and others; pertinent information regarding its passengers, sailing date, and final moments off Ireland; the German warnings in the New York Times, its declaration of the war zone around the British Isles, and its belief that ''Lusitania'' was carrying war cargo; current condition of the ship, the attempted destruction of the wreck by the British Government in the 1950's, and the case involving the owners of the wreck vs. the Irish Government...in short, just about everything. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:31, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::most of the info is in there. There should be a separate section on archaeology (which is ongoing--Wiki has some of the details). The "munitions" bit is a red herring that Germans used to justify killing innocent Americans. We need to keep an American perspective, not that of the discredited Kaiser's government that used terrorism and war crimes routinely. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Read what I posted here [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Lusitania_warnings.png][http://www.conservapedia.com/File:WashingtonpostMay8_1915.jpg]; period newspaper reports from the Washington Post which suggest that ''Lusitania's'' captain scoffed at the danger from Germany. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:04, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::yes the ship shouild have been zig-zagging as ordered. not a good reason to kill americans. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:15, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
So, would a discussion of illegal arms shipments by the Wilson administration in contrast to the [[Iran contra affair]] be innappropriate? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:02, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::No, not true and not appropriate. and please if you insist on showing bias at least make it a pro-American bias, not anti-American. Better yet is no bias using the best scholarship. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:38, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Is being critical of Iran contra anti-American bias? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:41, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::left wing biases are unwelcome here.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:59, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::Not necessarily so, solong as they are cited as such. Under those circumstances, they provide balance. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:02, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

==Let's cut to the chase==
Here's the biggest problem you have to deal with: the Founder of the Roosevelt Presidential Library, [[Trude Lash]], was a [[Stalinist]] [[KGB]] operative. How do you propose we deal with this? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:34, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
::I was at the fdr Library last week and talked to the archivist personally. What's the problem? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:35, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm still working on the Trude Lash material, you'll have to give me at least a few days. Incidentally, did you ever see this one at Hyde Park:
::::5. Joseph A. Michela, Military Attache Moscow Report 1903, "N.K.V.D. of the U.S.S.R.," 14 April 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Harry Hopkins Papers, "MID Reports--USSR--Volume V," box 190.
:::all six pages [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/part1.htm available here] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:28, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
Excerpted p.5:
:''Any governmental organization that has a crying need for labor simply calls upobn the N.K.V.D to supply it. If the amount of labor is insufficient to supply the need, it is relatively an easy matter to institute a reign of terror on any pretext and fill up the labor colonies to meet requirements. There is little doubt that during the purges of the past, one eye was kept on the labor needs of government projects...."'' [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/5d.gif]
That's only a random selection, there's much more. And this is dated six months before Pearl Harbor. Many Americans had to wait till the 1970s and Solzhenitsyn's book to hear of this. All our reliable sources told us up til then was Harry and Uncle Joe got on like a "house of fire." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:40, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::I did not see that particular document but I did see others like it. FDR founded the FDR Library, not Trude Lash. The FDR Library received the FDR papers only after FDR died--there were no secret documents there during the war years.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:06, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

:::FDR founded the library? Where the papers his personal property when he did so? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:59, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
::::The archivist told me that FDR raised $400,000 in 1940 to build the library on his property at Hyde park. He deeded it to the federal government. Since his death the government (National Archives) has owned and operated it; they moved his papers there in the late 1940s. Trude Lash her Joseph Lash husband years later set up a separate private FDR institute that runs academic programs. I'm not sure about Trude's politics but her husband Joseph Lash was the leading ANTI-Communist in student affairs in 1939 when he met Eleanor and they became close friends. Eleanor strongly encouraged Joe's marriage to Trude in 1944. Joe Lash and ER were key leaders of the anti-communist movement in the US in the late 1940s.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:07, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::That structure, the government holding the deed to the FBI Library would then be different from other Presidential libraries under current law. So this is what you've been told.
:::::Two points. Let's clarify, (a) [[Joseph Lash]] was an anti-communist? even Wikipedia cites Joseph Lash heading a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_front#Alleged_CPUSA_front_organizations.2C_circa_1944 Communist front organization]] on the [[Attorney General]]'s list in 1944 (Attorney General Francis Biddle, that is. M.Stanton Evens says the FDR administration established this list in 1941).
:::::(b) were the FDR papers, moved to his personal residence, considered FDR's personal property? This obviously relates to Nixon taking a tax deduction for the donation of his vice-presidential papers, seeing that by precedent, FDR & Lyndon Johnson's papers were regarded as thier personal property. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:39, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::Lash had been a fellow traveler in the 1930s, broke with the Communists in 1939, and became the #1 anti-communist student leader. (he resigned from the Am. Youth Congress in 1940 when the reds took it over.) He later was a founder of the ADA, the leading anti-communist group in the late 1940s. FDR did not consider the presidential papers to be his personal property, but he did have many non-presidential papers. (For example, his widow sold off his stamp collection.) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:11, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::Really? our sources say [[American_Youth_Congress#Dies_investigation| he defected from the Socialist Party]] to the Comintern in 1937 (the source being none other than himself <s>Trude Lash</s>). And that still doesn't explain how he ends up on the wartime [[Attorney General's list]] of [[subversive]] organizations. If memory serves me correct, there were only a dozen or so subversive organizations when the list began under FDR in 1941, of which Joe Lash's [[American Youth Congress]] is one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:06, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::ER Encylopedia says: ''"the Soviet Union signed a nonaggression pact with Germany in August 1939. Led by Joseph Lash, a founder and executive secretary of the ASU, a number of members condemned the Soviet action. Although communists were a minority of the ASU, by this time they held a majority of the leadership positions and exerted powerful control over the organization’s national board. Communist ASU officers condemned Lash for his views, organized a successful campaign to vote him out of office, and adopted a communist, anti–New Deal, isolationist position."'' (p 15) It notes that most members then quit the ASU and many joined the new anti-communist International Student Service (ISS) which Lash headed. Lash was not on the Attorney General's list because it only listed organizations--it named groups that Lash had quit or been expelled from years before. SEE [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,763168,00.html TIME story Jan 8 1940] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:36, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::So the time has come to do a [[Joe Lash]] bio; this has been on my to-do list for many years.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:52, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::yes, he's interesting. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:59, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

==-SDA page==

The SDA page is now well written and informative, (good writer) and though i think the controversies as well as the changes from the 1950's interaction are important (the apologetics index link helped), i am sorry you got some of the overflow of my grief from the original condition.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:49, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--I'm glad that we're agreed [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:00, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

== Random Question ==
Are you the same R. J. Jensen that studied the fallacy of the NINA signs!?!? If you are I admire your work!!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 09:57, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--that's me. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:40, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
:::Wow! I was absolutely fascinated by that article! My son showed the article to his liberal history teacher who was preaching the victimization of the Irish. Your work brought him the truth and converted him! He now teaches the fallacy of the NINA signs!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 23:19, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::delighted to hear that. I still get ^%%$^ everry March 17 from poor victims. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:33, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::Haha! Oh the Irish! Always the "victims" of something!

== Featured articles ==

Your help is needed. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:47, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

== on vacation ==

I've been on the road the last few weeks with limited time and limited access to internet. I'll be back in early August.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:41, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

: I am also out of town; hope you could have some time to give your opinion over future featured articles. Good luck and nice vacations. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:44, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

== Obamunism ==

RJ, I certainly agree with you that Bush's bailouts were bad for the American economy. However, to add Bush in a sentence I was just working on in the article made the sentence far too long and complicated so I removed the material about Bush being involved in corporate bailouts. I also think that since the article is about Obamamunism, the article should first focus on Obama. With that being said, I certainly would not object to any material added to the article about Bush's corporate bailouts, but I think it should be done later in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:08, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
::ok [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 02:11, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== quick note bush vs. Obama bailouts ==

It is true that Bush initiated the corporate bailout process. However, I do not know if it could be said that Bush did far more bailing out in terms of magnitude of dollars spent, so I abridged your material. However, if you can show that the magnitude of Bush bailout expenditures exceeded Obama's, I certainly would not want to obscure or hide this matter. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:25, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== libertarian vs. conservative republicans ==

Conservative republicans and libertarians were opposed to bush bailouts, but I know they two camps differ on social issues like abortion so i altered the sentence to just mention the phrase advocates of free market capitalism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:30, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
:agreed.

::I added the $ details. TARP is the #1 bailout program--demanded by Bush and signed by him in Oct 2008--at $700 billion. That money covers the banks and GM bailouts, for example. In addition Bush gave guarantees for hundreds of billions of toxic assets for AIG, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac (as well as some banks like Wachovia and Washington Mutual)--how much of the guarantee $$$$ actually will be spent is a big unknown as of today. Some specific details are at [[Financial Crisis of 2008]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 02:34, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== request ==

RJJensen,

I know that the libertarians have been very active on the economic freedom front in the USA as far as educating the public. Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente (although he does not call himself a libertarian, I believe he is as far as his outlook), and the Ludwig von Mises Institute come to mind.

I am guessing you are a libertarian and I think August could be an important month as far as future economic freedom in the USA as Obama does not want to be defeated on the health care issue which will cause him to lose political momentum among other things.

Would you be interested in creating these articles:

[[Obama admistration deficit spending]]

[[Obama administration corporate bailouts]]

[[Obama administration fiscal policy]]

[[Obama admistration monetary policy]]

Please let me know if you are interested as your assistance would be appreciated.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:45, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

==Can you delete==

On the wanted pages i noticed ‎49 links to a "Zachary Robeson", and like you, i can find no such person, but this name is yet listed in the Famous Explorers section of apparently 49 pages. Can you somehow do a mass delete of this? I surmise it was designed with ill intent. Thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:24, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
::I can't find any link to him. ?? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:37, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
:::I think he's right: [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Zachary_Robeson]]. It looks like the link is always in the Famous Explorers box at the bottom, so I'm guessing it only needs to be changed once, I just don't know where to do it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:45, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
::::OK i deleted it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:49, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Thanks RJ and Daniel! It was yet another hidden bit of vandalism/lies inserted by blocked user BrianCo when he created the template originally. There have been several of the same removed since I blocked him, serving as vindication for me of just what and who he was; BrianCo is a proved liar and troll. Any previous edits by this discredited user from a vandal site, should be given a thorough going over whenever you come across them. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:23, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

:Actually, Zachary Robeson was a parody article created by the blocked user Czolgolz. I reported it some time ago and it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=RJJensen&page=&year=&month=-1 deleted] by RJJensen. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 15:34, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

:*'''''Actually, OscarJ,''''' the template, the navigation template, was made by the liar BrianCo, who kept that article alive for months. Upon Daniel posting here, Dr. Jensen also removed the false article created by Czolgolz, a member of the very same vandal site as BrianCo, from the navigation template. But it was indeed BrianCo who added that false article to the template. Please refrain from trying to present confirmed vandals and liars like BrianCo in a positive light here. Disinformation isn't tolerated. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:20, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

:::Good work. But now even the White house is looking for reports on anything fishy.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:01, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

==Persons in the Bible==
Hi again. I created a page for Hoshea (high priest), as it was listed in the [[Special:WantedPages]], but i think it really should be Joshua the high priest, (Zec. 3:1) which the page i made is about, as i find no list that positively ID's Hoshea as a high priest, or renders Yehoshua by that name (the two are different in Hebrew), though i could be wrong. Also wanted was a page on Jehoirarib, which i made, but which i think is a misspelling of Jehoiarib (one 'r'), which again is who the page is about. I think all the calls for these two wanted pages are due to their being part of a template. Thanks and praise God. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:05, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
::OK I Can fix that. exactly what should I do???

:::I would change the Hoshea to Joshua the high priest, and Jehoirarib to Jehoiarib in the template used for [[High_Priest]]. Yet that page is really about the [[High priest]], which itself is a non-existent, wanted page, and so maybe the latter title should take the place of the former. You might see the competition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Priests_of_Israel. In addition, i cannot find any reference to a Joran at all, and that is listed on that template. Perhaps you can find out who made that. The rest look ok for now.

:::Also (if that is not confusing enough), among other issues which pertain to Biblical topics, fornication is a requested page(9 pages red link to it), as it was deleted due to vandalism. I recently incorporated the Biblical definition into the [[sex]] article, so either that could serve as a redirect or i could create a page with that in it, but which should afterward be protected. Maybe you could do one on [[Vice President]] ‎(12 links) some time. Thanks.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:35, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

:::More research shows that Jotham is most doubtful as being a high priest. Not as the youngest son of Gideon, nor as the son of King Uzziah (who intruded into the priests office) WP does have Jotham in its list of high priests, supposing he was the son of Azariah, who was a high priest (son of Zadok), but in this case his father was actually Uzziah, who was sometimes referred to as Azariah (Jerushah) as the name means the same. The last reference is to a descendant of Judah, son of Jahdai. 1Ch_2:47). "of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." (Heb. 7:14)

:::I have tracked down the apparent source of these names, via a reference in the page to Axiomar by JY23: http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/highpriests.wps.htm No source is provided for this extensive list, and i will email him for more info. Best hold off on any changes till further notice. Sorry for the confusion.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:49, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
::::oK --it's too uncertain now to make changes so I will wait till you're satisfied. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:32, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: Gentlemen, I think you have the wrong Hoshea. The Hoshea that I was planning to discuss was the immediate successor to Azariah III; he served under [[Manasseh King of Judah]]. The other Joshua served alongside governor Zerubbabel during the reign of the Persian king Darius I.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:53, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::There are three by that name or (Oshea), but the problem is i could not find any that were verifiably a high priest, and the template it listed him as such, along with Jotham. I did get a brief email back (8-10) from the author of the page where this list evidently came from, but all he said was, "you ask the source for the genealogies of the high-priests, well, it was contained in the abbreviated version of "Joshua" [aka Jesus; Yahweh] - the title is in two volumes", and my request for more precise info has been ignored so far. Would have responded sooner but CP editing was locked for some time, as is too often the case.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:04, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

==Scottsboro boys==
Do you have anything on the [[Scottsboro boys]] or alternatively [[Scottsboro case]]; this appears to be an important articlew we'll need. I found an img. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:11, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
::it was moderately important to the left in the 1930s. I'll draft a short article--thanks for the tip.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:17, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::The Scottsboro case is what motivated many prominent African-Americans of the era to join up with the CPUSA, as the CPUSA entry suggests; and of course we may need to comment on [[FDR]]'s refusal to back an anti-lynching law. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

== cross-posting from Citizendium ==

Hello RJ!

I am currently in the process of writing articles for Citizendium on some of the great works of literature. I will be concentrating on those works which are most typically part of a high school reading or curriculum program. Both CZ and CP, it seems to me, are in serious need of a much greater breadth and/or depth of information on such literature than they presently possess.

Unless there is some problem with it, I would propose to cross-post my work yo both CZ and CP.

A current sample is [[The Call of the Wild]], just posted here a few minutes ago. I am currently working on ''The Time Machine'', have an article on ''The New Atlantis'' (by Francis Bacon). In the works is ''Little Women'' and many others. The articles will likely consist solely of brief intros followed by plot summaries. Some analysis or commentary would still need to be added, but the plot summary is a start.

[[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 10:57, 16 August 2009 (EDT)
::good start!--please keep it up. there is no problem about crossposting from Citizendium (because its authors keep their copyright).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:01, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

==NY Times==

Are you the Robert Jensen spoken of in this ''New York Times'' article? [http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/the-indiana-jones-of-economics-part-iii/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:22, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
::no relation. I do have a brother Robert Jensen--he's a retired gun dealer in Arizona--but the NY Times is writing about someone else. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:24, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

==Categorization and labelling==

Please stop categorizing political people. Leave it to others, particularly senior admins, to decide whether someone is conservative, libertarian, or liberal. There's no point arguing over this sort of thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:47, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

==Chesterton edits==

I'm somewhat puzzled by your edits to the G.K. Chesterton article. While he was, by his own description, "orthodox", he certainly wasn't a Conservative. I have a digital anthology of his letters here with me (it is read-only, by the way) and to quote from an April, 1924 copy of the ILN, he said: "''The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.''" I believe to describe oneself, if at all, through religious terms rather than political terms is and was an admirable trait, and we should continue that, when the subject and the source are one and the same regarding the analysis of his philosophies. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 17:26, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
::some good points and I will chew on them. I was following Russell Kirk, the leading historian of conservatism, who considers GKC a major conservative intellectual. the National Review's Bill Buckley was also a great admirer[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:48, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you for your consideration. Many scholars have described him as essentially "Catholic in his heart, and Conservative in his brain", to paraphrase. So perhaps a description of being a man whose practicality and sentimentality were aligned, and whose views have gained acceptance from many modern Conservatives. Feel free to include the snippet about William F. Buckley as well. Chesterton was very honest about his intellectual forebears, so it would be good to continue the, say, philosophical family tree. I leave the matter of editing and wording entirely in your hands. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 19:28, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

User talk:RJJensen

2009-09-05T23:28:58Z

MICasey: /* Chesterton edits */

[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:49, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your fascinating addition to [[Barack Obama]] re: financing. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

== Welcome ==
Welcome indeed to CP! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:18, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

==China==
Chinese history would appear not to be your forte. How describing the fluctuating state of authority in the warlord period counts as 'red propaganda', I am at a loss to understand. Please don't cause damage to other Chinese history articles. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Ah but I am fairly familiar with 20c Chinese history. the article was full of Red propaganda (not that particular example)--which is bad for a conservative encyclopedia. for examples:
#the very title, and many of the pinyin terms, are the ones created in the 1950s by Communists in Beijing, and not used at the time or by the anti-communists in Taiwan.
#" However, Chiang was aided by the 'Guangxi Clique' of nationally-minded warlords; and the northern progress of the expedition was aided by carefully-timed popular uprisings planned by the CCP against local warlords."
#" Chiang again turned on the communists in the 'Shanghai Coup'. Aided by the police of the International Settlement and the French Concession in the city, and by gunmen of the influential 'Green Gang' criminal network, Chiang's troops and police rounded up and executed hundred of communists and trade unionists"
# "that to build a strong China it was necessary to defeat communism first, to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic."
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

All those are established facts, however unpalatable some of them may be. At Conservapedia we deal in truth, not propaganda. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

In addition, it is a very bad idea to build up Chiang as a conservative ideal type. He was - to put it mildly - an unsavoury and unscrupulous thug, who was portrayed as a democratic leader in the west for the sake of wartime unity, and wwas later loyal to the US as he had no choice but to be so. He was the very opposite of loyal at other stages of his career: vide his flirtation with [[Nazism]], and his cavalier treatment of General Stilwell. In terms of opersonal morality, well.... suffice to say that his avowal of Christianity was purely opportunistic; he presided over a regime of brutality and corruption that alienated all potential allies; he was the sort of man who actually made Communism look like a desirable alternative. How bad do you have to be to do that? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::- ::No, you have to read some of the history. I actually worked through the books in the bibliography. For example, who cliams " to an increasing number of Chinese his attitude appeared capitulationist and unpatriotic." (answer: the far left). The story of the Nanchang uprising ("carefully-timed popular uprisings planned" is from Communist folklore as told to Edgar Snow in "Red Star over China", a notorous far-left book. As for Chiang's character, it is NOT white washed here. He was a rough character and I do not call him democratic. As for Stillwell, I think Chiang and Chennault were mostly right and Stillwell mostly wrong. (My articles on Stillwell and Chennault are coming soon--they are now both at Citizensium--take a look also atmy CBI article there. I have read the major studies for China in the 1940s.). Corruption--alas that is the history of China for the last 150 years, continuously (for example, don't feed your baby on Chinese formula--or feed your cat with their stuff. That is 2008 corrpution.
:::I too know a bit about that period - the Americans backed a loser in Chiang; and the real blame for the fall of China to communism lies with him - not with Service or Lattimore or any of the other John Birch Society bugaboos. Chiang was a late era warlord who used the KMT as a personal vehicle, and whose corruption and nepotism ruined the infant republic. There were better warlords for the west to have dealt with - Yan Xishan at least would have kept his hands out of the till - or Li Zongren. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::::well everyone to his own warlord. Fact is Chiang came to power in 1920s and remained so to 1940 with zero American help. I think we agree the US policy to support China in order to defeat Japan was a fiasco (this was Stillwell's idea.) --More on this in my WW2 articles to come. I did not drop the conspiracy interpretation of the late 1940s which was in the article for a months or years.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::''well everyone to his own warlord'' hehe - I once attended a lecture by Jack Gray who was an ardent fan of Wu Peifu. I think his argument was that because he had no fixed territorial power base, this showed not that he had drawn the short straw geographically, but that it meant he was a truly 'national' leader rather than all those regionalist cliques, Zhang Zuolin in Manchuria, Feng in the north-west, etc. I thought it a dubious argument then and still do. But anyway... Chiang held power from the 20s to the 40s, but he certainly relied on Communist help both in 1925-27 (and he was plotted against as much as plotting, I have no doubt), and at the Xian incident. If the Young Marshal had had him put up against a wall, and seized power for himself, rather than bottling it.... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:::the happy fact (not yet in the article) is that he created a regime on Taiwan with far less corruption and it historically led to a pro-US nation with capitalism and democracy. As for Christianity, the issue was active persecution of the missionaries. Chiang's highly public conversion helped change the status of Christians and reduced the persecution they sufferedin 1930s. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Latino ==

Could we please talk about it before reverting? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
::Yes indeed--I have explained my edits. I fixed a several little grammar issues, enlarged the map to make it legible, expanded the caption. We don't want to illustrate a U.S. article with a Mexican coach in Spain. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::: The image shows a latino, beening in the US or not he is a latino; it is illustrating the very first part of the article. It also shows that not all latinos are illegals or land workers. This is enough to have a place there. The map is much better where it was before according to the subject. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::get a better image. This person is a Mexican living in Spain. The map was to small to figure out. The article makes it very clear that only a minority of latinos are illegal[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

We use to lock the articles while in the Main Page. If you need to edit it, please let me know. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:00, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
::OK, no problem. I won't be working on it for a while. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:06, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== Warning ==

Please be more accurate in your edit summaries of "minor" edits. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
::sorry about that. I tried to change categories (Bryan was never a jurist) and the result was a bizarre edit I did not intend. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:40, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

== Newton ==

Hi, your calculus section in the [[Isaac Newton]] article had some conceptual errors in it -- I've rewritten the mathematics of this section appropriately. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 04:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::very nice job--thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:25, 3 November 2008 (EST)

==National Socialist German Workers Party==

Just to let you know, I'm not interested in getting into an edit war here, but the listing of the Allies led by the US, Russia and Britain is inaccurate. The term Allies (for WWII) applies to all the countries that opposed the Axis powers, and that list included 21 countries or blocs before the US joined in 1941. Obviously the effort of the Allies had to be co-ordinated in the years between 1939-41 so the question of who led the Allies during WWII is, at best, not something that can be easily dispensed with a single sentence. Furthermore, saying that Russia was an member of the Allies is inaccurate, it was the USSR which was a member of the Allies, of which Russia was a part (an equivalent example would be if the sentence had read that .....by the Allies, led by Texas, Russia and Britain).

As a compromise I suggest: ......and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the Allies, the major powers of which were the United States who led the Allied forces in Europe from 1941, the USSR (more commonly known as the Soviet Union) and Britain. [[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:03, 3/Nov/08 (GMT)
::the US joined the fighting in 1941 but had already been financing the war for both Britain and USSR, and was providing much of the munitions. Leadership also consists in setting strategy and policy which the US did--maybe 95% in the case of the war against Japan, 75% against Italy and say 40% in the case of Europe. As for the Soviets, they were Hitler's allies until June of 1941. You are right that USSR/Soviet is a better term than Russia. The debate should be on the article talk page, not here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Copied the debate over to the talk page.

== ''Germania'' ==

I loved to read your article on the German Americans. Thanks for posting it! --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:49, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Roosevelt ==

Why are you deleting sourced material from this article? Remember that the removal of relevant, sourced material from Conservapedia is considered vandalism. Please do not try to insert your own [[opinion]] into articles by censoring [[facts]]. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]] 14:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)
::the article is supposed to be about FDR and introducing red herrings hurts students. CZ rules clearly state: "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)

==[[Holocaust]] article==
The additions you placed in there now make that article repetative; things are said twice. It needs to be fixed so it runs smoothly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::you're right and I will try to smooth it out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:59, 10 November 2008 (EST)

== Category Military history ==

Thank you for your work on the project. When we create categories we use capitalization so the category should be Military History. I would also recommend that if you do feel that category is important, that it covers a specifically defined area. Perhaps it should probably deal with overlying changes in tactics or doctrine that has guided military functioning that has had a profound impact. I would not use it for things like Wars or Battles which already have their own categories.

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:32, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::thanks for the tip. I think the demand for article on military history is enormous--look at the very heavy emphasis at Borders and Barnes and Noble, for example. My college courses on military history attracted far more students than other history topics. Of course a specific topic may well overlap several categories. People will want to use our category pages as an index to what is available here. Discussions of tactics, strategy, technology and doctrine, for example, are often included in articles on specific wars. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:41, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President ==

Hello, please do not censor correct information in the [[First Black president]] article. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::what information was correct? it did not check out. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:04, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I notice you are a controversial editor who has never geneflected before Mr. Schlafly, and neither have you praised his wisdom and judgement in his fascinating revelation that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. Are you a Muslim sir? [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:57, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well actually more of a Catholic (a graduate of Notre Dame University class of 1962).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:01, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Are you more like Barack Obama, a [[Liberal]] who lies about his religion, and then subverts the office of the United States, and then deceives the American people and then institutes an Islamic Caliphate, giving control of our nuclear arsenal to Iran and Bin Laden? If this is what you are, then we are better off without you. [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:05, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::well no--but I was hoping Biden would be president--as a Catholic he will bring the Pope over to straighten us all aout. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:12, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I would rather the pope as my slavemaster than Bin Laden! Obama will, any day now I'm sure, give the nuclear launch codes to all of our enemies - Bin Laden, Iran, Satan, Green Goblin, France - and introduce an Islamic Caliphate to our great and glorious nation! Heel before the almighty Schlafly, only his logic and truth can save the world from the dark precipice it has gotten itself under! Only the bright and free can be saved! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 23:16, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==English and UK categories==

Question for you at [[Talk:William the Conqueror]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:26, 21 November 2008 (EST)

*Thanks for meeting me there, and now a question on ...

==World War II fatalities==

Thank for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Japan&curid=11154&diff=564889&oldid=555832&rcid=615850 this addition]. I had simply assumed that every Japanes soldier who died in WWII was directly killed by the US and its allies. Except maybe an insignificant number of accidents - oh, and the suicidal heroics of the [[Kamikaze]].

If a soldier dies from starvation, I'd lay that death at the feet of the man who sent him out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:01, 21 November 2008 (EST)
::I was also surprised at the numbers. I knew about the starvation on the isolated Pacific islands but was surprised at China numbers. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:10, 21 November 2008 (EST)

== Shays' Rebellion ==

I wander why the ''Block quote'' was deleted? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::it was too vague and did not add information to what was already covered regarding the impact of Shays' on the government. It took a left-wing approach that did not help any. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:28, 25 November 2008 (EST)

== The so-called Progressive Era? ==

*Sorry for removing a category you only created today, but CP likes to not make stand-alone narrow cats. Somehow we need an over-arching category to easily facilitate searches, and not just one per person. It might be easier to discuss adding categories somewhere, rather than just doing it.....or at least leaving a trail of bread crumbs for the less historically blessed to follow! :-D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:57, 30 November 2008 (EST)
::I agree. We need a page on CP where technical issues can be discussed and conventions established. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:14, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Additional privileges ==

Congratulations, you've earned the additional privileges of 24-hour editing, uploading images, and blocking others. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::hey thanks--I appreciate that! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:55, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Congrats. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:01, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::::Congratulations from me too. Well deserved! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:41, 2 December 2008 (EST)

==Oz pic==
Just uploaded it for the article: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Woz_movie.jpg] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:12, 4 December 2008 (EST)
::thanks--the visuals are great. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[Barry Goldwater]] ==

I see some recent stretching to include people like Goldwater as libertarians. You are too good a historian to muddle the waters with throw-away lines such as "many of his later views were libertarian". Yes? So? Many of his views would, today, be considered near leftist as well. ''Historians need to resist revisionism''. In his time, by his own definition, Goldwater rejected libertarianism, and self-branded himself a conservative. Goldwater did not believe in abortion as a substitute for abstaining or birth control, nor did he support "abortion on demand". Many views held by even Ted Kennedy could be considered "conservative", but that hardly gives license to brand him one, or make the statement "some of his views are conservative", that would be misleading, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:well I knew Goldater personally since 1958 and followed his career very closely. After 1980 or so he was libertarian on most social issues, while remaining conservative on defense and spending issues. In his heyday as a conservative leader (1960-64) he rarely mentioned social issues and they were seldom on the agenda. Here is what Bill Buckley said of Goldwater:
<blockquote>
''Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.''[http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200412101327.asp from National RreviewDec10, 2004]</blockquote>
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*Ditto for me. My family were neighbors at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, CA, for several decades. But this is straw snatching, trying to paint the man as a libertarian, by a few high-profile pronouncements later in life, to somehow add cred to the libertarian cause. Find your own hero's, but kindly do not snatch our conservative ones! I do not disagree with showing, with cites, his later libertarian views (many of which I agreed with), but putting him, and others, with the help of another libertarian editor, into the libertarian category, and implying some "conversion" isn't being honest. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::Conversion? well, I think Barry was always a libertarian but only became outspoken about it in the 1980s when social issues got high on the political agenda. When he was a leader of the conservative movement (1958-64) he rarely mentioned social issues of any kind--he never mentioned abortion, for example. (he did mention gays in 1964 in the Walter Jenkins scandal--a top LBJ aide was arrested during the election campaign-- but did not condemn it.) His libertarianism after 1980 was not a "few" statements it was his high profile fight to get O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He was at that time a very powerful Senator and his views are quite important. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*We mostly agree. Just please don't go adding him to the libertarian category, or make it seem he was not a conservative. We are obviously near-contemporary, and no doubt share the acquaintanceship/friendship of many, it seems. However to use your friendship and personal assumptions as to what he was, absent of his repudiating being a conservative, is wrong and purely anecdotal. That is my only objection. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm glad we agree. I was not the one who added the libertarian category. But he publicly announced his positions and angered a lot of Arizona conservatives by so doing. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I well remember! We should have a libation one day and swap old stories. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::::::I'll drink to that. I left Arizona this summer and we moved to Montana, but there's a bar and a casino on every corner here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[French Revolution]] ==
Hey, I noticed you're doing a bit of work around this area, and as you seem to be the resident historian, I thought I'd volunteer my services here, so you're free to do other area's that need some touching up or expanding. If there's any articles or stubs in the French Revolution section that need to be fixed, just let me know. Thanks [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)
::GREAT! we can use short articles on the major players and events. Suggestion use the facts from the online Columbia Encyclopedia at [http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col65&query=French+Revolution&x=0&y=0 Columbia Enyc srticles on French Rev.] -- it's very good. Be sure to summarize & rewrite the facts, not quote exactly. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:02, 8 December 2008 (EST)

:::OK I'll get right onto it. Thanks for the suggestion! [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:05, 8 December 2008 (EST)

==Medieval Cats==
As the person who has probably edited more articles on medieval history in the last few months than all other editors put together (including six pages in the last hour or two, if I had been told that there was a new category for "Medieval history" I could have saved you a heckova lotta work.:) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::you're doing a great job and I've been trying to clean up all sorts of categories. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:58, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::But are there any others I should know about? You see, on the 22nd I changed the cats of about 2 dozen English/British history entries. This new one could have been done at the same time. (And - just to let ''you'' know: I am thinking of starting a cat (sub-cat, whatever) for the "Wars of the Roses"....)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:16, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::what I did was go though all the articles in Category:European History and change the specific ones to specific countries, or eras. That cleans up European History and makes the other sub categories more useful. yes' War of Roses" car would be good idea [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:44, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Invitation to join Wikiproject:News ==

RJJensen, since you have contributed a wanted page in the past, you are invited to [[Wikiproject:News#Members|sign up]] as a member of [[Wikiproject:News]]. <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]]</nowiki> the Guidelines. Make your news suggestions <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]]</nowiki>. Add wanted pages [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page#Wanted_Pages_for_.22In_the_news.22_section_-_To_be_created|here]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:04, 28 December 2008 (EST)
::thanks for the invite; i just signed up. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==Dutch History==
RJ (if I may call you that), I see that you have replaced the material on Dutch fascism in the 1930s. I'm pleased that this was done under a separate heading, but I am still concerned that this gives a misleading impression of Dutch politics at the time (an analogy might be an assessment of American politics in the 1930s which only mentioned Charles Coughlin and the German 'Bund'). Would it be possible for you to give an overview of mainstream Dutch politics at this time, as even the NSB was a fringe organisation. As it stands, the article presents the Netherlands as a quasi-fascist nation. As the grandson of a Dutch patriot active in the resistance in the war years, this is extremely hurtful. I also altered the reference to liberation by Canadian troops to one recognising the role of all the allied forces - including my father, in the British Army. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:50, 31 December 2008 (EST)
::Thanks for the note. My intention all along is to emphasize the fascists were a fringe group. I'll rework it again to make that clear and give more emphasis to what the main parties were up to (following the Kossman book).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:48, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thank you very much. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:37, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy New Year! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:24, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations on your promotion to Sysop (Admin) status! This gives you many new privileges. Well deserved!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:42, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:Indeed! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 00:12, 1 January 2009 (EST)
Congrats RJJensen. I look forward to working with you this year. Now you can protect all the great images you upload. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:31, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::hey THANKS EVERYBODY--I promise that 2009 will be better than 2008. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 04:10, 1 January 2009 (EST)
:::Well done RJJensen, you have been a prodigious contributor here and the promotion is deserved. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:47, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::::and many congratulations (and happy new year!) from me too. I look forward to working even closer with you this year. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 06:23, 1 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:05, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Congrats and Happy New year! [[User:AddisonDM]]

::::: Happy New Year!

:::::: Congratulations on your promotion! --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

==Tuskegee==
They were real. Can I suggest an undelete minus the parody?--Jpatt 20:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::they were indeed real. They did not fight the Japanese. Booker T Washington died many years before. The article has to be redone from start, since all the "facts" in this version are now suspect. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:57, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::: Following Jpatt's suggestion, I wrote a new article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:49, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::::Looks fantastic--Jpatt 23:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:::::thanks :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:53, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==US Civil War==

Thanks for your massive additions (like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=American_Civil_War_homefront&curid=84224&diff=603647&oldid=603640 this one]). How do you find the time to do so much writing? --
::hey THANKS. It's retirement --I used to spend all that good time in committees. Now I just write. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:55, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Protecting images ==

I protected a number of images you uploaded (Image:Sherman2.jpg, Image:Weyrich.jpg, Image:1900HA.jpg, Image:~HANNA96.jpg). Please remember our policy of protecting all images. Thanks for your contributions to Conservpedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:42, 9 January 2009 (EST)
::thanks--I'll keep protecting them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:19, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: Thanks much for your insights. I've learned tremendously from them. However, as Dean says, it would be great if you could click "protect" at the bottom after you upload a new image, and then click on "Administrators Only" to give them the greatest protection. I just did that for your two most recent uploads. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== Third Party v Third Party System ==

Your opinion is sought! [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Third_Party_System#Merge.3F] --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:01, 13 January 2009 (EST)

== Democratic Governors category ==
There is already a [[:Category:Democrat Governors]]. If you are planning a move from that category to the new one, then please disregard this message. Otherwise, I wanted to catch you before you got halfway through. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 20:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
::OK --it was my mistake (I have been trying to repair lost edits from the last week). [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:56, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::Yeah, me too. I lost about 300 edits, including the lists of governors you were kind enough to add bibliologs to. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 11:36, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Blago ==

I understand what your thinking is, RJ, but in this case you are too idealogical, and giving the liberals far too much credit. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:52, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::when we make serious allegations they have to be based on serious evidence or we are guilty of bearing false witness. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:50, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::No,we are using plain old conservative common sense, RJ. The legislature didn't have evidence of anything, and until the United States Attorney presents his case in a Federal Court, and a jury convicts him, the will of the people should never be overturned by some legislature, based solely upon some contrived "disability" of being unpopular, having low poll numbers. If you don't want to cooperate, and accept the ruling of a senior administrator, so be it. But Mr. Schlafly has made his position crystal clear on this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:14, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::::The rule throughout American history is that the legislature can impeach the executive for any reason. Conviction for crime is not necessary. What is the "will of the people"? The Founding Fathers were pretty clear that the will of the people resided in the legislature. My discussion with Schlafly was on an different issue; it had to do with the powers of the state supreme court to intervene (that is a moot question since it did not intervene).

== Economic Recovery Advisory Board ==

Is this an article you want to tackle, or perhaps have research or ancillary information on? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:51, 7 February 2009 (EST)

:good idea. I just wrote [[Economic Recovery Advisory Board]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:50, 13 February 2009 (EST)

::Super! And I was just being nice making sure you could log in, never thinking once about this article I knew was needed....;-) Glad it worked out. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:27, 13 February 2009 (EST)

==Velikovsky==
Richard, I left a question for you on the [[Talk:Immanuel_Velikovsky|Velikovsky talk page]], regarding category tags. --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 08:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:I left another comment regarding yours, on the [[Talk:Immanuel_Velikovsky|Velikovsky talk page]], --[[User:Eric2009|Eric2009]] 12:25, 14 February 2009 (EST)

== Your edits to [[Scopes trial]] ==

Dr. Jensen, your recent edits to the [[Scopes trial]] delete important information and introduce unjustified statements, like calling the [[atheist]] and stridently anti-Christian [[H.L. Mencken]] a "cultural conservative." We can discuss further on [[Talk:Scopes trial]] if you like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:40, 14 February 2009 (EST)
::Mencken is one of the most famous names in the history of American conservatism. He ignored the religious questions and ridiculed the backwoods types. That's true and important to know. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:42, 14 February 2009 (EST)

::: Mencken was one of worst anti-Christian bigots ever. It's indisputable and completely distorted his reporting on the Scopes trial. And it wasn't just Christians whom Mencken was bigoted against.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:01, 14 February 2009 (EST)
:::: all true enough but he was a cultural conservative and strongly influenced libertarian thinking against government--and many people's ridicule of the South. Bryan of course was the leading big government liberal of the 1890-1930 era, which made him Mencken's target.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:28, 14 February 2009 (EST)

This really should be discussed on the article's talk page, where I've just added my comments. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:15, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Category: Naval Battles ==

I don't think that Horatio Nelson belongs in that category. He is an admiral, not a battle. [[User:DuncanB|Duncan]][[User talk:DuncanB|Channel 16]] 15:34, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::the article is what gets categorized, and the article talks about naval battles in an important way.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:35, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I am trying to figure out why Trafalgar didn't make it into [[:Category:Naval Battles]], at least not when I click on it.. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:36, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::well it certainly belongs! please add it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:37, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:::What I was getting at was that although you had changed the cat to "Naval Battles", for some reason it wasn't showing up on the Cat. page. I deleted it on the Article then added it and it has now come up. A mystery. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:49, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:;::good job! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:12, 16 February 2009 (EST)

==Vandalism patrol==

RJ, thanks for your recent efforts to block vandals and undo their damage. I don't know why some people enjoy messing up other people's work. Maybe they are intellectually lazy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:16, 17 February 2009 (EST)
::well at least we attact a better class of vandals than Wikipedia! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:28, 17 February 2009 (EST)

:::LOL, I think. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)

==Criminals and folk heroes==

What about that [[Che Guevera]] guy? Why is it that people who say they care about the poor and the oppressed lionize (idolize, idealize) murderers like Che? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:14, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Cartoon ==

That pork factory thingy is a nice cartoon, but I'm not sure about the "fair use". Wouldn't "fair use" be if we put the image in an article ''about the cartoon itself'', or in an article about a controversy caused by the image?

From the copyright office's website:

<blockquote>
“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
</blockquote>

I'm worried this might get the site into hot water.

Sincerely,
[[User:EMaurice|EMaurice]] 11:24, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::no educational use has ever gotten into any legal hot water by using items like this that have been posted on the internet for free. CP uses the cartoon to comment upon a current news event, which is a legally protected form of fair use according to Congress. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:::I'm not sure that the fact that no-one has been prosecuted for it means it's legal. If we go down that road, we'll be just like the bums who get into debt and then ask the taxpayer to help them, claiming they didn't know what they were doing. And as for using the cartoon to comment, how is that under fair use? Fair use would be for commenting about the cartoon itself. Every big newspaper has a free online section. Would the Washington Post accept the Washington Times copying one of their cartoonists? Do you see what I mean? Thanks, [[User:EMaurice|EMaurice]] 11:46, 19 February 2009 (EST)
::::Congress says that fair use applies to nonprofit educational use, and the courts have always agreed. The Washington Times is a commercial operation and different rules apply to them. (The worst case scenario is that the copyright owner asks us to remove the cartoon, and we do so.) Conservatives need to uphold their legal and constutional rights or they lose them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 19 February 2009 (EST)

== Parodists ==
It would seem we have two users in need of a lengthy block, and you appear to be the only one present with block rights. See Ed Poor's talk page please! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::thanks for the heads-up. I'll be watching but so far I have not seen anthing more serious than a debate on chemistry. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:31, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:::The manganese edit was 100% wrong, so he's (KrisTree) a parodist. But everything which he's said about the other guy is actually pretty correct, and GFasten did indeed put up a stupid Bollywood video which was later reverted. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:34, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::::No the manganese edit was not 100% wrong (it is used in steel), and there is such a book as "Salters Chemistry". There may be errors but that is not the same as parody. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== The View From 1776...Tom Brewton ==

Presented for your inspection and consideration.....

* [http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/the_limitations_of_econometric_computer_models/ The Limitations of Econometric Computer Models]

* [http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/tooth_fairy_economics/ TOOTH FAIRY ECONOMICS]
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:42, 22 February 2009 (EST)
::Thanks-- I enjoyed reading that! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 08:51, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== Gibbs ==

Thank you, good Doctor! Whenever I read something where the basic, minimum essentials are missing, and people are already arguing over rather common political tricks, I see red. Thanks for jumping in, but let's not save the protagonists from having to do some due diligence as well, okay? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:39, 3 March 2009 (EST)
::right! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:13, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== CENTRISTS CONCERNED ==

[http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/centrists_concerned/] It’s noteworthy that political moderates who supported President Obama in the election are worried that they may have been misled, that traditionalists’ forebodings may have been on the mark. Amazing! ;-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 6 March 2009 (EST)
::thanks for the tip. I don't see a connection between Obama and the Social Gospel Movement myself, and the Socialists of 1910 (who included just ONE Social Gospeller, an obscure professor at Vassar) wanted to destroy the banks, not subsidize them. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:35, 6 March 2009 (EST)
:::Email Tom...he's a nice chap. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 6 March 2009 (EST)

==Pearl Harbor edit==
Had to revert your edit to Pearl Harbor. The Air Force did not exist until 1947; prior to that it was the U.S. Army Air Corps. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
::the name was changed in 1941 -- before Pearl Harbor--to US Army Air Forces. There was no longer an "Air Corps". [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:48, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Can you add Obama's ignorant, disgusting joke to the front page news? ==

Joke here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXcgpZwsBPY]. Obama apologist Olbermann's desperate plea to comedian Craig Furgeson(sp?) to find an excuse - any excuse - to allow Obama to get away with the joke here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD0EcujFSn8]. Note that Craig immediately recognizes the joke for what it is and doesn't give the kind of answer Olbermann was hoping for. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:15, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:On the [[Jay Leno]] show, Obama quipped that his bowling score of 129 was "like the [[Special Olympics]] or something". My question was whether he was putting himself down (i.e., being humble) in an innocent, lighthearted way - or whether (as his detractors are eager to say) he was making a derogatory reference to handicapped people. [[Craig Ferguson]] grimaced and called the reference "a misstep". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
:*I read later that he called up the Special Olympics and apologized - even before the show aired. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:::That's called "damage control." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Beating him up for a slip like that is called A "[[personal attack]]". I would rather we contributors focus on principles and facts than on personalities. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:55, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

==Stimulus bill==

Thank you for continuing to work with me. My text moves are not to be taken as Editorial Prerogative. Feel free to reverse my edits when they don't make sense. What I want to do is collaborate, to work together to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:53, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
::Ed--thanks for your stimulus to my thinking! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:54, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::LOL, there's a [[Volvo]] radio ad I've heard dozens of times which talks about "stimulating your stimulus". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

==Featured article==
Congrats on getting a weekly featured article! The financial crisis.
[[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
::hey thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:13, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

==A Glitch?==
This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Gresham_Machen&diff=644407&oldid=644405] looks like a glitch. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 12:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
::yes my "oops" (I was trying to move the reflist). Thanks for the good work--Machen has never looked so good in the last 70 years. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:22, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

== World History Lectures ==

I really enjoy your contributions. In fact, reading them drove me to Conservapedia. Couldn't you do some fact-checking on the '''World History Lectures''' of Aschlafly? [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 15:56, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the nice words. I'll keep my eyes open. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:03, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Could you shed some light on [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:World_History_Lecture_Nine#Prussia_vs._Germany this discussion?] Thanks! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:13, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
:::I suggest the best approach is to propose an improved sentence for the text. think positive. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:21, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

==Thanks==
I see you've been doing some really good work this past week, and thanks! We need more editing like that. Great job. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 23:03, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
::HEY--thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:04, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

==Attribution==
Please endeavor to give proper attribution for the articles you are taking from Citizendium. A copy of our license is available on the front page of the site. Thank you. [[User:Citizendium|Citizendium]] 15:47, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

*'''He does, and was the original author of the items he has placed here.''' I was unaware, "Citizendium", you are a German encyclopedia, being that is where your ISP is located. Another fraud/troll bites the dust. Bye. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:57, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

==Historian?==

Are you really Richard Jensen? I read your midwest book when I was younger (If indeed you are) [[User:JamesFerguson|JamesFerguson]] 16:32, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
::yes. I wrote it when I was 24 years old. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:33, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

==Democrats and casual sex==

Jensen, I noticed that you deleted [[Democrats and casual sex|this article]], citing "inappropriate content". While I certainly find the actions of the Democrats to be inappropriate, I don't find the content of the article to be inappropriate. It was written without going into the lewd details of the online solicitations, but with enough evidence to incriminate the Democrats. Hard data doesn't lie: the Democratic convention had that spike in postings, while the RNC, which happened ''after'' and thus was under more scrutiny, did not have the spike in postings. It's a black and white testament to who actually lives family values, and therefore who has the family values in mind. Democrats may talk all they want about upholding morals, but their actions, ''especially'' those done in secret, tell a completely different story, one replete with [[duplicity]].

Furthermore, I'd argue precedent: this content has been listed in the articles on the [[2008 Democratic National Convention]] for some time. When I created the standalone article, I was pleasantly surprised to find the content had already been dutifully reported on CP. If you would, could you please restore the article? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:00, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::tens of thousands of people attend major conventions, so they all generate huge amounts of business. Not encyclopedic. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:19, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I agree with Jensen. Pot/Kettle? Given the sex scandals that have and continue to hit both parties, singling out one of them is not the best road to go down..... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:31, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
:::tk is ok. We have lots of middle school kids and tehy shouldn't be wasting their time on this stuff when they can read about Henry VIII. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:11, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Kingdom of the Netherlands ==

Could you move [[Kingdom of the Netherlands]] to the [[Netherlands]]? (See [[Talk:The_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands#The_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands_is_not_the_Netherlands.21|here]]) Thanks, [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 13:24, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::ok--good idea. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:::Thanks again! [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 14:30, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Arguing only.... ==

This: [http://www.conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_Nine] is exactly what I was talking about. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:42, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Pilgrim's Progress ==

Hi - sorry to bother. When you edited [[Pilgrim's Progress]] earlier, did the images load ok? For some reason I am only seeing an empty frame, yet the code looks correct and I am about to pull my hair out figuring out what is wrong! --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:03, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
::the images did not load --probably because they are too big. I can resize them now if you want. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:12, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
:::I would really appreciate that! Thank you so much. (I know it is a physical impossibility, but it seems I too have blonde moments *grin*) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:17, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
::::yes it works! (I made the map smaller) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:37, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::Thank you again! That is one I owe you. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 09:49, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

== Fake Quotes ==
I will no longer use BrainyQuote.com, publishers of fake quotes. Thanks for the correction.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:05, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
::good idea. it's weird how so many quotes get faked these days. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:30, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

== Internet Vandals ==

Some of these anti-intellectual vandals and trolls were having some fun at your expense, Richard. If you've gotten wind of it, or hear of it at some point, pay it no mind. Mainly just a group of malcontented trolls who frequent several sites, and of course the usual gang of young teen vandals all too common to the Internet. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:28, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--yes they do get under my skin :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:30, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Oh, BTW:
<blockquote>
Lending at the biggest U.S. banks has fallen more sharply than realized, despite government efforts to pump billions of dollars into the financial sector.

According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Treasury Department data, the biggest recipients of taxpayer aid made or refinanced 23% less in new loans in February, the latest available data, than in October, the month the Treasury kicked off the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The total dollar amount of new loans declined in three of the four months the government has reported this data." [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124019360346233883.html#mod=rss_whats_news_us]
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:33, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the tip. I'll keep updating the article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:42, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

== Great effort ==

Great effort cleaning up the vandalism this morning! You might observe that vandalism is almost perfectly correlated with products of the political left.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
::thanks. they are nettlesome gnats. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:54, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Redneck ==

Perhaps it would be more accurate to state it was historically a derogatory term, but that since the late 1950's it has been co-opted by the targets of the term, and in modern usage it isn't necessarily viewed as a negative? Think Jeff Foxworthy, etc. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
::good point! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:18, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Richard! I remember that cartoon, too! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:45, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
::::It's one of my favorites. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:51, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

== [[Socialism]] ==

RJ, when you get a moment, could you look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Socialism#Grammatical_Edit_and_Rebuttal this?] The editor wants to add what he feels is a needed rebuttal to what he feels is something too pro-socialist...I don't see what he's getting at, but do want to accommodate him if possible. Since most of the work there is now yours, I am deferring to your judgment. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:12, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
::OK I worked on it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:09, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Lenin ==

Hey RJJensen, so, you're ''much'' better at history than I am, but I do feel compelled to ask about your moving of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin to Lenin (I put the full reasons on the talk page) - simply because I feel precedent would have us use his full name, but the reason I'm posting here is just to clarify that I in no way mean to question you and the request is in no way meant as an insult - I have a lot of respect for you and I just want to make sure there won't be a misunderstanding. Thanks!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:20, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the note--no offense taken and i'm glad you asked disguise his identity and so it should not be treated like ordinary names. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:42, 2 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Understood - thanks very much! --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:47, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Lol, sorry about the misspelled name! I can't believe I did that ... in all seriousness though it really is awesome to work with you - so if you ever need a template or anything done, lemme know.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:25, 3 May 2009 (EDT)
::hey thanks--I'm a klutz at progamming and appreciate the help. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:31, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

== Quotes ==
Trying to determine if a quote is a fake. I tried Google, it comes up everywhere with blogs only. I tried Google books, about 5 come up. I would think credible historical sites would list if true. Can you confirm Thomas Jefferson "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:02, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
::I searched around and it appears to be a fake. All genuine Jefferson quotes are well represented in books.google.com [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:20, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

== "the best"? ==

What constitutes the best prose writer? I would imagine that it is impossible to say in a way that does not involve a whole lot of personal opinion, which as you know is not the kind of objective fact you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. From what I gather you yourself are not an Italian literature scholar, and even if you can read Italian extremely well and have read a good deal of Italian prose I really don't think you can say "he is the best", simply because, as I just said, its subjective. thanks --[[User:MrEmerson|MrEmerson]] 20:48, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::objective fact---hmmm. what sort of facts are those? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:13, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

:::I suspect liberal "facts", RJ. What is indisputeable is he wasn't a very good sockmaster! Brendanw, EmersonW, MrEmerson and several accounts that look like IP's were all his. Sorry to ruin your fun with this guy...I didn't see you had engaged him until after I had begun shutting him down. Next time I will let you have fun with them! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:23, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::::yeah--my goal is to drive them away redfaced and yours is to catch them red-handed (red moused?) :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:30, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

ROFL! Whatever happened to the apparently archaic practice of playing outside? Worries me these little kids no longer play outside.... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:33, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
::on Wikipedia I once was so annoyed by vandals that I complained to the school's principal in New Jersey. since they weren't harrassing HIM, he ignored my complaint. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:46, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Sherry Lansing, once in the motion picture business, has lived her business life by one rule: she never leaves the office without returning, or attempting to return ALL calls. No matter that she doesn't know the person, or they end up being someone complaining about a movie they saw. Once, at a charity deal, I asked her why. She winked and said several of those calls had made her millions in good ideas or a writer looking for someone to buy their script. She just hated the thought of being rude and not responding, saying her mother raised her better than that. Sounds like that principal is reaping what he sows. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:47, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

==Revert==
Please revert User:ForTheWin's edits (I would myself, but I can't revert past one edit :(

==Thanks==
Thanks for the nice comments on my page! I am very excited for Princeton in the fall. I'll also definitely look up Liz Jensen - aerospace engineering, wow, that's great! I am considering engineering also, with mechanical/aerospace engineering near the top of my list. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:56, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
::you might have Liz as your TA -- she loves to teach. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:04, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

== Upload ==

Can you give me upload picture rights?--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  00:42, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
::I don't have the power; ask [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]].--[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:47, 13 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Just out of curiosity, would you give it to me if you could?--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  01:01, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Austria ==

Hello RJJensen. Just wanted to let you know that you mistakenly moved the picture of Stephansdom in Passau over to the page on Austria. Living in Austria myself, I can attest that Passau is indeed in Germany, and Vienna's Stephansdom looks nothing like this picture! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:33, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for that. my mistake. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:59, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

== Excuse me, sir! ==

Sir, you seem to be an in-charge-type around here. This being so, could you inform me how to upload images, as I can't find the button that I am so used to using on other wikis.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 00:17, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Furthermore... ==

What's more, the page D.C.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=D.C&redirect=no] is currently locked, and yet it's only a double-redirect. Could you, as an admin, fix this? Thank you.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 00:23, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

And while we're on the topic, [[President Harry S. Truman]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=President_Harry_S._Truman&redirect=no] has the same problem. Poor Harry.
Thanks again.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 00:26, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
:: technical pages (like the Truman and DC examples) should not be altered. To request a picture upload goto [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:31, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you for the response! While we're on the topic, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Gary_glitter] is completely devoid of content. Could you unlock it or, preferably, destroy it?--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 00:35, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::::I could partially fix a few. However, the Truman article is problematic inasmuch as it should be titled "Harry S. Truman" not "Harry Truman". Lots of links, however, so I will work on changing them and moving the main article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:38, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==Silly stuff==

Could you check Gianni's contribs? [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Gianni] I think a lot of it is just random silliness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:09, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
::I was just looking at those. agreed. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:10, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

== Plymouth Brethren ==

This article wasn´t accepted by liberal wikipedia, why you refuse it in Conservapedia, please give reasons.

== Conservapedia:Featured articles ==

Any proposal for new articles? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 19:45, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
::how about [[Atlanta]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 03:58, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::: Done, now you may vote. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:32, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

==Vandalism==

Please revert my bad joke (see [[Counter Reformation]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:44, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:Oh, so you '''are''' awake ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:00, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
::well I make too many typos when I write in my sleep, so I have a stiff cup of coffee right now. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:04, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

==new article==
Maybe you can add some historical background to my new article [[Melting pot]]. If so, thanks! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 22:24, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
::yes...it's a favorite topic of mine. Thanks for getting it started! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 05:12, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

== Labour Pary ==

*Why do you keep vandalizing my correction on the "Labour Party" article. Stop it! The Labour Party IS a socialist party. The party officially describes itself as "democratic socialist." And by the way, Tony Blair has never officially renounced socialism. American conservatives need to get over this ridiculous idea that just because Blair supported the War on Terror that means he is a conservative. He's not! --- [[User:AmerICan|AmerICan]] 19:00, 11 June 2009 (EDT)
::take it to the talk page first or you will get banned for vandalism. Thanks. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:01, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for your helpful corrections to my new pages for the Obama czars! I'm new here, and looks like I went a bit overboard with the speculation into non-neutrality -- my summaries were written more as an anti-wikipedia than as truly neutral articles. I'll try to be more neutral in the future!
::and thank you for taking the initiative! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:44, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

==Lusitania==
Whay are you insistant on hiding any information on the cargo of that ship, and why are you removing historical information? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:05, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::CP should condemn terrorism against helpless civilians, as all the world did at the time. The Germmans are the ones who tried to justify their actions, but they sank an unarmed undefended passenger ship deliberately in order to terrify the British. I added the German captain's own war diary account, which gives the German perspective. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:09, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Yes, I agree, and I would have posted the sub's war diary as well if and when I found it, but the fact remains that you have removed needed material from the article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:11, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::::well what historical material do you think should be included? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:22, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::The past and present allegations pertaining to its munitions cargo and the current archaeological findings as reported in ''Archaeology'' Magazine and others; pertinent information regarding its passengers, sailing date, and final moments off Ireland; the German warnings in the New York Times, its declaration of the war zone around the British Isles, and its belief that ''Lusitania'' was carrying war cargo; current condition of the ship, the attempted destruction of the wreck by the British Government in the 1950's, and the case involving the owners of the wreck vs. the Irish Government...in short, just about everything. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:31, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::most of the info is in there. There should be a separate section on archaeology (which is ongoing--Wiki has some of the details). The "munitions" bit is a red herring that Germans used to justify killing innocent Americans. We need to keep an American perspective, not that of the discredited Kaiser's government that used terrorism and war crimes routinely. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:37, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Read what I posted here [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Lusitania_warnings.png][http://www.conservapedia.com/File:WashingtonpostMay8_1915.jpg]; period newspaper reports from the Washington Post which suggest that ''Lusitania's'' captain scoffed at the danger from Germany. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:04, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::yes the ship shouild have been zig-zagging as ordered. not a good reason to kill americans. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:15, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
So, would a discussion of illegal arms shipments by the Wilson administration in contrast to the [[Iran contra affair]] be innappropriate? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:02, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::No, not true and not appropriate. and please if you insist on showing bias at least make it a pro-American bias, not anti-American. Better yet is no bias using the best scholarship. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:38, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Is being critical of Iran contra anti-American bias? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:41, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::left wing biases are unwelcome here.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:59, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::Not necessarily so, solong as they are cited as such. Under those circumstances, they provide balance. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:02, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

==Let's cut to the chase==
Here's the biggest problem you have to deal with: the Founder of the Roosevelt Presidential Library, [[Trude Lash]], was a [[Stalinist]] [[KGB]] operative. How do you propose we deal with this? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:34, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
::I was at the fdr Library last week and talked to the archivist personally. What's the problem? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:35, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm still working on the Trude Lash material, you'll have to give me at least a few days. Incidentally, did you ever see this one at Hyde Park:
::::5. Joseph A. Michela, Military Attache Moscow Report 1903, "N.K.V.D. of the U.S.S.R.," 14 April 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Harry Hopkins Papers, "MID Reports--USSR--Volume V," box 190.
:::all six pages [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/part1.htm available here] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:28, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
Excerpted p.5:
:''Any governmental organization that has a crying need for labor simply calls upobn the N.K.V.D to supply it. If the amount of labor is insufficient to supply the need, it is relatively an easy matter to institute a reign of terror on any pretext and fill up the labor colonies to meet requirements. There is little doubt that during the purges of the past, one eye was kept on the labor needs of government projects...."'' [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/5d.gif]
That's only a random selection, there's much more. And this is dated six months before Pearl Harbor. Many Americans had to wait till the 1970s and Solzhenitsyn's book to hear of this. All our reliable sources told us up til then was Harry and Uncle Joe got on like a "house of fire." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:40, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::I did not see that particular document but I did see others like it. FDR founded the FDR Library, not Trude Lash. The FDR Library received the FDR papers only after FDR died--there were no secret documents there during the war years.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:06, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

:::FDR founded the library? Where the papers his personal property when he did so? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:59, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
::::The archivist told me that FDR raised $400,000 in 1940 to build the library on his property at Hyde park. He deeded it to the federal government. Since his death the government (National Archives) has owned and operated it; they moved his papers there in the late 1940s. Trude Lash her Joseph Lash husband years later set up a separate private FDR institute that runs academic programs. I'm not sure about Trude's politics but her husband Joseph Lash was the leading ANTI-Communist in student affairs in 1939 when he met Eleanor and they became close friends. Eleanor strongly encouraged Joe's marriage to Trude in 1944. Joe Lash and ER were key leaders of the anti-communist movement in the US in the late 1940s.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:07, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::That structure, the government holding the deed to the FBI Library would then be different from other Presidential libraries under current law. So this is what you've been told.
:::::Two points. Let's clarify, (a) [[Joseph Lash]] was an anti-communist? even Wikipedia cites Joseph Lash heading a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_front#Alleged_CPUSA_front_organizations.2C_circa_1944 Communist front organization]] on the [[Attorney General]]'s list in 1944 (Attorney General Francis Biddle, that is. M.Stanton Evens says the FDR administration established this list in 1941).
:::::(b) were the FDR papers, moved to his personal residence, considered FDR's personal property? This obviously relates to Nixon taking a tax deduction for the donation of his vice-presidential papers, seeing that by precedent, FDR & Lyndon Johnson's papers were regarded as thier personal property. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:39, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::Lash had been a fellow traveler in the 1930s, broke with the Communists in 1939, and became the #1 anti-communist student leader. (he resigned from the Am. Youth Congress in 1940 when the reds took it over.) He later was a founder of the ADA, the leading anti-communist group in the late 1940s. FDR did not consider the presidential papers to be his personal property, but he did have many non-presidential papers. (For example, his widow sold off his stamp collection.) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:11, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

::::::::Really? our sources say [[American_Youth_Congress#Dies_investigation| he defected from the Socialist Party]] to the Comintern in 1937 (the source being none other than himself <s>Trude Lash</s>). And that still doesn't explain how he ends up on the wartime [[Attorney General's list]] of [[subversive]] organizations. If memory serves me correct, there were only a dozen or so subversive organizations when the list began under FDR in 1941, of which Joe Lash's [[American Youth Congress]] is one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:06, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::ER Encylopedia says: ''"the Soviet Union signed a nonaggression pact with Germany in August 1939. Led by Joseph Lash, a founder and executive secretary of the ASU, a number of members condemned the Soviet action. Although communists were a minority of the ASU, by this time they held a majority of the leadership positions and exerted powerful control over the organization’s national board. Communist ASU officers condemned Lash for his views, organized a successful campaign to vote him out of office, and adopted a communist, anti–New Deal, isolationist position."'' (p 15) It notes that most members then quit the ASU and many joined the new anti-communist International Student Service (ISS) which Lash headed. Lash was not on the Attorney General's list because it only listed organizations--it named groups that Lash had quit or been expelled from years before. SEE [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,763168,00.html TIME story Jan 8 1940] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:36, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::So the time has come to do a [[Joe Lash]] bio; this has been on my to-do list for many years.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:52, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::yes, he's interesting. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:59, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

==-SDA page==

The SDA page is now well written and informative, (good writer) and though i think the controversies as well as the changes from the 1950's interaction are important (the apologetics index link helped), i am sorry you got some of the overflow of my grief from the original condition.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:49, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--I'm glad that we're agreed [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:00, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

== Random Question ==
Are you the same R. J. Jensen that studied the fallacy of the NINA signs!?!? If you are I admire your work!!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 09:57, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--that's me. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:40, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
:::Wow! I was absolutely fascinated by that article! My son showed the article to his liberal history teacher who was preaching the victimization of the Irish. Your work brought him the truth and converted him! He now teaches the fallacy of the NINA signs!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 23:19, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::delighted to hear that. I still get ^%%$^ everry March 17 from poor victims. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:33, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::Haha! Oh the Irish! Always the "victims" of something!

== Featured articles ==

Your help is needed. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:47, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

== on vacation ==

I've been on the road the last few weeks with limited time and limited access to internet. I'll be back in early August.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:41, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

: I am also out of town; hope you could have some time to give your opinion over future featured articles. Good luck and nice vacations. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:44, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

== Obamunism ==

RJ, I certainly agree with you that Bush's bailouts were bad for the American economy. However, to add Bush in a sentence I was just working on in the article made the sentence far too long and complicated so I removed the material about Bush being involved in corporate bailouts. I also think that since the article is about Obamamunism, the article should first focus on Obama. With that being said, I certainly would not object to any material added to the article about Bush's corporate bailouts, but I think it should be done later in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:08, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
::ok [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 02:11, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== quick note bush vs. Obama bailouts ==

It is true that Bush initiated the corporate bailout process. However, I do not know if it could be said that Bush did far more bailing out in terms of magnitude of dollars spent, so I abridged your material. However, if you can show that the magnitude of Bush bailout expenditures exceeded Obama's, I certainly would not want to obscure or hide this matter. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:25, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== libertarian vs. conservative republicans ==

Conservative republicans and libertarians were opposed to bush bailouts, but I know they two camps differ on social issues like abortion so i altered the sentence to just mention the phrase advocates of free market capitalism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:30, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
:agreed.

::I added the $ details. TARP is the #1 bailout program--demanded by Bush and signed by him in Oct 2008--at $700 billion. That money covers the banks and GM bailouts, for example. In addition Bush gave guarantees for hundreds of billions of toxic assets for AIG, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac (as well as some banks like Wachovia and Washington Mutual)--how much of the guarantee $$$$ actually will be spent is a big unknown as of today. Some specific details are at [[Financial Crisis of 2008]]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 02:34, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== request ==

RJJensen,

I know that the libertarians have been very active on the economic freedom front in the USA as far as educating the public. Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente (although he does not call himself a libertarian, I believe he is as far as his outlook), and the Ludwig von Mises Institute come to mind.

I am guessing you are a libertarian and I think August could be an important month as far as future economic freedom in the USA as Obama does not want to be defeated on the health care issue which will cause him to lose political momentum among other things.

Would you be interested in creating these articles:

[[Obama admistration deficit spending]]

[[Obama administration corporate bailouts]]

[[Obama administration fiscal policy]]

[[Obama admistration monetary policy]]

Please let me know if you are interested as your assistance would be appreciated.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:45, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

==Can you delete==

On the wanted pages i noticed ‎49 links to a "Zachary Robeson", and like you, i can find no such person, but this name is yet listed in the Famous Explorers section of apparently 49 pages. Can you somehow do a mass delete of this? I surmise it was designed with ill intent. Thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 11:24, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
::I can't find any link to him. ?? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:37, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
:::I think he's right: [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Zachary_Robeson]]. It looks like the link is always in the Famous Explorers box at the bottom, so I'm guessing it only needs to be changed once, I just don't know where to do it. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:45, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
::::OK i deleted it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:49, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Thanks RJ and Daniel! It was yet another hidden bit of vandalism/lies inserted by blocked user BrianCo when he created the template originally. There have been several of the same removed since I blocked him, serving as vindication for me of just what and who he was; BrianCo is a proved liar and troll. Any previous edits by this discredited user from a vandal site, should be given a thorough going over whenever you come across them. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:23, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

:Actually, Zachary Robeson was a parody article created by the blocked user Czolgolz. I reported it some time ago and it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=RJJensen&page=&year=&month=-1 deleted] by RJJensen. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 15:34, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

:*'''''Actually, OscarJ,''''' the template, the navigation template, was made by the liar BrianCo, who kept that article alive for months. Upon Daniel posting here, Dr. Jensen also removed the false article created by Czolgolz, a member of the very same vandal site as BrianCo, from the navigation template. But it was indeed BrianCo who added that false article to the template. Please refrain from trying to present confirmed vandals and liars like BrianCo in a positive light here. Disinformation isn't tolerated. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:20, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

:::Good work. But now even the White house is looking for reports on anything fishy.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:01, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

==Persons in the Bible==
Hi again. I created a page for Hoshea (high priest), as it was listed in the [[Special:WantedPages]], but i think it really should be Joshua the high priest, (Zec. 3:1) which the page i made is about, as i find no list that positively ID's Hoshea as a high priest, or renders Yehoshua by that name (the two are different in Hebrew), though i could be wrong. Also wanted was a page on Jehoirarib, which i made, but which i think is a misspelling of Jehoiarib (one 'r'), which again is who the page is about. I think all the calls for these two wanted pages are due to their being part of a template. Thanks and praise God. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:05, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
::OK I Can fix that. exactly what should I do???

:::I would change the Hoshea to Joshua the high priest, and Jehoirarib to Jehoiarib in the template used for [[High_Priest]]. Yet that page is really about the [[High priest]], which itself is a non-existent, wanted page, and so maybe the latter title should take the place of the former. You might see the competition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Priests_of_Israel. In addition, i cannot find any reference to a Joran at all, and that is listed on that template. Perhaps you can find out who made that. The rest look ok for now.

:::Also (if that is not confusing enough), among other issues which pertain to Biblical topics, fornication is a requested page(9 pages red link to it), as it was deleted due to vandalism. I recently incorporated the Biblical definition into the [[sex]] article, so either that could serve as a redirect or i could create a page with that in it, but which should afterward be protected. Maybe you could do one on [[Vice President]] ‎(12 links) some time. Thanks.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:35, 7 August 2009 (EDT)

:::More research shows that Jotham is most doubtful as being a high priest. Not as the youngest son of Gideon, nor as the son of King Uzziah (who intruded into the priests office) WP does have Jotham in its list of high priests, supposing he was the son of Azariah, who was a high priest (son of Zadok), but in this case his father was actually Uzziah, who was sometimes referred to as Azariah (Jerushah) as the name means the same. The last reference is to a descendant of Judah, son of Jahdai. 1Ch_2:47). "of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." (Heb. 7:14)

:::I have tracked down the apparent source of these names, via a reference in the page to Axiomar by JY23: http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/highpriests.wps.htm No source is provided for this extensive list, and i will email him for more info. Best hold off on any changes till further notice. Sorry for the confusion.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 10:49, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
::::oK --it's too uncertain now to make changes so I will wait till you're satisfied. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:32, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: Gentlemen, I think you have the wrong Hoshea. The Hoshea that I was planning to discuss was the immediate successor to Azariah III; he served under [[Manasseh King of Judah]]. The other Joshua served alongside governor Zerubbabel during the reign of the Persian king Darius I.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:53, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::There are three by that name or (Oshea), but the problem is i could not find any that were verifiably a high priest, and the template it listed him as such, along with Jotham. I did get a brief email back (8-10) from the author of the page where this list evidently came from, but all he said was, "you ask the source for the genealogies of the high-priests, well, it was contained in the abbreviated version of "Joshua" [aka Jesus; Yahweh] - the title is in two volumes", and my request for more precise info has been ignored so far. Would have responded sooner but CP editing was locked for some time, as is too often the case.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:04, 15 August 2009 (EDT)

==Scottsboro boys==
Do you have anything on the [[Scottsboro boys]] or alternatively [[Scottsboro case]]; this appears to be an important articlew we'll need. I found an img. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:11, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
::it was moderately important to the left in the 1930s. I'll draft a short article--thanks for the tip.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:17, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::The Scottsboro case is what motivated many prominent African-Americans of the era to join up with the CPUSA, as the CPUSA entry suggests; and of course we may need to comment on [[FDR]]'s refusal to back an anti-lynching law. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

== cross-posting from Citizendium ==

Hello RJ!

I am currently in the process of writing articles for Citizendium on some of the great works of literature. I will be concentrating on those works which are most typically part of a high school reading or curriculum program. Both CZ and CP, it seems to me, are in serious need of a much greater breadth and/or depth of information on such literature than they presently possess.

Unless there is some problem with it, I would propose to cross-post my work yo both CZ and CP.

A current sample is [[The Call of the Wild]], just posted here a few minutes ago. I am currently working on ''The Time Machine'', have an article on ''The New Atlantis'' (by Francis Bacon). In the works is ''Little Women'' and many others. The articles will likely consist solely of brief intros followed by plot summaries. Some analysis or commentary would still need to be added, but the plot summary is a start.

[[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 10:57, 16 August 2009 (EDT)
::good start!--please keep it up. there is no problem about crossposting from Citizendium (because its authors keep their copyright).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:01, 16 August 2009 (EDT)

==NY Times==

Are you the Robert Jensen spoken of in this ''New York Times'' article? [http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/the-indiana-jones-of-economics-part-iii/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:22, 25 August 2009 (EDT)
::no relation. I do have a brother Robert Jensen--he's a retired gun dealer in Arizona--but the NY Times is writing about someone else. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:24, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

==Categorization and labelling==

Please stop categorizing political people. Leave it to others, particularly senior admins, to decide whether someone is conservative, libertarian, or liberal. There's no point arguing over this sort of thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:47, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

==Chesterton edits==

I'm somewhat puzzled by your edits to the G.K. Chesterton article. While he was, by his own description, "orthodox", he certainly wasn't a Conservative. I have a digital anthology of his letters here with me (it is read-only, by the way) and to quote from an April, 1924 copy of the ILN, he said: "''The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.''" I believe to describe oneself, if at all, through religious terms rather than political terms is and was an admirable trait, and we should continue that, when the subject and the source are one and the same regarding the analysis of his philosophies. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 17:26, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
::some good points and I will chew on them. I was following Russell Kirk, the leading historian of conservatism, who considers GKC a major conservative intellectual. the National Review's Bill Buckley was also a great admirer[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:48, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you for your consideration. Many scholars have described him as essentially "Catholic in his heart, and Conservative in his brain", to paraphrase. So perhaps a description of being a man whose practicality and sentimentality were aligned, and who's views have gained acceptance from many modern Conservatives. Feel free to include the snippet about William F. Buckley as well. Chesterton was very honest about his intellectual forebears, so it would be good to continue to, say, philosophical family tree. I leave the matter of editing and wording entirely in your hands. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 19:28, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

User talk:RJJensen

2009-09-05T21:26:30Z

MICasey:

G.K. Chesterton

2009-09-05T14:06:28Z

MICasey:

'''Gilbert Keith Chesterton''' (1874-1936) was a [[British]] [[writer]].

He is known for his fictional works such as the ''Father Brown'' stories, as well as for his non-fiction writings offering an intellectual defense of the [[Christian]] faith. Along with his friend [[Hilaire Belloc]] he is also known for his political viewpoint known as [[distributism]], which opposed both [[communism]] and modern [[capitalism]], and supported a decentralized economy of small property owners and small-scale [[entrepreneur]]s.

Chesterton was a long-time [[Anglican]], but was convinced by Belloc to convert to the [[Catholic Church]].

His most influential Christian books include ''Orthodoxy'', and ''What's Wrong With the World'', which criticize modernist trends such as [[feminism]] and uphold the traditional Christian faith.

Chesterton was well-known for his philosophical debates with renowned contemporaries such as [[Clarence Darrow]], [[Bertrand Russell]], [[George Bernard Shaw]], and [[H.G. Wells]]. Of Shaw, with whom Chesterton could be said to have had a friendly rivalry and battle of wits, Chesterton once said:

"After belabouring a great many people for a great many years for being unprogressive, Mr. Shaw has discovered, with characteristic sense, that it is very doubtful whether any existing human being with two legs can be progressive at all. Having come to doubt whether humanity can be combined with progress, most people, easily pleased, would have elected to abandon progress and remain with humanity. Mr. Shaw, not being easily pleased, decides to throw over humanity with all its limitations and go in for progress for its own sake. If man, as we know him, is incapable of the philosophy of progress, Mr. Shaw asks, not for a new kind of philosophy, but for a new kind of man. It is rather as if a nurse had tried a rather bitter food for some years on a baby, and on discovering that it was not suitable, should not throw away the food and ask for a new food, but throw the baby out of window, and ask for a new baby." - ''Heretics'', G.K.C.

==References==
* Peters, Edward. "Introduction to G.K. Chesterton". [http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/1112-96/literatu.html Website] retrieved July 3, 2007.
* Pierce, Joseph. "G.K. Chesterton, Champion of Orthodoxy." [http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0085.html Website] retrieved July 3, 2007.

==Other external links==
* [http://www.chesterton.org/ The American Chesterton Society]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Chesterton, G.K}}
[[Category:Authors|Chesterton, G.K.]]

User:MICasey

2009-09-05T13:51:30Z

MICasey:

Hello. My name is Michael Ian Casey, and I've been a resident of Georgia in Athens-Clarke County for the past four years. (Yes, it is extremely liberal here.) Currently, I am a musician (guitar, piano + others) as well as a writer in my free time. Do not mistake me for a 'limpwrist liberal-artiste' and do not mistake my stoicism for a lack of sentiment or passion, nor my devil's advocacy for treason. The greatest works of music are those which occasionally play against themselves, and the greatest literature is that which is human, and contemplates duality.

I've given up any hope of changing Wikipedia (however, Wikipedians never gave up hope of changing or reverting my edits) and decided to come here. As I did on that "enpsychopedia", I will not tolerate puppets, trolls, vandals, or anyone else attempting to disrupt the Conservative learning process.

Other than that, I enjoy reasoned debate (Socrates and G.K. Chesterton have informed my thinking more than anyone except God and my father.), history, geography, driving through the country in my ancient and trusty VW Cabriolet (it's foreign, forgive me).

Feel free to ask questions, I will respond civilly and in-depth to each submission.
{{userboxtop|MICasey}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User Not Obama}}
{{userboxbottom}}

User:MICasey

2009-09-05T13:38:14Z

MICasey: Created page with '{{userboxtop|MICasey}} {{User Christian1}} {{User Not Obama}} {{userboxbottom}}'