Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

UK prescription drug prices

2016-03-25T19:17:48Z

MaxwellDE: adding context

In the United Kingdom drugs prescribed under the National Health Service are supplied by pharmacies at a set maximum price. This price bears no relation to the price that the pharmaceutical companies charge the National Health Service, this price is set in negotiations between the individual companies and the NHS. If drug is available over the counter for less than the set prescription charge, doctors will normally suggest patients buy it that way.

The majority of prescriptions dispensed are in fact free to the recipient as most are either on benefit, are eligible for free prescriptions (people such as expectant mothers or the long-term sick) or elderly (the retired).

There is no maximum price for drugs prescribed under a private doctor. The retail price of privately prescribed drugs is set by the pharmacy and it is always best to shop around. Despite the continued availability of private health insurance in the UK, most British people - including the current Prime Minister, [[David Cameron]] - use the NHS.

However due to currency fluctuations some pharmacies and wholesalers have become drug exporters, because they can't make as much money retailing drugs in the UK as selling them abroad.

* "a group of MPs on the all-party pharmacy group blamed shortages on pharmacists and wholesalers trying to make extra profits selling drugs to Europe, where they can get a better price than in Britain."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9350508/Lives-put-at-risk-by-shortage-of-drugs-NHS-leaders-warn.html Lives put at risk by shortage of drugs, NHS leaders warn]</ref> Because of this drugs companies have restricted the supply of drugs to some pharamacies and this has resulted in drug shortages in the UK.

=YET SOMEHOW, YOU MORONS, THE UK PAYS LESS PER CAPITA ON HEALTHCARE AND GETS BETTER OUTCOMES STATISTICALLY=

There is a baseline of believability for propaganda, people... we can't hoodwink the rubes if our stories aren't even remotely credible! lol!

==References==
<references />

==See also==
*[[Price controls]]
[[Category:Medicine]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Atheistic science

2016-03-25T19:16:02Z

MaxwellDE: cleaning up a few inaccuracies

'''Atheistic science''' is an approach to science that clings to atheistic views of the universe and life, at the complete exclusion of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and non-materialistic phenomena. The hallmark of atheistic science is how it clings to materialistic theories and rejects logic and experimental observations that contradict the atheistic theories.

Scientific knowledge is gathered through observation and experimentation. Data is then interpreted and explained by theories. Some people interpret data while keeping Biblical teachings in mind. Other people build theories through mathematical models and equations. Yet, other scientists do both.

<references/>

[[Category:science]]

Liberal

2016-03-25T19:14:45Z

MaxwellDE: cleaning up a few inaccuracies

Talk:Liberal

2016-03-25T19:13:48Z

MaxwellDE: sad

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 


== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

'''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::You are only making false conclusions. Take a step back, man. We don't deceive people, you only decieve yourself. [[User:TomUp|TomUp]] 11:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
:Exactly.[[User:TomUp|TomUp]] 11:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Im a liberal, yet i feel like im not full of hate, I could be wrong though. I find this article funny though cause i believe in only like half of this stuff- and that's mostly because the other half is not a political opinion. I have read many articles on your website and it seems like you guys spit a lot of hate. Why? I have read wikipedia- i even edited some articles and yet i have never found it to be liberal- only neutral. Just because it doesn't associate it self with Christianity, nor does it nod its head while you guys talk all the time, is it wrong enough to have to rewrite?. Now back to the topic at hand- It does matter if it makes you guys loose credit. Liberals are not the only political side opposition to yourselves, People look at this. If you look like your only mode of aurguing is name calling- it discredits yourself to the rest of the world. You also make the us all (americans) look really closed minded.
[[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)
:You are close-minded. When you come in here to look and laugh, you reveal that you laugh at anything that doesn't agree with your way of thinking. We continually place news items revealing just how much contempt your side of the fence treats traditional American values, and yet you have the nerve to come here and state you're an American, while laughing at us? I think deep down inside ''you fear us'' by the our attempts to reveal to the rest of the country what your side is actually like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 11 January 2011 (CST)

I see.You claim we get in the way of traditional American values- such as the freedom for the pursuit of happiness (example- the right to marry who you wish.) or the right to life (public option maybe?). Why do you insist on such a my side yourside type thinking? Everybody has the ability to think freely and yet you guys treat us all like villains (though in all fairness my "side" hasn't been much better). You guys attack the left like we are looking to hurt the country cause thats what we like to do- I never laughed at you, I'm sure am not scared of you, and i don't (believe it or not) pity you. We are not coveted nor secret. Its not like we have a secret cult or wear special underwear. We have nothing to hide, and we believe non of our leaders have nothing to hide. Meanwhile you have people who you assosiate with running around talking about killing the president- or saying things like Hurricane Katrina was the gays and the jews fault, and then you try to sweep it under the rug like it never happened.
[[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (CST)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics] So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. [http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>

You need to add that Conservatives deny religious rights. I have family members who are gay and wish to be married in a state that prohibits gay marriage. They are Jewish and have a Rabbi with a large Congregation who is marrying them. However Conservatives block recognition of the marriage by an ordained Rabbi. They will recognize marriages by this same Rabbi if the couple is heterosexual. I also know of ministers in the same situation. This is a clear denial of freedom of religion by the CONS.

==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

:::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

If this is true, shouldn't the article be renamed "American Liberalism" or something along those lines. Or has the subject of this article changed since the 4th April 2009? [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 12:33, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009

My apologies if this is the incorrect place to put this, but I was reading through this talk page and noticed the topic arise. It is my understanding that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same root. [I may be wrong about this, I am by no means an expert]. So if Christianity is inherently logical, partially due to the method of the creation of the earth described above, are Judaism and Islam logical as well? If not, why not? I am just curious about the differences of views between the three faiths considering they have a common ancestry. A similar question could be asked about the different denominations of the respective faiths.

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
*An Islamic terrorist
*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
*J Edgar Hoover
*A member of the Flat Earth Society
*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
*Adolf Hitler
*Robert Mugabe
*General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

== First few sentences (Edit Break) ==

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools:
Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
Traits:
Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....
It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other.
On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it talks about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general).
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

: This entry defines a liberal '''''today'''''. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-[[abortion]] liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.

: Liberals support [[Barack Obama]], so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them?
You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?
:The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]](admin)[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:: Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in [[Liberal denial]]. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:: The "fair" approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion. 80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound. But liberals are certainly not "fair" in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds! Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it. Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it. How can that be considered fair?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality. Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals. But I don't think it describes the evidence. Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way. "Equality" is often their [[liberal trick]] of choice. But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements. The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths. That's not equality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Traits Liberal traits] and [[Liberal style]]. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism is classic [[Liberal deceit]]. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism "succesful"? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called [[Liberal fairness]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

:::That implies that censorship and interfering with individuals is solely a liberal act. The page here for conservatives say they support the banning of pornography and same-sex marriage, which seem to be pretty solid example of censorship and government interference in people's personal lives. As in all my posts here, I shall do my best to avoid any bias, and right now I am not attempting to attack conservatism or defend liberalism, just applying logic. I have read a great deal of support for logic from everyone on this talk page, which is great. Logic is one of our most important traits as humans.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

::::Are you on record as implying that we should not censor anything in this website? Or that we shouldn't support the banning of porn and same-sex marriage because doing so is "interference" in other people's lives? And the censorship that the liberal side of the fence carries out against us doesn't count, why? And their interference into our lives by the pushing and shoving of their thoughts and beliefs doesn't count, why? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Neither. I expressed no opinion on either position, though I would say that it would be more level headed to not censor things on this website, assuming they are in blatant disregard of the rules or decency. Also, I never suggested that anyone was free from blame. As I said, I was not trying to argue for either side, just pointing out that just actions are not a clear cut case of one side does them and the other doesn't. Apologies for the confusing it may have caused--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
::::::No need for apologies; I saw what you implied when you answered TK, and what I asked could very well be a new debate page - or several - regarding the hatred liberals have for society in general. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:34, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Depends on at what level of government we are talking about, Manhattan. Lack of such rules is more libertarian than liberal, IMO. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:01, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Ah yes good point. Well in this case I was talking about the federal government, since that what I assumed the previous poster had been referring to.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

:::Double Edge, the problem I have with this argument is that by defining "fair" as "liberal," you imply that conservatives are not interested in fairness. In fact, you suggest that conservatives are opposed to fairness, which is very unfair. Conservatives just have a different concept of fairness. I don't think there is anything "fair" about affirmative action or abortion, but that is just a difference of opinion. --[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:46, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::::I find that liberals spend an inordinate amount of time parsing meanings. On wiki's this is called "wiki-lawyering". Double Edge, that might be clever, but it is hardly ''intellectual'' or honest. Of course the classic example is Bill Clinton trying to parse what the word "is" was! Perhaps you don't yet understand that CP isn't interested in NPOV? We proudly proclaim the conservative/Christian POV, and can back it up with facts. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

First, when I say fairness, the best way to describe it would be the ideals of the French Revolution. Some people may be misinterpreting my definition. Second, it's true the pursuit of equality ends of being impossible, so it does end up being more of a show then anything. This just shows how liberalism is utterly out of touch with reality. Third, conservatives do oppose fairness when it comes in the form of welfare, wealth redistribution, and political correctness. Fourth, TK, I don't see that I've done anything terribly bad, so why are you taking this so seriously? The purpose of this site is to give concise, clear, reliable definitions, so I don't see how my complaint about a definition is illegitimate. The existing definition of liberal is not clear because "rejecting biblical standards" could apply to serial killers and orthodox jews (and clearly we're not specifically referring to these groups). Furthermore, it's not concise because the only way you can understand the actual meaning is to read through all the things that "liberals generally support". The definition becomes even less concise when you take into account "liberal deceit", "liberal style", ect... Any one of which can get you accused of being a liberal.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:04, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: Double Edge, your comments are well taken, and welcome. After reading your postings, I went back to read our definition again. Maybe it can be improved. But I don't specifically see how. Today most liberals do reject logical and biblical standards; and most appear to me to be self-centered. There are studies that confirm this. Liberals are less charitable than conservatives are. There is a high correlation between atheism and liberals. I wouldn't expect liberals today to be anything like liberals in the time of the French Revolution, because political views and strategies rapidly change. But our definition does include even a bit of your history also.

: Would you like to suggest specific wording that we could test against the views and conduct of today's liberals?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::Well, I would have to ask what are you calling liberals? Because if everyone who the democrats said conservative was conservative, and vise versa, then there would not be anyone in this country who was not one or the other. But this isn't the case. I hope to make a comment on something which has been talked about a few times on this page; the current definition of liberal vs the original definition. Definitions are fairly solid. Yes, they can change meaning slightly over time, but in the case of what both people on this page and many democrats claim to be liberal, it is incompatible. It is too far gone to be considered a transformation. Quite simply, liberal means the same thing today as it did 300 years ago. The fact that many democrats may claim to be liberal does not change this, just the definition of a minivan would not change if a group of people started referring to themselves as minivans. Democrats and Republicans can switch platforms(and have before), but that is because they are political parties, not philosophies. Liberalism and conservatism will always mean the same thing. Liberalism always has and always will mean a support of individual rights and often a support for a larger government, but only to the end that it protects their liberties. They are greatly opposed to government interference in business, the press, etc. In many ways, many Republicans unknowingly share these values. So, while it makes perfect sense for the members of conservapedia to oppose Democrats seeking to advance legislation that conflict with their philosophy, it doesn't make sense to focus all that hate or anger or distrust onto a word. After all, a word holds no beliefs, and can't choose who decides to affiliate themselves with it. I guess my point would be that it would be more accurate to define(and condemn) the actions listed on this page as Democrats, or however you seek to word it. But the things listed here surely do not apply to those who are actually liberals. I understand this is contrary to what many have said here, but as I said in a previous post, I am a big fan of logic, and part of that is that I like to keep my definitions separate from politics.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

==Reversion==

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

:How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Is not a liberal someone that is not a conservative? ==
Sorry if I made this "thing" wrong, I'm new to editing. But this page seems to infer that a liberal is someone that is not a conservative. That makes no sense at all. If liberalism is a form of politcal philosophy, and conservatism is also a form a political philosophy, then it would stand to reason that you would be by default in neither catagory. Sorry if I'm touching on a sensitive issue. I can tell by the name of the site :P --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 10:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: Could you clarify your point? The principles or a conservative are clear and well-defined. Liberals could include everyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: I am also slightly unclear on this. Are there only two types of political philosophy? Conservatives and Liberals? Or does a third (or more) type exist that is neither Conservative or Liberal? If only two types exist then a Liberal by definition can be someone who is not a Conservative, as the definition of a Conservative could be someone who is not a Liberal. In that case only one needs to be well defined and the other can occupy the vacuum. However if there are other possible options those definitions can not stand and both would need to be well defined [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:03, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== Narrowly US-Oriented Article ==

As a European, I find this article to be very narrowly focussed on a particular use of the word Liberal. It just launches into an attack on 'Liberals' as currently defined by the right wing in America. Other historical and international definitions of liberal and liberalism are given a brief and simplistic definition. Well, the whole article is a simplistic, disjointed, and full of opinion, IMHO.

:No need to be ashamed of being a European, and not signing your name. Buck up! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
::Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't we an ''American'' encyclopedia as well, with that as our main focus? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:53, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

== Introductory remarks ==

Let me begin by admitting that I am not a conservative (nor, I think, a liberal), and so I'm not part of the intended users of this site.

That said, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, conservative or otherwise, believes that a reference work should begin to define liberals as follows:
:::A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.
This is a caricature of political criticism, not an honest attempt at defining one's opposition. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a teacher grading an essay on political differences in the United States. An essay which begins to define the distinction between right and left wing with the above is worse than useless. It is mere propaganda, with no factual content at all.

It is, of course, your "encyclopedia", not mine, and you're welcome to include whatever definition you prefer, but you do yourselves no favors in this article. On the contrary, you lose considerable credibility with this introduction to the opposing political view. (Similar comments apply to other articles, but I must admit that this introduction surprised me with its immaturity. The first step in political debates should be to understand the difference in opinion, not to ridicule it.)

With due respect, [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 14:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

== Child porn? ==

Is there any justification for the claim that Liberals (some? most?) support child pornography? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 11:41, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:Yes. Look at the news related to Wikipedia of several months ago. Jimmy Wales made an effort to remove pornographic material from the site; he was ousted from control, and the material was put right back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::Also, the [[ACLU]] has a long reputation for defending child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::: I guess I just don't get what counts as evidence around here. Perhaps each of you could show me some sort of reference to what you mean? (Note: ''even if'' I take Wikipedia as good evidence of how liberals behave and ''even if'' what Karajou reports is accurate, pornography and child porn are two different things. Tzoran's claim comes without any reference or details at all and so I can't begin to evaluate it.)
::: Much thanks. [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 12:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::We have to prove it for you, based on what you want? You've been told...now Google it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::: No, you don't have to prove it for me, but claiming that liberals support child pornography without any citations in the article (or here) is not only unconvincing — it violates the first two Conservapedia Commandments. (I found some discussion of the Wales incident, but it hardly seems relevant to a claim about Liberals to me. Are the entire class of WP editors representative of liberals?) [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 15:58, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::"Pornography and child porn are two different things" ... both are examples of pornography, and at least to me, supporting the former inevitably leads to the latter. Some people are flawed like that. I looked at the ACLU article, and I found references for it at the bottom. That's as good a starting point as any. Keep in mind that supporting the removal of restrictions on pornographic content only ''benefits'' people seeking to deal in child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:44, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Look up the Child Online Protection Act and the [[ACLU]]'s treatment of it. I know it's in the [[Pornography|pornography]] article because I added it personally a few months ago, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pornography&diff=prev&oldid=771716 here]. Does that make more sense? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:48, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::: Thanks, Tzoran, for the clear reference, but with due respect, it does not support the claim that the ACLU (or Liberals generally) "support" child porn. Rather, the issue (as I understand it) was whether the law could or should place restrictions on pornography accessibility in order to prevent children from being exposed to porn. Maybe the ACLU was wrong in their position or maybe not, but in either case it does not suggest that the ACLU is supporting (or "defending") child porn.
:::::::: But regardless of whether you've convinced me or not, surely the entry (along with others in the same list) should be cited, don't you agree? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 17:51, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Typical of most liberals,Phiwum, you would demand a citation that the Sun is indeed in the sky! Try trolling elsewhere. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Child pornography is an incredibly sensitive and inflammatory subject, so perhaps a citation in this case would be a good idea. And while the sun being in the sky is obvious and everyone reading the article could be expected to know that, a link between child pornography and liberalism may not be as well known. I certainly did not know one existed, and would be extraordinarily interested in the data for such a link. So a citation or a link for reference so that a reader could look into the subject further if requires. As mentioned I intend to google the subject and will provide a citation myself if I find a reputable source with the information. however if someone already has one to hand it would be useful. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:10, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== A few minor things ==

The first citation does not contain the information suggested in the first paragraph. In fact it does not even contain the word "liberal". Is the link correct? I suspect an incorrect link has been posted.

Also the final bullet point of the Liberal list should perhaps be moved. As at the moment it reads:

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge. Perhaps there should be a criticism of liberals section?

Can I also applaud the work done further down the article on the different international definitions. I did not expect it to be there and was planning to write it myself.[[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:16, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

'':A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

'':And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge.''''

:The statement seems perfectly acceptable to me: look at the slavering over Stalin by many British 'intellectuals' in the 1930s. And surely whether or not liberals support the statement is immaterial here. I should imagine liberals would dispute it - as indeed they would dispute most of the information in this encyclopaedia. More fool them! [[User:TrevS|TrevS]] 13:27, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::At this time I am not disputing the statement or point. I am simply disputing the wording or the placement in the article. I agree that they probably dispute it. Look at the title of the list it is in. A liberal would not support that quote. So perhaps it would be better to be reworded or moved to a different better titled section. In it's current form it is a criticism. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 14:22, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

'''Please remember that Conservapedia doesn't believe in NPOV. We are conservative and Christian.''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:55, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

:NPOV = ? I am a supporter of the Conservative Party.

:I am not arguing with the statement at this time. I am just arguing for it's movement or rewording, as at the moment its placement with its current wording does not make sense. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:08, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::Re-wording and placement are subjective, right? Since Conservapedia is an ''American'' encyclopedia, by necessity parts of its content will need to be U.S.-centric. What is or is not a liberal certainly is included in that, as the meanings and values differ greatly in other parts of the world, especially the U.K. That is why Churchill noted we are divided by a common language. I have lived in the U.K., and in other parts of the world, so please be certain that I am not fighting with you over intentions, just pointing out the obvious....that some political terms are unique to the U.S., and one cannot adapt them to make sense in a U.K. perspective. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:23, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

:::My apologies, but I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am simply saying the bullet point in question is not something a (n American) Liberal supports, but is more a criticism of (American) Liberalism. It just doesn't flow right, or fit in with the rest of the list. I may write up a proposed change tomorrow and see what people think. I will also have a look at the UK based pages see if I can make any additions. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:44, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::::That would be super, Josh!

::::I see those of limited intellect and who have ideological blinders on once again show their limited abilities by thinking there is some dichotomy between not subscribing to NPOV and our at least giving diverging POV's their due. Fair minded people can indeed give other points of view an airing without subscribing to them, is what most (except those so far left or right they cannot see) people understand. Conservapedia doesn't attack people personally, call them drunks or child molesters, to make our point, as some liberal websites do. Nor do we encourage our editors to vandalize and disrupt the websites of those we disagree with. Perhaps once they purge their websites of such vile personal attacks, people of real intellect and good intentions will begin to take them seriously. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

==[[Classical liberalism]]==

Can we say something about the "good" kind of liberalism, i.e., the kind I was studying at Tufts College of Liberal Arts? I mean the kind of liberalism that wants to make change when warranted, and when "conservative" foot-dragging tries to keep us from making good improvements. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:07, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

== Liberal corporations section proposal ==

I propose that we add a section for famous (or infamous) companies/corporations that have supported liberal policies, including support for homosexuals, socialist government, and other activities and actions related to liberal mentality. My thinking on this is that by doing this, we can inform our users on which companies we should avoid.

:That's fine, but I wouldn't start with Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft has a strong pro-adoption policy for workers, and Apple's Steven Jobs has not been particularly liberal. Many other, far more liberal, companies should be considered before them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 February 2011 (EST)

::Right. I'll look into it. One note on prior edits; My apologies for addition of Microsoft and Apple to the page; I was only looking at their pro-homosexual donations at the time, and did not consider that they had more respectable policies than not. Like you said, there are companies that are far more detrimental/liberal in their actions and conduct.

:::It would be helpful to post companies whose liberal policies go beyond their own workers, and affect the public also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 26 February 2011 (EST)

== Why is rejecting the bible bad for the country? ==

If this country was not founded on christianity? --[[User:MahmoudAlzwarii|MahmoudAlzwarii]] 23:16, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

==[[Liberals in Europe]]==

Well, only in the USA are Liberals considered als leftist, in Europe the liberals ARE some kind of conservatives.

== this article has been a mess since april 10, 2011 ==

Here is a former sentence which I altered which is the beginning of the article: For example, FDR, '''one of the few great democratic Presidents''', firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties.

Yes, he did carry out WWII well, but economically he was a disaster and he stacked the Supreme Court with liberal judges. Plus, FDR instituted social security with no foresight to consider rising longevity plus with no opt out. Plus, he practiced [[Keynesian economics]] and prolonged the Great Depression.

I think the person who added this sentence had good intentions, but I don't think the person was educated about some of the poor decisions FDR made.

Since liberal is a key article, I think it is a bad mistake to not exercise increased vigilance in watching the content. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:11, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

:I have often heard "FDR prolonged the Depression" stated as a fact, but have never seen the evidence for this. Do you have any? [[User:JacobD|JacobD]] 09:09, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Look how fast the ex-President and businessman [[Calvin Coolidge]] licked the economic depression under his administration. Look at the results of Obama's stimulus and the Japanese multiple stimulus packages. While I do believe in the Glass–Steagall Act, anti-monopoly legislation and convicting businessman of fraud and other laws the general citizenry is under, the free enterprise system is more efficient and dynamic than state controlled economies. Although I am an ideological mix of conservatism/libertarianism and do not agree with everything that the Ludwig von Mises Institute advocates, I would suggest reading their website's material: http://mises.org/ [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:35, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

==Nazis and pedarists==

Conservapedia aims to have concise artiles that are not "verbose" but this article had descended into adolescent diatribe. The fact that any liberal is a pedarist is irrelevant to this article. There are sadly those in all political persuasions. Liberals may be more tolerant to certain peversions but discussing that enters into too much subjectivity -when presented in this way it degenerates into "throwing ones toys" at the oponent. Also, the Nazis are not liberal by either the standrds of classical liberalism (obviously not) nor modern liberalism. They may have had many socialist policies at an economic level but they were not liberals in terms of social policy. They were authoritarian. If a comparison needs tyo be made reagarding liberalism, communism and national socialism, it is best in its own article . It is totally unhelpful. oose comparison to the "Nazis" has long been identified as a point at which the accuser is starting to lose sight of credible arguments for their case. [[User:DavidMilton]]

Wow, that's a stunning level of reasoned argumentation.... no wonder the rest of the World knows that we conservatives are the real intellekshuls around here. .... think you meant "pederasts," though, bro. Stick it to 'em!

== headline reversion ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&curid=3039&diff=909680&oldid=908925 Re: this edit] I don't think its fair to say '''all''' liberals reject biblical standards because some liberals are really quite religious. Wouldn't it be fair to say some do conform to some biblical standard even if it is their own interpretation? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:47, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Political Correctness is not the opposite of free speech. ==

While it could be argued that political correctness is a form of censorship it is not the opposite of free speech. Political Correctness is a limitation placed on free speech but it is not the opposite. Nobody is forced to be political correct though societal/political pressure may be high. It just doesn't work out. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 18:32, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
: And of couse 'Political Correctness' is only visible if you disagree with it. The sort of censorship that conservative commentators deride as 'Political correctness' has always been with us; it's just that for most of our history, it's been a conservative viewpoint that has been regarded as correct by definition and unable to be questioned. Since the victory of liberal democracy during the 20th century, and the unleashing of people from repressive and restrictive autocracies of various kinds (in no small part due to the radically liberal foundational ideas of the great US democratic system), different political ideas have come to be regarded by thoughtful people as axiomatic, and the less flexibly minded among us have suddenly noticed the phenomenon, and christened it 'Political Correctness.'
: But of course what really puzzles me about this talk page is that some people actually seem to take it seriously, whereas the article is actually just a joke - some playground-level name-calling tricked up as an encyclopedia article. And i'm also genuinely puzzled why anyone who contributes to this nonsense would think it likely to convince anyone who didn't already agree with it - why do you waste your time?. Or is that not the point - is it just here to preach to the choir - to encourage the troops, rather than convince anyone else? [[User:MachinaSapiens|MachinaSapiens]] 08:07, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:::The abolition of slavery was done by religious conservatives. Mass murdering communism and genocidal master race evolutionism was the work of the left. In addition, even though MLK tilted left, he still was a black minister with many conservative ideas. So your victories seem rather shallow at best. By the way, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is going to do some serious damage to the specious liberal ideology of evolutionism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:36, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== Disarmament treaties ==

I've removed the sentence on disarmament treaties because it doesn't fit. What liberals like is unilateral disarmament. A treaty reduces weapons on both sides and maintains balance. Reagan's arms reduction treaties with the USSR were negotiated from a position of strength and were a great achievement, which wouldn't have been possible with liberal policies. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 13:09, 1 February 2012 (EST)

== "the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men..." ==

The reference supporting that quote goes to a blg post which does not itself support the quote with evidence. It needs a citation to the appearance of the phrase in Wired magazine. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 18:23, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

== More Biased than Wikipedia ==

I'm a Conservative, and yet I think this is far more biased than anything I've EVER read on Wikipedia. They at least don't make sweeping generalizations that make entire groups seem like dirt

:::maybe someday there will be a Wikia written from a Conservative point of view without all the extra stuff....though perhaps you can help create one as a counterpoint to CP. --DavidS 15:39, 20 March 2013 (EDT)

=Seriously, Conservapedia makes "conservative intellectualism" seem like a total oxymoron.=

== iraq ==

The two sentences:
*Opposition of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a major part of the War on Terrorism
*Opposition to the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq

mean the same thing. Please remove one of it.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:01, 9 December 2013 (EST)

== Hilary Clinton saying she "believes in white supremacy" ==

Here's the entire quote:

{{cquote|"First family that comes and says 'I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School' and you say 'Great, wonderful school, here's your voucher,'" Mrs. Clinton said, according to the Long Island newspaper. "Next parent that comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist ...' The parent says, 'The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. ...You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me.'" The senator added, "So what if the next parent comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad?' ... I won't stand for it."}} [http://www.nysun.com/editorials/hillary-on-the-defensive/28068/ source]

Obviously, Mrs. Clinton was not expressing her own views on white supremacy, but outlining a thought experiment. To say otherwise is quote-mining, and makes me wonder about the good faith of the editor involved. [[User:SaulJ|SaulJ]] 13:22, 8 July 2015 (EDT)
::Here's the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su3JIS9VbtY|video]]. She quite clearly isn't talking about her own views. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] 20:56, 9 July 2015 (EDT)
It's not going into the article. She is not advocating white supremacy. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:01, 9 July 2015 (EDT)
::I permanently banned the editor responsible for this. I think some of his edits were intentionally wrong. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:13, 12 July 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2016-03-25T19:11:39Z

MaxwellDE: sad

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 


== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

'''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::You are only making false conclusions. Take a step back, man. We don't deceive people, you only decieve yourself. [[User:TomUp|TomUp]] 11:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
:Exactly.[[User:TomUp|TomUp]] 11:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Im a liberal, yet i feel like im not full of hate, I could be wrong though. I find this article funny though cause i believe in only like half of this stuff- and that's mostly because the other half is not a political opinion. I have read many articles on your website and it seems like you guys spit a lot of hate. Why? I have read wikipedia- i even edited some articles and yet i have never found it to be liberal- only neutral. Just because it doesn't associate it self with Christianity, nor does it nod its head while you guys talk all the time, is it wrong enough to have to rewrite?. Now back to the topic at hand- It does matter if it makes you guys loose credit. Liberals are not the only political side opposition to yourselves, People look at this. If you look like your only mode of aurguing is name calling- it discredits yourself to the rest of the world. You also make the us all (americans) look really closed minded.
[[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)
:You are close-minded. When you come in here to look and laugh, you reveal that you laugh at anything that doesn't agree with your way of thinking. We continually place news items revealing just how much contempt your side of the fence treats traditional American values, and yet you have the nerve to come here and state you're an American, while laughing at us? I think deep down inside ''you fear us'' by the our attempts to reveal to the rest of the country what your side is actually like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 11 January 2011 (CST)

I see.You claim we get in the way of traditional American values- such as the freedom for the pursuit of happiness (example- the right to marry who you wish.) or the right to life (public option maybe?). Why do you insist on such a my side yourside type thinking? Everybody has the ability to think freely and yet you guys treat us all like villains (though in all fairness my "side" hasn't been much better). You guys attack the left like we are looking to hurt the country cause thats what we like to do- I never laughed at you, I'm sure am not scared of you, and i don't (believe it or not) pity you. We are not coveted nor secret. Its not like we have a secret cult or wear special underwear. We have nothing to hide, and we believe non of our leaders have nothing to hide. Meanwhile you have people who you assosiate with running around talking about killing the president- or saying things like Hurricane Katrina was the gays and the jews fault, and then you try to sweep it under the rug like it never happened.
[[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (CST)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics] So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. [http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>

You need to add that Conservatives deny religious rights. I have family members who are gay and wish to be married in a state that prohibits gay marriage. They are Jewish and have a Rabbi with a large Congregation who is marrying them. However Conservatives block recognition of the marriage by an ordained Rabbi. They will recognize marriages by this same Rabbi if the couple is heterosexual. I also know of ministers in the same situation. This is a clear denial of freedom of religion by the CONS.

==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

:::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

If this is true, shouldn't the article be renamed "American Liberalism" or something along those lines. Or has the subject of this article changed since the 4th April 2009? [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 12:33, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009

My apologies if this is the incorrect place to put this, but I was reading through this talk page and noticed the topic arise. It is my understanding that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same root. [I may be wrong about this, I am by no means an expert]. So if Christianity is inherently logical, partially due to the method of the creation of the earth described above, are Judaism and Islam logical as well? If not, why not? I am just curious about the differences of views between the three faiths considering they have a common ancestry. A similar question could be asked about the different denominations of the respective faiths.

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
*An Islamic terrorist
*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
*J Edgar Hoover
*A member of the Flat Earth Society
*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
*Adolf Hitler
*Robert Mugabe
*General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

== First few sentences (Edit Break) ==

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools:
Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
Traits:
Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....
It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other.
On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it talks about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general).
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

: This entry defines a liberal '''''today'''''. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-[[abortion]] liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.

: Liberals support [[Barack Obama]], so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them?
You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?
:The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]](admin)[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:: Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in [[Liberal denial]]. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:: The "fair" approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion. 80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound. But liberals are certainly not "fair" in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds! Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it. Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it. How can that be considered fair?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality. Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals. But I don't think it describes the evidence. Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way. "Equality" is often their [[liberal trick]] of choice. But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements. The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths. That's not equality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Traits Liberal traits] and [[Liberal style]]. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism is classic [[Liberal deceit]]. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism "succesful"? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called [[Liberal fairness]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

:::That implies that censorship and interfering with individuals is solely a liberal act. The page here for conservatives say they support the banning of pornography and same-sex marriage, which seem to be pretty solid example of censorship and government interference in people's personal lives. As in all my posts here, I shall do my best to avoid any bias, and right now I am not attempting to attack conservatism or defend liberalism, just applying logic. I have read a great deal of support for logic from everyone on this talk page, which is great. Logic is one of our most important traits as humans.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

::::Are you on record as implying that we should not censor anything in this website? Or that we shouldn't support the banning of porn and same-sex marriage because doing so is "interference" in other people's lives? And the censorship that the liberal side of the fence carries out against us doesn't count, why? And their interference into our lives by the pushing and shoving of their thoughts and beliefs doesn't count, why? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Neither. I expressed no opinion on either position, though I would say that it would be more level headed to not censor things on this website, assuming they are in blatant disregard of the rules or decency. Also, I never suggested that anyone was free from blame. As I said, I was not trying to argue for either side, just pointing out that just actions are not a clear cut case of one side does them and the other doesn't. Apologies for the confusing it may have caused--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
::::::No need for apologies; I saw what you implied when you answered TK, and what I asked could very well be a new debate page - or several - regarding the hatred liberals have for society in general. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:34, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Depends on at what level of government we are talking about, Manhattan. Lack of such rules is more libertarian than liberal, IMO. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:01, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Ah yes good point. Well in this case I was talking about the federal government, since that what I assumed the previous poster had been referring to.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

:::Double Edge, the problem I have with this argument is that by defining "fair" as "liberal," you imply that conservatives are not interested in fairness. In fact, you suggest that conservatives are opposed to fairness, which is very unfair. Conservatives just have a different concept of fairness. I don't think there is anything "fair" about affirmative action or abortion, but that is just a difference of opinion. --[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:46, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::::I find that liberals spend an inordinate amount of time parsing meanings. On wiki's this is called "wiki-lawyering". Double Edge, that might be clever, but it is hardly ''intellectual'' or honest. Of course the classic example is Bill Clinton trying to parse what the word "is" was! Perhaps you don't yet understand that CP isn't interested in NPOV? We proudly proclaim the conservative/Christian POV, and can back it up with facts. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

First, when I say fairness, the best way to describe it would be the ideals of the French Revolution. Some people may be misinterpreting my definition. Second, it's true the pursuit of equality ends of being impossible, so it does end up being more of a show then anything. This just shows how liberalism is utterly out of touch with reality. Third, conservatives do oppose fairness when it comes in the form of welfare, wealth redistribution, and political correctness. Fourth, TK, I don't see that I've done anything terribly bad, so why are you taking this so seriously? The purpose of this site is to give concise, clear, reliable definitions, so I don't see how my complaint about a definition is illegitimate. The existing definition of liberal is not clear because "rejecting biblical standards" could apply to serial killers and orthodox jews (and clearly we're not specifically referring to these groups). Furthermore, it's not concise because the only way you can understand the actual meaning is to read through all the things that "liberals generally support". The definition becomes even less concise when you take into account "liberal deceit", "liberal style", ect... Any one of which can get you accused of being a liberal.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:04, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: Double Edge, your comments are well taken, and welcome. After reading your postings, I went back to read our definition again. Maybe it can be improved. But I don't specifically see how. Today most liberals do reject logical and biblical standards; and most appear to me to be self-centered. There are studies that confirm this. Liberals are less charitable than conservatives are. There is a high correlation between atheism and liberals. I wouldn't expect liberals today to be anything like liberals in the time of the French Revolution, because political views and strategies rapidly change. But our definition does include even a bit of your history also.

: Would you like to suggest specific wording that we could test against the views and conduct of today's liberals?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::Well, I would have to ask what are you calling liberals? Because if everyone who the democrats said conservative was conservative, and vise versa, then there would not be anyone in this country who was not one or the other. But this isn't the case. I hope to make a comment on something which has been talked about a few times on this page; the current definition of liberal vs the original definition. Definitions are fairly solid. Yes, they can change meaning slightly over time, but in the case of what both people on this page and many democrats claim to be liberal, it is incompatible. It is too far gone to be considered a transformation. Quite simply, liberal means the same thing today as it did 300 years ago. The fact that many democrats may claim to be liberal does not change this, just the definition of a minivan would not change if a group of people started referring to themselves as minivans. Democrats and Republicans can switch platforms(and have before), but that is because they are political parties, not philosophies. Liberalism and conservatism will always mean the same thing. Liberalism always has and always will mean a support of individual rights and often a support for a larger government, but only to the end that it protects their liberties. They are greatly opposed to government interference in business, the press, etc. In many ways, many Republicans unknowingly share these values. So, while it makes perfect sense for the members of conservapedia to oppose Democrats seeking to advance legislation that conflict with their philosophy, it doesn't make sense to focus all that hate or anger or distrust onto a word. After all, a word holds no beliefs, and can't choose who decides to affiliate themselves with it. I guess my point would be that it would be more accurate to define(and condemn) the actions listed on this page as Democrats, or however you seek to word it. But the things listed here surely do not apply to those who are actually liberals. I understand this is contrary to what many have said here, but as I said in a previous post, I am a big fan of logic, and part of that is that I like to keep my definitions separate from politics.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

==Reversion==

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

:How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Is not a liberal someone that is not a conservative? ==
Sorry if I made this "thing" wrong, I'm new to editing. But this page seems to infer that a liberal is someone that is not a conservative. That makes no sense at all. If liberalism is a form of politcal philosophy, and conservatism is also a form a political philosophy, then it would stand to reason that you would be by default in neither catagory. Sorry if I'm touching on a sensitive issue. I can tell by the name of the site :P --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 10:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: Could you clarify your point? The principles or a conservative are clear and well-defined. Liberals could include everyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: I am also slightly unclear on this. Are there only two types of political philosophy? Conservatives and Liberals? Or does a third (or more) type exist that is neither Conservative or Liberal? If only two types exist then a Liberal by definition can be someone who is not a Conservative, as the definition of a Conservative could be someone who is not a Liberal. In that case only one needs to be well defined and the other can occupy the vacuum. However if there are other possible options those definitions can not stand and both would need to be well defined [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:03, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== Narrowly US-Oriented Article ==

As a European, I find this article to be very narrowly focussed on a particular use of the word Liberal. It just launches into an attack on 'Liberals' as currently defined by the right wing in America. Other historical and international definitions of liberal and liberalism are given a brief and simplistic definition. Well, the whole article is a simplistic, disjointed, and full of opinion, IMHO.

:No need to be ashamed of being a European, and not signing your name. Buck up! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
::Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't we an ''American'' encyclopedia as well, with that as our main focus? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:53, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

== Introductory remarks ==

Let me begin by admitting that I am not a conservative (nor, I think, a liberal), and so I'm not part of the intended users of this site.

That said, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, conservative or otherwise, believes that a reference work should begin to define liberals as follows:
:::A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.
This is a caricature of political criticism, not an honest attempt at defining one's opposition. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a teacher grading an essay on political differences in the United States. An essay which begins to define the distinction between right and left wing with the above is worse than useless. It is mere propaganda, with no factual content at all.

It is, of course, your "encyclopedia", not mine, and you're welcome to include whatever definition you prefer, but you do yourselves no favors in this article. On the contrary, you lose considerable credibility with this introduction to the opposing political view. (Similar comments apply to other articles, but I must admit that this introduction surprised me with its immaturity. The first step in political debates should be to understand the difference in opinion, not to ridicule it.)

With due respect, [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 14:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

== Child porn? ==

Is there any justification for the claim that Liberals (some? most?) support child pornography? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 11:41, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:Yes. Look at the news related to Wikipedia of several months ago. Jimmy Wales made an effort to remove pornographic material from the site; he was ousted from control, and the material was put right back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::Also, the [[ACLU]] has a long reputation for defending child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::: I guess I just don't get what counts as evidence around here. Perhaps each of you could show me some sort of reference to what you mean? (Note: ''even if'' I take Wikipedia as good evidence of how liberals behave and ''even if'' what Karajou reports is accurate, pornography and child porn are two different things. Tzoran's claim comes without any reference or details at all and so I can't begin to evaluate it.)
::: Much thanks. [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 12:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::We have to prove it for you, based on what you want? You've been told...now Google it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::: No, you don't have to prove it for me, but claiming that liberals support child pornography without any citations in the article (or here) is not only unconvincing — it violates the first two Conservapedia Commandments. (I found some discussion of the Wales incident, but it hardly seems relevant to a claim about Liberals to me. Are the entire class of WP editors representative of liberals?) [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 15:58, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::"Pornography and child porn are two different things" ... both are examples of pornography, and at least to me, supporting the former inevitably leads to the latter. Some people are flawed like that. I looked at the ACLU article, and I found references for it at the bottom. That's as good a starting point as any. Keep in mind that supporting the removal of restrictions on pornographic content only ''benefits'' people seeking to deal in child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:44, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Look up the Child Online Protection Act and the [[ACLU]]'s treatment of it. I know it's in the [[Pornography|pornography]] article because I added it personally a few months ago, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pornography&diff=prev&oldid=771716 here]. Does that make more sense? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:48, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::: Thanks, Tzoran, for the clear reference, but with due respect, it does not support the claim that the ACLU (or Liberals generally) "support" child porn. Rather, the issue (as I understand it) was whether the law could or should place restrictions on pornography accessibility in order to prevent children from being exposed to porn. Maybe the ACLU was wrong in their position or maybe not, but in either case it does not suggest that the ACLU is supporting (or "defending") child porn.
:::::::: But regardless of whether you've convinced me or not, surely the entry (along with others in the same list) should be cited, don't you agree? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 17:51, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Typical of most liberals,Phiwum, you would demand a citation that the Sun is indeed in the sky! Try trolling elsewhere. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Child pornography is an incredibly sensitive and inflammatory subject, so perhaps a citation in this case would be a good idea. And while the sun being in the sky is obvious and everyone reading the article could be expected to know that, a link between child pornography and liberalism may not be as well known. I certainly did not know one existed, and would be extraordinarily interested in the data for such a link. So a citation or a link for reference so that a reader could look into the subject further if requires. As mentioned I intend to google the subject and will provide a citation myself if I find a reputable source with the information. however if someone already has one to hand it would be useful. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:10, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== A few minor things ==

The first citation does not contain the information suggested in the first paragraph. In fact it does not even contain the word "liberal". Is the link correct? I suspect an incorrect link has been posted.

Also the final bullet point of the Liberal list should perhaps be moved. As at the moment it reads:

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge. Perhaps there should be a criticism of liberals section?

Can I also applaud the work done further down the article on the different international definitions. I did not expect it to be there and was planning to write it myself.[[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:16, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

'':A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

'':And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge.''''

:The statement seems perfectly acceptable to me: look at the slavering over Stalin by many British 'intellectuals' in the 1930s. And surely whether or not liberals support the statement is immaterial here. I should imagine liberals would dispute it - as indeed they would dispute most of the information in this encyclopaedia. More fool them! [[User:TrevS|TrevS]] 13:27, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::At this time I am not disputing the statement or point. I am simply disputing the wording or the placement in the article. I agree that they probably dispute it. Look at the title of the list it is in. A liberal would not support that quote. So perhaps it would be better to be reworded or moved to a different better titled section. In it's current form it is a criticism. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 14:22, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

'''Please remember that Conservapedia doesn't believe in NPOV. We are conservative and Christian.''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:55, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

:NPOV = ? I am a supporter of the Conservative Party.

:I am not arguing with the statement at this time. I am just arguing for it's movement or rewording, as at the moment its placement with its current wording does not make sense. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:08, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::Re-wording and placement are subjective, right? Since Conservapedia is an ''American'' encyclopedia, by necessity parts of its content will need to be U.S.-centric. What is or is not a liberal certainly is included in that, as the meanings and values differ greatly in other parts of the world, especially the U.K. That is why Churchill noted we are divided by a common language. I have lived in the U.K., and in other parts of the world, so please be certain that I am not fighting with you over intentions, just pointing out the obvious....that some political terms are unique to the U.S., and one cannot adapt them to make sense in a U.K. perspective. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:23, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

:::My apologies, but I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am simply saying the bullet point in question is not something a (n American) Liberal supports, but is more a criticism of (American) Liberalism. It just doesn't flow right, or fit in with the rest of the list. I may write up a proposed change tomorrow and see what people think. I will also have a look at the UK based pages see if I can make any additions. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:44, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::::That would be super, Josh!

::::I see those of limited intellect and who have ideological blinders on once again show their limited abilities by thinking there is some dichotomy between not subscribing to NPOV and our at least giving diverging POV's their due. Fair minded people can indeed give other points of view an airing without subscribing to them, is what most (except those so far left or right they cannot see) people understand. Conservapedia doesn't attack people personally, call them drunks or child molesters, to make our point, as some liberal websites do. Nor do we encourage our editors to vandalize and disrupt the websites of those we disagree with. Perhaps once they purge their websites of such vile personal attacks, people of real intellect and good intentions will begin to take them seriously. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

==[[Classical liberalism]]==

Can we say something about the "good" kind of liberalism, i.e., the kind I was studying at Tufts College of Liberal Arts? I mean the kind of liberalism that wants to make change when warranted, and when "conservative" foot-dragging tries to keep us from making good improvements. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:07, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

== Liberal corporations section proposal ==

I propose that we add a section for famous (or infamous) companies/corporations that have supported liberal policies, including support for homosexuals, socialist government, and other activities and actions related to liberal mentality. My thinking on this is that by doing this, we can inform our users on which companies we should avoid.

:That's fine, but I wouldn't start with Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft has a strong pro-adoption policy for workers, and Apple's Steven Jobs has not been particularly liberal. Many other, far more liberal, companies should be considered before them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 February 2011 (EST)

::Right. I'll look into it. One note on prior edits; My apologies for addition of Microsoft and Apple to the page; I was only looking at their pro-homosexual donations at the time, and did not consider that they had more respectable policies than not. Like you said, there are companies that are far more detrimental/liberal in their actions and conduct.

:::It would be helpful to post companies whose liberal policies go beyond their own workers, and affect the public also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 26 February 2011 (EST)

== Why is rejecting the bible bad for the country? ==

If this country was not founded on christianity? --[[User:MahmoudAlzwarii|MahmoudAlzwarii]] 23:16, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

==[[Liberals in Europe]]==

Well, only in the USA are Liberals considered als leftist, in Europe the liberals ARE some kind of conservatives.

== this article has been a mess since april 10, 2011 ==

Here is a former sentence which I altered which is the beginning of the article: For example, FDR, '''one of the few great democratic Presidents''', firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties.

Yes, he did carry out WWII well, but economically he was a disaster and he stacked the Supreme Court with liberal judges. Plus, FDR instituted social security with no foresight to consider rising longevity plus with no opt out. Plus, he practiced [[Keynesian economics]] and prolonged the Great Depression.

I think the person who added this sentence had good intentions, but I don't think the person was educated about some of the poor decisions FDR made.

Since liberal is a key article, I think it is a bad mistake to not exercise increased vigilance in watching the content. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:11, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

:I have often heard "FDR prolonged the Depression" stated as a fact, but have never seen the evidence for this. Do you have any? [[User:JacobD|JacobD]] 09:09, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Look how fast the ex-President and businessman [[Calvin Coolidge]] licked the economic depression under his administration. Look at the results of Obama's stimulus and the Japanese multiple stimulus packages. While I do believe in the Glass–Steagall Act, anti-monopoly legislation and convicting businessman of fraud and other laws the general citizenry is under, the free enterprise system is more efficient and dynamic than state controlled economies. Although I am an ideological mix of conservatism/libertarianism and do not agree with everything that the Ludwig von Mises Institute advocates, I would suggest reading their website's material: http://mises.org/ [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:35, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

==Nazis and pedarists==

Conservapedia aims to have concise artiles that are not "verbose" but this article had descended into adolescent diatribe. The fact that any liberal is a pedarist is irrelevant to this article. There are sadly those in all political persuasions. Liberals may be more tolerant to certain peversions but discussing that enters into too much subjectivity -when presented in this way it degenerates into "throwing ones toys" at the oponent. Also, the Nazis are not liberal by either the standrds of classical liberalism (obviously not) nor modern liberalism. They may have had many socialist policies at an economic level but they were not liberals in terms of social policy. They were authoritarian. If a comparison needs tyo be made reagarding liberalism, communism and national socialism, it is best in its own article . It is totally unhelpful. oose comparison to the "Nazis" has long been identified as a point at which the accuser is starting to lose sight of credible arguments for their case. [[User:DavidMilton]]

Wow, that's a stunning level of reasoned argumentation.... no wonder the rest of the World knows that we conservatives are the real intellekshuls around here. .... think you meant "pederasts," though, bro. Stick it to 'em!

== headline reversion ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&curid=3039&diff=909680&oldid=908925 Re: this edit] I don't think its fair to say '''all''' liberals reject biblical standards because some liberals are really quite religious. Wouldn't it be fair to say some do conform to some biblical standard even if it is their own interpretation? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:47, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Political Correctness is not the opposite of free speech. ==

While it could be argued that political correctness is a form of censorship it is not the opposite of free speech. Political Correctness is a limitation placed on free speech but it is not the opposite. Nobody is forced to be political correct though societal/political pressure may be high. It just doesn't work out. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 18:32, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
: And of couse 'Political Correctness' is only visible if you disagree with it. The sort of censorship that conservative commentators deride as 'Political correctness' has always been with us; it's just that for most of our history, it's been a conservative viewpoint that has been regarded as correct by definition and unable to be questioned. Since the victory of liberal democracy during the 20th century, and the unleashing of people from repressive and restrictive autocracies of various kinds (in no small part due to the radically liberal foundational ideas of the great US democratic system), different political ideas have come to be regarded by thoughtful people as axiomatic, and the less flexibly minded among us have suddenly noticed the phenomenon, and christened it 'Political Correctness.'
: But of course what really puzzles me about this talk page is that some people actually seem to take it seriously, whereas the article is actually just a joke - some playground-level name-calling tricked up as an encyclopedia article. And i'm also genuinely puzzled why anyone who contributes to this nonsense would think it likely to convince anyone who didn't already agree with it - why do you waste your time?. Or is that not the point - is it just here to preach to the choir - to encourage the troops, rather than convince anyone else? [[User:MachinaSapiens|MachinaSapiens]] 08:07, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:::The abolition of slavery was done by religious conservatives. Mass murdering communism and genocidal master race evolutionism was the work of the left. In addition, even though MLK tilted left, he still was a black minister with many conservative ideas. So your victories seem rather shallow at best. By the way, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is going to do some serious damage to the specious liberal ideology of evolutionism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:36, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== Disarmament treaties ==

I've removed the sentence on disarmament treaties because it doesn't fit. What liberals like is unilateral disarmament. A treaty reduces weapons on both sides and maintains balance. Reagan's arms reduction treaties with the USSR were negotiated from a position of strength and were a great achievement, which wouldn't have been possible with liberal policies. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 13:09, 1 February 2012 (EST)

== "the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men..." ==

The reference supporting that quote goes to a blg post which does not itself support the quote with evidence. It needs a citation to the appearance of the phrase in Wired magazine. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 18:23, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

== More Biased than Wikipedia ==

I'm a Conservative, and yet I think this is far more biased than anything I've EVER read on Wikipedia. They at least don't make sweeping generalizations that make entire groups seem like dirt

:::maybe someday there will be a Wikia written from a Conservative point of view without all the extra stuff....though perhaps you can help create one as a counterpoint to CP. --DavidS 15:39, 20 March 2013 (EDT)

== iraq ==

The two sentences:
*Opposition of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a major part of the War on Terrorism
*Opposition to the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq

mean the same thing. Please remove one of it.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:01, 9 December 2013 (EST)

== Hilary Clinton saying she "believes in white supremacy" ==

Here's the entire quote:

{{cquote|"First family that comes and says 'I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School' and you say 'Great, wonderful school, here's your voucher,'" Mrs. Clinton said, according to the Long Island newspaper. "Next parent that comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist ...' The parent says, 'The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. ...You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me.'" The senator added, "So what if the next parent comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad?' ... I won't stand for it."}} [http://www.nysun.com/editorials/hillary-on-the-defensive/28068/ source]

Obviously, Mrs. Clinton was not expressing her own views on white supremacy, but outlining a thought experiment. To say otherwise is quote-mining, and makes me wonder about the good faith of the editor involved. [[User:SaulJ|SaulJ]] 13:22, 8 July 2015 (EDT)
::Here's the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su3JIS9VbtY|video]]. She quite clearly isn't talking about her own views. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] 20:56, 9 July 2015 (EDT)
It's not going into the article. She is not advocating white supremacy. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:01, 9 July 2015 (EDT)
::I permanently banned the editor responsible for this. I think some of his edits were intentionally wrong. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:13, 12 July 2015 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2016-03-25T19:00:18Z

MaxwellDE: /* praise for conservapedia's carefully crafted vision of conservative reality */ new section

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>

''This page contains some material that has been moved from [[Talk:Main_Page]]. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.''

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

==Restoring User Pages==

I wonder if you [I was referring to User:Conservative in the original context] would be be so kind as to restore the following user and user-talk pages. Most of these people were long-time respected sysops and administrators, as I'm sure you, being a long-time respected sysop and administrator yourself, well know. Many of our important articles were written by these people. Current users may want to know something about the people that went before them and built Conservapedia. We should show some respect for our history and our founding fathers/mothers.
*[[User:Jallen]]
*[[User:Tash]]
*[[User:Foxtrot]]
*[[User:Ymmotrojam]]
*[[User:DeanS]]
*[[User:TimS]]
*[[User:DanH]]
*[[User:Deborah]]
*[[User:BethanyS]]
*[[User:WilliamBeason]]

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:33, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

:Your suggestion is a reasonable one. I was not in favor of deleting user pages. But once deleted, I don't think it would be time well spent to restore the pages. Time moves on, and time could be better spent by improving substantive entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

::I can see that all the active users are pretty busy, and are probably disinclined to do this. So how about letting me do it? I'm willing to restore those pages myself. You would have to give me the appropriate temporary rights, which might be "undelete" rights, or maybe full administrator rights, I don't know how this works.

::I'm sure you know, from our many communications, both public and private, that I can be trusted not to harm Conservapedia in any way. During any period in which I have extra rights, I will refrain from annoying, harassing, irritating, teasing, insulting, or otherwise getting under the skin of any other user. I will not react to any taunts. I will not abuse the rights in any way. (Though if my rights include blocking, and I see any vandals come to town, I will of course take action.)

::You didn't want the pages deleted? We can fix that. What say you? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:48, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

:There's an extremely troubling aspect to all this. You say you weren't in favor of deleting the pages, and yet, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeyJ&diff=1100430&oldid=1100429 here], Cons says that the owner of the web site was in favor of the deletion. Was Cons lying? Also, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeyJ&diff=1101617&oldid=1100630 here], Cons seems to indicate that he was in communication with you on the subject of giving JoeyJ deletion powers. These powers are not taken lightly. In fact, JoeyJ is the only non-admin who has them. So it looks as though you gave JoeyJ the deletion powers '''knowing full well''' that he would use those powers to delete user pages. What is going on? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

== God delusion ==

I finished reading the Prof. Dawkin's book. I have to admit that it has shaken my religious foundations... I sometimes wonder whether that has made me an Agnostic now. It has made me question a lot of my upbringing. I was a good catholic girl. I wonder what my mom will say
--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 12:44, 15 November 2014 (EST)
:Richard Dawkins did not research or fact check his book very well and it has a number of errors in it as can be seen in this PDF version of [http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational Atheist].

:Second, how strong were your foundations before you read the book? How did you build your foundation?

:In the physical life, if you are flabby, don't get enough sleep, etc., it provides an opportunity for disease to enter. The same is true in a person's spiritual life. How familiar are you with the classic [[Arguments for the existence of God|defenses of the existence of God]]? How familiar are you with the various evidences for Christianity? See: [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]] Did you ever repent of your sins and dedicate your life to following Jesus Christ? How often were you reading your Bible? How often were you praying? What are the most serious arguments against agnosticism? What are the most serious arguments against atheism. See: [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]].

:Also, Jesus promises that those who repented of their sins and accept Jesus as their Savior and Lord will have communion with Him and will receive the Holy Spirit who will guide them. Did you ever know God or were you just engaging in religious rituals? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:07, 16 November 2014 (EST)

::[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/richard.dawkins.has.had.his.day.says.ravi.zacharias/43042.htm Richard Dawkins has had his day, says Ravi Zacharias] -'' Christianity Today'', November 15, 2014 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:04, 17 November 2014 (EST)

:::@Maria O'Connor: I'm really sorry that you have been abused so badly at Conservapedia. I want you to know that there are quite a number of decent and well-intentioned people here. You should ignore the abusers, and feel welcome to make contributions. We particularly need people who are knowledgeable in matters of science. If you can contribute in this area, dig in! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)

::Sam, you can contribute constructively to Conservapedia, or you can pick fights on the Main Page talk page. You cannot do both. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:16, 21 November 2014 (EST)

:::'''Of course''' Sam can contribute constructively to Conservapedia whilst disagreeing with certain other editors. He's been doing it for years..... and more strength to his arm. There are not enough Sams these days. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:36, 21 November 2014 (EST)

==Subject Matter Experts==
I recently had to deal with a case of someone making an edit to a chemistry article (with a note that he has a chemistry degree, which of course we can't verify, but it very well may be true) that was reverted. It's true that his use of "subjective" and "objective" could give the wrong impression to non-experts, and I have cleaned it up. But it just needed to be cleaned up. (The cleanup that someone did afterwards was ridiculous.) '''This person was blocked''', apparently just because of that edit. This should not have happened. Quite a number of good contributors, and potential good contributors—we'll never know—have been reverted and blocked because the people with blocking powers did not know how to evaluate the edits.
Now Conservapedia often has people come here and make stupid/parody/vandalism edits. But it is monitored constantly by the sysops. It is not necessary for people to be trigger-happy. Except of course for clear vandalism.
I would suggest a page, probably in the Conservapedia namespace rather than "mainspace", listing subject matter experts who can make expert analyses of these things. The list should be publicized to all sysops. Contributors can volunteer as experts in various subjects. And sysops could hold off on reverting questionable edits until an expert opinion is rendered. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:45, 28 November 2014 (EST)

=====Best Troll Detection of the Public=====

:You have no proof that '''the person who was blocked''' was merely a Subject Matter Expert and not a '''troll''' as well. This ought to be dealt with by the Best Troll Detection of the Public. Trolling techniques include emphasizing words (when the logic of argument doesn't require it) to trample over anticipated reasonable opposition to one's argument with raw emotion as well as arguing about things on the Main Page talk page that don't appear on the Main Page. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 10:55, 29 November 2014 (EST)
I can assure you that, in my 7 years here, I have developed a good sense for the kinds of vandals, trolls, parodists, sycophants, "mall cops", and other unsavory personalities that we have. I also notice other fascinating types of people, like those who complain about posting to this page not on the topic of improving the main page content while making quite a few such postings themselves (though, in fairness, they also make on-topic postings, which I rarely do), people who [[User_talk:SamHB#Spammer|did not realize that they had been given blocking powers until I told them]], and people who use [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page&diff=1110822&oldid=1110821 spectacularly recondite sentences] while attacking other contributors. You see, I've been around for a while.

On the matter of making posts to this page that are not directly on the topic of improving the content of the main page, I'm sure you know that, for several years, this page has been used for a discussion of CP in general, and that everyone, including Andy and the other admins, is OK with that. A more natural place for such discussion might have been a general discussion page such as [[Conservapedia:Desk]], but, as you can see, it has rarely been used of late. There is actually a (an?) historical reason, from a few years back, for this. I won't bore everyone with the details, but you can email me if you are interested.

Regarding my "subject matter experts" comment above, I wasn't asking for people who are good at detecting trolls. We already have plenty of people (including myself) who are good at this, and plenty of people (including you) who are good at dealing with them. We probably already have the "Best Troll Detection of the Public". I was requesting "subject matter experts", which we don't really have very many of, or don't know who they are on various topics, and requesting that subject matter expertise be used in deciding whether to revert an edit.

In the case of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Chemical_compound&diff=1118592&oldid=1118584 molar mass] edit, I was well aware that this person might be a troll—his use of the recondite (there's that word again) terms "subjective" and "objective" in a description of quantitative chemical analysis was a bit suspicious—these are quasi-philosophical terms that might be considered provocative on a wiki like this. But he also knew what molar mass means. His change was a vast improvement over the "fuel quantity" phrase. The article just needed to have the "subjective" and "objective" words taken out, which I have done. The person did know his subject matter. There was no urgency in reverting his edit.

A suggestion, Vargas: Let's both try to be nice. You do good work when you're not talking about "withering patrician disdain". We can both do better than fight with each other.

Maybe I should have spent the day shopping instead of this :-) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:02, 1 December 2014 (EST)

:I will not disregard Andy's express instructions at the top of the page! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:12, 2 December 2014 (EST)

::Fair enough. I will try to abide by that policy also. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:11, 6 December 2014 (EST)
:::I would be interested to hear what Andy thinks of the "subject matter expert" approach. Wikipedia generally hates experts and does everything to drive them away as editors. Many of the early CP articles were written by home-schooled students. We then had Ed Poor spending years curating a large number of articles. A few other editors undertook work in particular areaa of expertise such as AlanE and BHathorn. I suspect that Andy has his own lists of experts in the back of his mind, if not written down. The problem is that everyone believes that they are an expert while management may not agree with that assessment. So, we have to see whether this proposal is compatible with the "best of the public" concept. Thanks for raising it. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:16, 7 December 2014 (EST)

== Growing Conservapedia's conservative readership and editor base ==

Now that Conservapedia's Twitter link on the main page, two things:

1. We could organize our wiki editors to create/expand conservative articles in order to feature them on the Twitter feed.

2. Twitter is popular among conservatives. This book shows people how to attract 200 Twitter fans every single day: http://www.amazon.com/Twitter-Followers-Step---Step-guaranteed-ebook/dp/B00KEX694O/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1417623658&sr=8-3&keywords=twitter+marketing The book is only $1.00 and it should be easy to implement. If it was implemented, the Twitter account would go from 10,000 Twitter fans/followers to 83,000 fans/followers in one year.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:30, 3 December 2014 (EST)
:Has anyone considered taking out some modest ($50-$100) number of Facebook advertising? We could use it to drive traffic to the site and to recruit new editors. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)
::Wschact, create a web page called [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]] which I will feature on the main page. I can also talk to Andy about various ways to drive traffic to the page like online advertising, etc.

::It will not be Facebook advertising because Andy dislikes Facebook. Of course, if you want to take out a Facebook advert to have it go to [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]], you could certainly do so.

::Regardless, the main page will give the page [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]] some traffic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)
:::Good idea. 1) Do we have photos of Andy sitting around a computer with a bunch of his students when they were working on editing CP? How about a screen capture of Andy being interviewed with Stephen Colbert? I believe that photos are a powerful way to deliver a message. 2) Do we have any facts that we can use to convey the importance of Conservapedia's mission? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:02, 7 February 2015 (EST)

== Make the username policy more clear ==

:Copied on over from [[Help talk:How To Create a Conservapedia Account]]

I think it should be made clear that the username '''must''' include your real name, as opposed to ''recommending'' your real name; perhaps there could be a help page on Conservapedia's username policy. A few users have been blocked for violating an otherwise nonexistent policy (and also advised to create an account with a real name even though their account creation is disabled for two years). A clear username policy would probably be beneficial for Conservapedia. -- [[User:DanielJackson|DanielJackson]] 10:46, 6 December 2014 (EST)

== Conservative's "Message Area" ==

I seem to be unable to edit it, despite wanting to discuss something with him. As such I put out a general request for a way to contact him or for him to unlock his message area. Hopefully I'm not missing something really obvious! [[User:Nhodgson|Nhodgson]] 20:18, 6 December 2014 (EST)

:You would do well to just ignore him. There's really nothing that you could discuss with him. He is notoriously secretive, seeming to believe that other people go along with his games, and he often locks his own talk page, and the talk pages of his "pet" articles. He seems to expect other people to go along with his fantasy that he might be multiple people. Just ignore him. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:37, 6 December 2014 (EST)
::If we could talk to him, we might tell him that his reversion of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abraham_Lincoln&curid=3942&diff=1121083&oldid=1084045 this] on purely political grounds was ludicrous and shows a serious failure to observe what is going on. That edit was more than just a minor thing about whether Lincoln was a "classical liberal" or a "post New Deal progressive"—it was blatant and outrageous vandalism, about which most admins are very vigilant. The user ("TheonlySIL", whatever that means) should be blocked permanently. Perhaps some other admin will notice. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:48, 6 December 2014 (EST)
Setting aside SamHB's axe to grind because I/we are pro-biblical creationism and anti-Darwinism/liberal Christianity, my/our talk page has just been unlocked.

By the way SamHB, what do you think about the data contained in this article: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] ? Can you refute it? It does not appear so! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 7 December 2014 (EST)
:Haven't read it. But thanks for unlocking your talk page, Could you keep it that way, please? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:52, 11 December 2014 (EST)
::SamHB, may lock it again if I/we become extremely busy for an extended period or for other reasons which I/we prefer not to discuss. The talk pages of articles I/we created/contributed can certainly be used. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:59, 12 December 2014 (EST)

== Categories ==

There are two categories that are treating the same topic: [[:Category:Best of Conservapedia]] and [[:Category:Featured articles]]. How do they differ from each other and should they be merged?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 14:00, 12 December 2014 (EST)
:My guess is that when authors of articles wanted to get extra views for their articles that they spent a lot of time on, they gave their articles these category labels. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:52, 12 December 2014 (EST)
:So should these categories be deleted?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 16:01, 12 December 2014 (EST)
::While I have the greatest respect for Cons's diligence in spending a lot of time on her articles, and in getting them recognized (all her past SEO talk, for example), I notice that she does not put them into the the "best of CP" category. So I suspect that even she doesn't think the category is worth much. It does not seem to be noticed much. I just removed two obvious vanity/silliness things from it. Only three things remain. But their authors did put a lot of effort into them, and two of them are "flagship articles" by Andy. So I would consult with him on this. He probably wants a better way to promote the CBP and the Conservative words articles. In fact he has a better way: they are on the main page. So maybe you should ask him whether the "best of CP" category is worth keeping. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:23, 13 December 2014 (EST)
:::SamHB, no true analyst would pretend to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.

:::But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine [[Sarah Palin]] has more [[machismo]] than all [[Liberal Christianity|liberal "Christians"]] combined!

:::By the way, have you read the [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] article yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::::Nope. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:58, 21 December 2014 (EST)

==Purpose of this page==
This page provides a forum for editors to discuss matters related to CP and its policies. Please do not use it as a sandbox for drafting article. You can create your own sandbox by making a subpage of your user page. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:43, 13 December 2014 (EST)
:You're right. I was in a hurry before. Haste makes waste. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:17, 13 December 2014 (EST)
::There was no need to be hasty. You, of all people, must have known that it wouldn't be lost. Take a deep breath before editing.
::Speaking of careless editing, I'm pleased that you correctly used "you're" above, though it took another edit, at 10:17 yesterday, to fix it. Haste makes waste. But your recent edit to the bottom of TAR's talk page has that mistake. You're in need of more care in editing. Take a deep breath (and get some sleep!) now and then. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
:::@TAR: I've taken out the rest of your stuff. You can move it to your talk page if you like. You can get it out of the page history, of course; nothing is ever lost unless an admin explicitly vapes it, which I don't think is going to happen. You do not need to worry about vandalism; it's easy to revert. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
::::@SamHB, thanks, I didn't know I could make a sandbox page beneath my username page that won't be indexed. I will do that from now on for articles I am working on. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 20:11, 14 December 2014 (EST)
:::::There's a quick-and-easy trick to doing it, that I guess I ought to explain, though you might already know it. To create a new page subordinate to your user page, talk page, whatever, edit the user/talk page, and insert something like
:::::<nowiki>[[User talk:TheAmericanRedoubt/sandbox99|My spiffy subpage]]</nowiki>, and save it. When you look at it, it will be a redlink. Click on it, and you will get something like "this page doesn't exist. If you want to create it, enter the text below." Or something like that. Then paste in you new stuff. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:25, 14 December 2014 (EST)

== Deleting material from talk pages, or, even worse, deleting the page outright ==

Talk page material should not be deleted unless it is truly libelous or detrimental. Talk pages should be an ongoing journal of discussion of the corresponding project page. There is nothing wrong with a talk page being very short, and it is perfectly acceptable, albeit unusual, for an article page's author to say something on the talk page.

I recently had to re-create [[Talk:IP_camera]] to make a comment on the article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:05, 15 December 2014 (EST)
:Is there any way to recover the earlier material. Perhaps Andy or an admin could review the situation? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:50, 18 December 2014 (EST)

----

== Two millionth page view for the "Counterexamples to Relativity" page ==

The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has just gotten its two millionth hit. It is one of Conservapedia's best-known pages.

It seems that this page is very famous all over the internet. A Google search of Conservapedia+Relativity gets about 8000 hits. (Your mileage may vary; the test was done several months ago.) I didn't look at all of them, but I looked at the first 100, other than the CP article itself. Two were completely neutral and matter-of-fact, one was an item on ask.com that was a discussion of what "theory" means in a scientific sense, and was neutral. The other 97 were all derisive, mocking, contemptuous, and sarcastic.

Now I know that principled people are not deterred by popular opinion. But people might want to ask themselves whether the page has convinced '''anyone''' that Relativity is wrong. Or, more generally, whether it has accomplished anywhere near what its goals were. People might also want to ask themselves whether the counterexamples are objectively correct, and whether Relativity is objectively wrong. Now a lot of the discussion at CP has been about '''what people think about Relativity'''—for example, discussion of Laurence Tribe, and Barack Obama, and the folks that designed the GPS system, and the folks that operate that system, and so on. I'd like to get completely away from consideration of what people think about Relativity. Vox Populi and all that. I'd like to propose 3 questions about '''objective, observable facts,''' and ask the senior admins here to explain them without reference to people's opinions. These are matters of ''fact'' and ''incontrovertible observation''.

#It is known that the perihelion of Mercury precesses, beyond Newtonian calculations, by an amount of about 43 arcseconds per (Earth) century. Without getting bogged down into quibbling over thousandths of an arcsecond, and just using the accepted figure of 43 arcseconds, why do you think this is so? Now there has been extensive discussion at Conservapedia over the possibility that the exponent in the "inverse square law" is not exactly 2. People have argued over whether or not that satisfies some principle of theoretical elegance, or makes integration easier, or whatever. I'm not interested in any of that. What I am interested in is that ''it doesn't work''. That theory was proposed by Hall and Newcomb about 100 years ago, and quickly discarded, because it predicts a completely wrong precession for the Moon. So, why do you think this precession occurs? Do you have some theory of gravity that correctly predicts the precession of Mercury, other planets, the Moon, and Earth satellites?
#:
#It is known that the received frequency of GPS satellite clock signals is about 0.44 parts per trillion faster than the frequency at which the signals were transmitted from the satellite. This discrepancy is well known, and there is circuitry in the satellites to compensate for it. Minuscule as this discrepancy is, compensating for it is essential to the correct operation of the system. Without getting into what people believed or were thinking about when the system was designed, or what people believe or think about when they upload correction parameters, why does this discrepancy exist?
#:
#It is known that the mass of a Radium-226 atom (including the electrons--it makes no difference in the final outcome) is 226.025403 amu. When it undergoes alpha decay, it turns into an atom of Radon-222 (222.017571 amu) and an atom of Helium (4.002603 amu). This constitutes a loss of .005229 amu. Why is that? Is the law of conservation of mass not correct?

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:18, 17 December 2014 (EST)

:RESPONSE:

::#The precession of the perihelion of Mercury '''''disproves''''' Relativity. People stopped reporting the discrepancy as technology provided greater precision; yet Relativists still insist that this proves their theory when the actual data disproves it. Newtonians are honest about the issue. Why can't liberal Relativists publicly admit that the data disproves their theory? Every scientist knows that if he questions or criticizes Relativity, then he disqualifies himself from ever winning a Nobel Prize (see, e.g., Robert Dicke), obtaining a doctorate, or receiving any research funding.
::#There are a variety of possible explanations for the GPS discrepancy, starting with the obvious plausibility that the laws of physics are not invariant at every point in the universe. An honest, open-minded discussion of the issue would likely yield some valuable insights.
::#There is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy when something decays. It certainly does not prove Relativity.

::Liberals make false statements about science all the time. Jimmy Carter became president by claiming that oil would run out in 35 years. There is nothing new about liberals misusing science to advance liberal goals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 17 December 2014 (EST)

:::"''There is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy when something decays. It certainly does not prove Relativity. ''" - So, you do accept the equivalence of mass and energy, as SamHB was talking about the loss of mass! That's good news... Or maybe, you want to rephrase your point #3. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:55, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::It requires an enormous leap of [[faith]], far more than is suggested by the [[Bible]], to go from what I said to the silly, illogical ''E=mc2'' equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:::::Does it really? SamHB described a process where '''mass''' disappears - you answered that ''there is nothing startling about an emission or loss of '''energy'''''. This gives the impression that you think of mass and energy as somewhat interchangeable. I know that you don't think so, that's why I asked for you to ''"rephrase your point #3"''. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:26, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::::When something decays to a lower energy state it can emit energy. That is not relativity, that is not E=mc2, and that is not "mass-energy equivalence."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:::::::Agreed - but you are talking about '''energy'''. The question is where is the '''mass''' of .005229 amu? (Take a look [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton|here]]...)--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:56, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::::::You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:51, 21 December 2014 (EST)

I had not intended for this to re-open the entire discussion, including the Cockcroft-Walton experiment. Aside from pointing out the 2 millionth view, the goal was to ask 3 '''very narrowly drawn''' questions. So narrowly drawn that they '''were not about relativity!'''. Not directly, anyway. They were about 3 observable phenomena, and the intent was to ask for explanations, relativity or otherwise, about them. For the second and third questions, Andy sort of did give explanations, though they were totally unsatisfactory by the standards of contemporary science.

I specifically asked for explanations that were indpependent of people's opinions, beliefs, or behavior. I guessed that Andy would either ignore the questions, or give off-topic answers. I got the latter. I got comments about relativity, honesty of "Newtonians", "relativists", liberalism, Nobel prizes, doctorates, research funding, Robert Dicke, Jimmy Carter, oil, and discrepancies with modern measuring technology. (Really? Are you saying that the anomalous precession ''does not occur''? It's been observed since 1843. Are you saying that modern measurements show that the precession is zero, and that Leverrier was seeing something that isn't there?).

Let me restate the questions in their simplest possible form. Note that I am not asking about relativity.
#Anomalous precession. Why does it occur?
#:
#Time dilation. Why does it occur?
#:
#Non-conservation of mass. Why does it occur?

Andy did give a sort of explanation for the 2nd and 3rd of these: "The laws of physics are not invariant at every point" and "There is nothing startling [about this]".

Here is why those answers are completely unsatisfactory. Suppose that Johannes Kepler, when presented with Tycho Brahe's exhaustive data on planetary motion, including the puzzling retrograde motion of Mars, Jupier, and Saturn, had simply said "Well, I guess that, at some points in the Solar System, at some times, some planets go backward for a while." Or "There's nothing startling about this, Mars sometimes just goes backwards." He would simply be abandoning science to the capriciousness of nature. He didn't do that. He was a '''SCIENTIST'''. He looked for an ''explanation''. He and Isaac Newton worked out a formulation that explained it. They didn't just say that the laws of nature are just something random at various places in the solar system, they came up with a physical law that was valid (relative to the measurements of the day) ''at all places and times in the Solar System''.

The time dilation in the Earth's gravitational field is not just something random. It is known, and explained, with great precision. You can set your clock by it. (Literally!) To not be startled, or at least intrigued, by the time dilation, when time can be measured, and found not to dilate, between two points that are at the same altitude, shows a serious lack of scientific curiosity. Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?

The same thing goes for the mass discrepancy. Conservation of mass had been known, with extreme precision, by 1900. Scientists were in fact startled and intrigued by its non-conservation. By the way, it can be measured with greater accuracy now than 82 years ago, and it still holds, or do you deny that it happens? Can you cite modern precise measurements that show that the discrepancy is zero? Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:58, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:I did specifically respond to your three points, and then days went by without a reply from you. Again, the anomalous precession disproves Relativity just as it conflicts with one model of Newtonian gravity in the solar system. Why is there an anomalous precession? The Newtonian model can be tweaked to explain it; Relativity cannot. An honest discussion by scientists of the data would advance the understanding, rather than scientists pretending that the precession proves Relativity (it doesn't).

:Second, time dilation is not directly shown by anything, and certainly not by GPS. The slight variations can be explained by classical physics, or by recognizing that physical laws are probably not invariant across the universe.

:Third, the evidence for non-conservation of mass is almost non-existent, with the leading experiment more than 80 years out of date. But I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved, and Newtonian physics does not depend on it. [[Quantum mechanics]] may have the potential -- if pursued with an open mind -- to shed light on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:16, 22 December 2014 (EST)

::I'm not interested in what the anomalous precession proves or doesn't prove, or what scientists pretend that it proves or doesn't prove. I want to know why it occurs. The Newtonian model can be tweaked to explain it? Can you say what the tweak is? I hope it's not the Hall-Newcomb exponent tweak that was proved to be incorrect almost immediately after it was proposed. Do you have another tweak in mind?

::Time dilation is most definitely shown, both by GPS, and by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959. This can be explained by classical physics? Really? Can you give us details? Can you give us a Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist type of explanation, that goes beyond the cop-out of saying that the laws of physics are simply different in different parts of the universe? "Different parts of the universe" is a far bigger chunk of real estate than is needed to show the effect. The Pound-Rebka experiment involved different parts of the ''same building'', and GPS exhibits the discrepancy between different parts of medium Earth orbit. We should have a pretty good handle on how physics works in the vicinity of the Earth. Newton's law of gravitation worked over the whole solar system.

::Evidence for non-conservation of mass is not "almost non-existent"; it is ubiquitous. The specific case of Radium alpha decay can be found on the periodic table charts hanging in high-school science classrooms. "I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved"—well at least you qualified it with "necessarily always", but can you be more specific? To a degree that Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist would respect? You are quite right in that Newtonian physics does not depend on it, but that's not what I was asking.

::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:38, 22 December 2014 (EST)

:::Andy: ''"You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified."'' No, the experiment is routinely performed in courses on modern physics around the world, using modern technology. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:37, 22 December 2014 (EST)

::::On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data. Some objected to anything other than an exponent of precisely -2 for the force, because that muddies up the math, but that is a silly objection. The reality, however, is that anyone who pursues this approach is deemed an enemy of Relativity and won't get another research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize. Nothing but radio silence by the Relativity promoters about that obvious reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 22 December 2014 (EST)

:::::''"On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data."'' That's just a canard - and you know it, Andy: yes, the exponent of Newton's law of gravity can be tweaked (or error terms added), but this results in a model which doesn't fit all the other planets. That's known since Simon Newcomb's days - and [[User:SamHB]] elaborated on this '''[[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|nearly five years ago]]'''! The first time you came up with this idea, you could have pretended to be ignorant on this subject. But you repeat it over and over again, without having done the calculations, or looking up why physicists discarded the idea a hundred years ago! That's worse than ignorance, that's willful ignorance.
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:36, 28 December 2014 (EST)

Let's not be too hasty with judgements about ignorance, willful or otherwise. Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this (and the other two phenomena). We're making good progress by drawing the questions very narrowly.

I believe that Andy has indeed read the relevant items, like [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|this page]] from nearly five years ago, and [[Relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|this section]], with its table of precessions of the planets. (I did not put in the phrase "fail to", by the way.)

So let's go over the situation again, extremely carefully. The bulk of the table was from me, though the all-important final column was added by [[User:Jloveday]], using some experimental data that he dug up. I'm not in full agreement with the way he rounded the data, but the effect is clear. Even though getting good error bounds on the minuscule precession of planets beyond Mercury is very difficult, one can easily see, from the last few columns, that General Relativity tracks the observed precession very well, while the Newcomb-Hall tweak of 2.000000157 tracks it extremely poorly. Except for Mercury, of course, since the exponent was tweaked specifically for that planet.

So, Andy: What is the tweak to Newtonian mechanics that explains the precession for all the planets? And, while we're at it, can you give a satisfactory explanation for the other two phenomena, time dilation and mass non-conservation?

Andy also says: "Some objected to anything other than an exponent of precisely -2 for the force, because that muddies up the math, but that is a silly objection." I agree, it's silly. Though I am a little curious about who these "some" are. Can you cite something on the subject? Perhaps one of your physics textbooks?

Also: "The reality, however, is that anyone who pursues this approach is deemed an enemy of Relativity and won't get another research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize." As I said earlier, I'm not interested in the personalities; I just want to know why you think the precession occurs. (Actually, that's not true. I ''am'' deeply interested in the history of science and technology. But not right now. We can discuss that some other time.) So I'll make you an offer: If you get turned down for a research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize over this, I'll stick up for you. I'll cite the spirited debate you and I have been having over the last several years as evidence that you've thought deeply about these issues. Though I don't think I have much influence over funding agencies or Nobel committees. :-)

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:12, 29 December 2014 (EST)

==Categories==
I generally have a "live and let live" attitude towards the edits of others on CP, and don't want to criticize any particular editor. However, CP has experienced over time that editors come here from Wikipedia, where there are millions of articles and a very high number of Categories. Because CP is much smaller, we have opted for fewer categories, Over the past day, someone has created a bunch of new categories like [[:Category:Conservative Authors]]. [[:Category:Christian Authors]], etc. Such narrow new categories will make a lot more work for everyone and may discourage editors from categorizing their articles. Perhaps Andy and management could please take a look? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:58, 18 December 2014 (EST)
:The relevant provision of [[Conservapedia:Quick reference]] says: "'''Creating new "Categories"''' While this is sometimes needed, before undertaking larger projects that will have ramifications for many existing articles, please contact one of the Administrators on their talk page, and inform them of your idea."

== To my liberal, sissy boy, atheist critics of guns in Texas! ==

Gentlemen, consider this picture of [http://www.andrewtonnphoto.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=796 Amish women shooting rifles]. When is the last time you heard of Amish women going on shooting rampages? :)

Amish women do not watch violent video games or watch television shows and/or movies with gratuitous violence! See [[Hollywood values]]. And unlike Muslims, the only beheadings Amish women read about is David beheading Goliath (and we know Goliath deserved it for defying the armies of the living God!).

Amish women are peaceful creationists and not violent evolutionists (see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [[Evolutionary racism]]),

Amish women are loyal wives and are less likely to have their husbands go on jealous/violent rampages (see: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]). And Amish men have submissive wives and do not endlessly quarrel with stubborn, feminist wives! And irreligious men are more likely beat their wives/girlfriends than religious men (see: [[Irreligion and domestic violence]]).

Gentlemen, it is the dysfunctional liberals and liberal influence that causes much of the violence in Texas. No true conservative goes on a gun rampage! When is the last time you heard of a gun rampage occurring due to a student in a Bible believing Christian school? Never, my liberal, atheist friends? If only Texas wasn't creating so many jobs and a magnet to unemployed and undisciplined liberals fleeing their liberal welfare states!

And remember this, guns are an insurance policy for rogue states. Surely, you have read about such states (see: [[Atheism and Mass Murder]] and [[Evolutionary racism|Evolution and Nazi Germany]]).

Gentlemen, I hope this clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:47, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::By the way, don't even think about saying that the Amish are pacifists and would not kill in self-defense.

::Would an Amish man use violence to protect his wife? Did David eat the show bread?[http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/438/how-does-jesus-argument-from-david-and-the-show-bread-work] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:00, 17 December 2014 (EST)
:::Thank you for giving up your precious time to add these insights to the talk page, Conservative. The world would be a better place if more wives followed your example. [[User:JSamson|JSamson]] 17:25, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::::No true skeptic pretends to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.

::::But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine [[Sarah Palin]] has more [[machismo]] than all liberal atheists combined! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:45, 17 December 2014 (EST)
:::::I thought there was to be no further additions from the User: conservative account on the talk page? Perhaps one of the members did not get the memo? -[[User:JaysonK|JaysonK]] 13:51, 18 December 2014 (EST)
::::::Buckling down on time management. Plan to post less on talk pages. Revised plans about talk pages. Will post on talk pages when it is related to article/wiki improvement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:54, 18 December 2014 (EST)

== References ==

<references/>

== A project for active editors to collaborate on ==

Would you anyone like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.

The topic could be decided by the editors participating.

If you are interested, please leave comments below. I suggest picking a leader/leaders for the project or least assign people for various tasks associated with the project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:50, 25 December 2014 (EST)

:I would be happy to help, but my time is limited.[[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 22:06, 25 December 2014 (EST)

::Merry Christmas Cons, and thanks for the thought. I think, however, that I would tend to become a "Devil's Advocate" in any collaboration I can envisage. The token liberal so to speak (and I say that with no malice.) I will need to know more. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:21, 25 December 2014 (EST)
:::AlanE, it doesn't have to be a political project. It can be on a non-political topic. I will let whoever participates decide on the topic and whether or not it will be a political project.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 25 December 2014 (EST)
:::::If AlanE and [[FOIA]] and anyone else who joins wants to decide on a topic tomorrow, the project can start right away. It can be announced on the main page also.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:33, 25 December 2014 (EST)

: I'd be happy to join in and help in any way I can. Merry Christmas. I have been and will mostly focus on the articles [[List of military tactics]] and [[List of military strategies and concepts]]. Long life the Republic! [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 01:33, 26 December 2014 (EST)

:Your invitation was an honor, and I thank you for your confidence. I will be happy to help. As soon as I finish my current "Bible" project, I will look more closely at what you have here and see what I can do. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 19:00, 26 December 2014 (EST)
::Sounds great. Thanks for tackling the project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:16, 27 December 2014 (EST)
=== Ideas for potential articles ===

Political:

*[[Republican beliefs]]

*[[21st Century Republican Party]]

*[[Differences between Republicans and Democrats]]

*[[Social conservatism]] (article needs to be improved)

*<s>[[Islamic terrorism]] (article needs to be improved)</s>

*[[Political fundraising]]

*[[Kim Jong-un]] (article needs to be improved)

*[[Tiananmen Square massacre]] (article needs to be improved)

Less political:

*[[Modern slavery]]

*[[Republican presidents]]

*[[List of military tactics]]

*<s>[[List of military strategies and concepts]]</s>

*[[Socio-cultural indoctrination]]

*[[Rugged individualism vs Christian community (body of Christ)]]

Non-political:

*[[Dog training]]

*[[Chess strategy]]

*[[Marathon]] (needs to be expanded)

*[[Tourism]] (needs to be expanded)

Feel free to add article ideas [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:32, 26 December 2014 (EST)

:This date I must apologetically withdraw my participation. My prayers for success of this project. May God + bless this work. See [[User talk:Dataclarifier#REDUCED INVOLVEMENT IN CONSERVAPEDIA DUE TO WORK AS VOLUNTEER OMBUDSMAN FOR ELDERLY|REDUCED INVOLVEMENT IN CONSERVAPEDIA DUE TO WORK AS VOLUNTEER OMBUDSMAN FOR ELDERLY]] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 12:28, 27 February 2015 (EST)

== Do we really have so few responsible editors ..... ==

that obsessed individuals can materially change the tone and direction of Conservapedia with no one to apply the brakes.? Remember when this was supposed to be a resource for home-school students? A place where they could look up "vibration", for example, and get a concise definition of what it is, at their level, without going off into mystical medical cults? Remember when [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI this] was a good description of Conservapedia's vision and goals?

What happened? We now have just a tiny number of people turning the place into a survivalist blog, and an herbal medicine blog, or whatever, with hardly anyone to apply editorial direction. This wiki needs supervision.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:30, 2 January 2015 (EST)

:Things like [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] look very troubling indeed! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:58, 3 January 2015 (EST)
:: I agree with you there AugustO, I would say the content in those articles would be more at home on hippypedia or alternaticemedicinepedia than on conservapedia. Remember, conservatives like to have things backed up by facts, not nonsensical anecdotes that are the backbone of alternative medicine. [[User:PhilH|PhilH]] 02:15, 3 January 2015 (EST)
:::Despite all the blurbs for Ayurvedic medicine in inappropriate places, [[Ayurvedic medicine]] itself remains a red link. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 17:57, 4 January 2015 (EST)

==Response to [[User:SamHB]], [[User:PhilH]] and [[User:AugustO]] Regarding Ayurvedic - Chinese - Western Herbal Medicine on Conservapedia==

I am reposting-quoting here [[User:AugustO]]'s post on [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Ayurvedic_medicine]] in order to see why I am making such a detailed point-by-point response.

"You know me as conservative on social or fiscal issues, but my conservatism reaches its zenith on medicine. I am very dedicated to Western medicine, and run away from "new age" or other fringe medicine approaches. Andy, you have to draw a line here on whether Conservapedia has the expertise and resources to cover Ayurvedic medicine properly. I doubt that we do and should stay away from it completely. Please decide and tell [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] you decision. Many thanks for all that you do for the Conservative movement. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:42, 2 January 2015 (EST)
:[[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] is like an advert for alternative medicine: it has 110 subcategories and is itself in 26 categories:
::[[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Tibetan Medicine]]|[[:Category:Complementary Medicine]]|[[:Category:Medicine]]|[[:Category:Health Care]]|[[:Category:Traditional Chinese Medicine]]|[[:Category:Naturopathic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Herbalism]]|[[:Category:Medicinal Plants]]|[[:Category:Herbs]]|[[:Category:Spices]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Traditional Chinese Medicine]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Ayurvedic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Western Herbal Medicine]]|[[:Category:Herbalists‎]]|[[:Category:Health]]|[[:Category:Survivalism]]|[[:Category:India]]|[[:Category:Tibet]]|[[:Category:Nepal]]|[[:Category:Mongolia]]|[[:Category:Burma]]|[[:Category:Thailand]]|[[:Category:Sri Lanka]]|[[:Category:Asia]]|[[:Category:Southeast Asia]]|
:That could be a kind of record! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:04, 3 January 2015 (EST)

===Response to [[User:Wschact]] and [[User:AugustO]] Regarding Ayurvedic - Chinese - Western Herbal Medicine on Conservapedia ===
:: Happy New Year [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:Wschact]], [[User:AugustO]], [[User:Conservapedia]], and [[User:Karajou]]

Thank you for your patience with this detailed point-by-point response.

Like you [[User:Wschact]], I too am a steadfast conservative, but on much more than just social and fiscal issues, as my thousands of conservative point-of-view Conservapedia edits can attest to (Please see my [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] for more information). Also like you [[User:Wschact]], I too am very dedicated to Western medicine and work together with a medical doctor with a busy private practice office in a large hospital setting where he and I integrate both modern pharmaceutical based treatment and the use of custom made Ayurvedic-Chinese-Western herbal formulas, nutrition (based on Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine concepts) and acupuncture. He supervises my practice in that setting. Like you [[User:Wschact]], both he and I also run away from the myriad "new age" medicine approaches. However, Ayurvedic medicine, Chinese medicine - Acupuncture and Western herbal medicine are not "new age". Ayurveda and Chinese medicine - Acupuncture have been in continuous use since at least 250 B.C. according to archaeological evidence and extant classic medical texts in both Chinese characters, Tibetan and Sanskrit (which I can read by the way in Devanagari script).

Conservapedia does indeed have the expertise and resources to cover Ayurvedic medicine and Chinese medicine - acupuncture properly since I am contributing as a dedicated regular editor and have joined the [[Wikiproject:Medicine]] to lend my ongoing support editing/categorizing ALL articles in the realm of medicine / anatomy in addition to my other subject matter expertise areas on my User Page / Talk Page.

[[User:PhilH]] has said there is no clinical evidence to support complementary medicine. Not according to the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Institutes of Health who funds clinical trials on herbal medicines effectiveness, not according to medical doctors in America who integrate modern medicine with complementary medicine, not according to numerous conservatives who rely on complementary medicine including Western herbalism, Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda and Acupuncture. Just the fact that there is licensing for acupuncture in most of the U.S. states (majority of states require the licensing examination or certification, and several states allow oriental medicine practitioners to be "primary care providers" for legal and insurance purposes; nineteen states specifically include Chinese herbology instead of just acupuncture). For naturopathic medicine 17 states, five Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia, and the US territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands all have laws regulating naturopathic doctors (See map http://aanmc.org/images/LicensureMapBig.jpg -- even very conservative states such as my home state of Idaho in the [[American Redoubt]], along with Montana and Utah license naturopathy).

All of this attests to complementary medicine's broader acceptance, not to mention the size of the herbal market in the U.S. economy: For herbal medicine "overall sales reached $5.6 billion in 2012" "rising from $4.2 billion in 2000" (http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Markets/Herbal-supplement-sales-rose-5.5-in-US-in-2012-ABC-says)

There are many conservatives blogs and forums that I follow that have regular articles on complementary medicine and herb usage. Complementary/alternative medicine is not some liberal, hippie or New Age thing. It is even paid for by many insurance companies now. There is worker's comp coverage for it in certain U.S. states.

Regarding evidence in my articles, I will indeed be submitting footnoted hyperlinked clinical evidence from MedLine / PubMed.

Regarding the [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] having lots of sub-categories: There are many sub-categories in the Ayurvedic medicine category since it is a broad science including many diverse health and disease topics and since I am a very detail oriented person as you can see with my contributions for the firearms categorizations (which formerly were all lumped into just the Category of "Guns"). I am using that [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] and its temporarily numerous subcategories as a way of '''temporarily''' getting a broad view and tracking ability of ALL of the medicine-anatomy categories and articles in order to update them all over the coming months. I promise that I will pare that category down in the next 60 days to something smaller once I have updated-edited-expanded '''ALL''' of the medicine/anatomy related articles to follow a consistent yet detailed categorization scheme. I always start first with detailed Wiki categories in order to flesh out the scope-breadth-depth and a logical structure for the articles I will submit. I am doing the same detailed categorization for Firearms and other areas.

[[User:Conservative]] has been "mentoring" me as to what I should and shouldn't post. I have been following this for guidance as well: [[Conservapedia:Editorial_authority]]. I also received advice from [[User:Karajou]] on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 23:15:17 by e-mail (conservapedia AT zoho.com) who said, "Try your hand at writing complete articles. Conservapedia is not just something containing conservative thought; it is also intended to be a family encyclopedia, so it has to have info on planes, trains, automobiles, animals, sports teams, camera systems, or whatever else comes to mind. So, if you happen to be an expert on - say, rowboats - write an article on rowboats. Karajou".

Thus, following Karajou's advice above and oversight from [[User:Conservative]], I am writing "whatever comes to mind" on what I "happen to be an expert on". Thus, I have be developing a lot of detailed articles and their categorizations for my 6 areas of specialization (in order of my depth of subject matter expertise): 1. Medicine, 2. Computer networks (17 years professional experience), 3. [[Preparedness]]-Survivalism, 4. [[Firearm]]s, 5. [[Permaculture]] [[gardening]], 6. [[Radio communication technologies]] - [[Amateur radio]]. Being a staunch American conservative libertarian "prepper" [[gun enthusiast|"gun nut"]], I obviously write/edit from that perspective.

For these and many other reasons, I don't see a reason for Conservapedia to stay away from complementary medicine completely as you suggest [[User:Wschact]]. Thus, I will continue to contribute such works to Conservapedia until I am told to stop by any of the CP Administrators such as [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:Conservative]], or user [[User:Karajou]].

Thank you to you all for your work for our Conservative movement. Godspeed. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:57, 3 January 2015 (EST)

=="[[Troll]]" Editing by [[User:SamHB]] of Numerous articles I am Working on / Editing / Contributing ==

[[User:SamHB]], First you accuse me of plagiarizing, then you delete my citation correcting your speedy deletion template notice. Are you "[[Troll]]ing" perhaps ("[[Troll|users who purposely make disruptive edits are considered trolls]]") like your friends [[User:PhilH]] and this other friend of yours who made the comment on [[Talk:Free_state]]?

[[User:SamHB]], Please follow these Guidelines rather than making disruptive edits to further your agenda: [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]]

[[User:SamHB]], Looking at your contribution here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SamHB

[[User:SamHB]], I see that the last time you actually contributed any kind new article other than a Talk Page was here 2 years and 6 months ago:
18:54, 1 June 2013 (diff | hist) New! Propositional Calculus ‎ (A start. Ed, it's time for you to step up to the plate (See? I do know a few metaphores, though I'm not a TopDog!) and fill out this article.)

Looking at your contribution logs, a large amount of your recent edits in the last 30 days have been reverting my edits.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tinospora_cordifolia&action=history:
08:11, 4 January 2015 SamHB (Talk | contribs | block) (7,439 bytes) (Do not "spam" links to extrenal commercial websites. People are routinely banned for that.) (undo)

17:07, 2 January 2015 SamHB (Talk | contribs | block) (6,798 bytes) (If you really think blatantly plagiarized material should stay, please post a note to the community portal explaining this.) (undo)

[[User:SamHB]], It seems you are not listening to my previous Talk page on these articles. This is the second time I am telling you this. Please kindly listen this time and stop [[troll]] editing.

[[User:SamHB]], these links you deleted are ''''not'''' Spam links to external sites. It is a temporary citation for a quote I made to start the rough draft of the article -- the "ref" is to a respected and authoritative source of information on this herb; just as IBM would be an authoritative and respected cite regarding IBM Mainframe computers. Once I type in quotes and/or paraphrase summaries from some of my numerous Ayurvedic herb books listed here [[Tinospora_cordifolia#External_Links]], I will cite them as well to flesh out the article.

Formerly you were here on this very article [[Tinospora cordifolia]] accusing me of plagiarizing by not citing my 1 paragraph quote and nominated the article for deletion. Again, SamHB, please respect as I said before on my user talk page (perhaps you can read it) that I will be completing these articles in the next five days and let me do the editing on my article that I started, otherwise it slows me down to have to constantly go back and check the history of the pager to see if someone is "helping out".

While you can perhaps please consider contributing some new actual articles of your own in your own area of expertise such as math rather than editing one I am in the middle of working on. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 10:41, 4 January 2015 (EST)

-----

== This Site is Being Hijacked ==

There is no more pleasant way to put that.

This is a continuation of what I wrote above about "Do we really have so few responsible editors". The problem is extremely serious. Ultimately, it is about there being so few people who are responsible, level-headed, and able to put reasonable amounts of time into this, that one person can overwhelm everyone and turn Conservapedia into something far removed from its original goal. The original goal, in case people have forgotten, was a site that home-school students (and others, of course) can use as a general reference source, on a wide variety of topics, without bias from the liberals elsewhere on the Internet.

But [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] is single-handedly steering the site into a very different and troubling direction. Multiple directions, actually. How is he able to do this? '''Because his editing is fanatical, intense, and obsessive, and there aren't enough level-headed editors around who have the time and energy to put the brakes on.'''

He is turning this into a blog on survivalism, one very particular "Vata/Dosha/Ayurvedic" type of nontraditional medicine, and many other things. There is nothing wrong with articles on these topics, but he is overwhelming Conservapedia with his obsessive editing.

He has put dozens and dozens of references to his views on survivalism into a huge number of articles for which such references are totally inappropriate. He seems to think that we should all drop out of society, cash in everything we have into "tangibles" (bullets, beans, batteries, whatever) and move to "redoubt states" like Idaho to spend the rest of our days behind some barricades doing .... I don't know.

His steering of CP into his chosen direction is made all the worse by his fanatical cross-referencing and categorizing. This has put his writings "in your face" when people go to normal topics. For example:

*[[vibration]] used to be a short article explaining what wibration is—a rapid periodic undulating motion. TAR put it into the "VATA" category. When one looks around in same, one finds some new-age touchy-feely nonsense about psychological perceptions of vibration. He polluted [[Fashion industry values]] in the same way.

:: Dear [[User:SamHB|SamHB]], I will be adding some explanation to [[Fashion industry values]] and to my [[vata]] article to show that according to Ayurvedic medicine, patients who are "[[vata]]" disturbed or of a vata constitution have a very strong documented tendency to be part of much of the Fashion industry values, particularly [[anorexia nervosa]], serious [[drug abuse]], extreme [[promiscuity]], unfettered cosmetic surgery, severe [[depression]] along with an obsession for fashion.
One of my family members is a psychologist of 24 years who also knows Ayurveda and who has seen fashion industry values addictions among countless "vata" disturbed patients, but not among [[pitta]] or [[kapha]] patients who are more stable and not usually addicted to these same things. Sam, I shall be showing [[vibration]] to show a similar connection to the [[:Category:Vata]] both in Ayurveda, Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine. Perhaps SamHB it is best you stick with writing '''new''' useful articles on mathematics and calculus.
::Perhaps Sam you may want to considering following the wise advice of conservative [[User:VargasMilan]]: "Withholding judgment for now is good".
::Please be patient while I work on expanding articles and writing new content. Thank you. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:49, 5 January 2015 (EST)

*Similar irrelevant edits to [[Empirical science]], [[Natural Law]], [[Scientific observation]], [[Color]], [[Hopelessness]], [[Hearing_(sense)]], and [[Salt]].
:: Sam, in due time I shall expand these articles as well to show my reasoning. But for now I will follow my favorite CP Rule ([[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]]) and get back to work writing '''new''' content and will follow VargasMilan's advice below and try to not urgently "feel pressured to complete all the red links and for-now-obscure connections" "just because some people don't like" me "trying to be an effective voice for conservatism, and so they unfairly single" me "out." [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:26, 5 January 2015 (EST)

*Similar survivalist edits to [[Ruthenium]], [[Transformer]] (the electrical device), and [[Wire]] (the electrical conductor).
:: Dear [[User:SamHB|SamHB]], I corrected my accidental cut and paste of the Category:Survivalism on [[Ruthenium]] done when I first created the [[:Category:Precious Metals]] (
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Precious_Metals&action=history) on Dec. 4. Thanks for catching them SamB.
::I expanded the one sentence stub for transformer to include more content and formatting including its reason for being part of [[:Category:Survivalism]].
::Regarding the article [[Wire]] - was an article on expanded to include the electrical connector (it primary sense), since it formerly only described some Rock band Album (see
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wire&action=historysubmit&diff=1123057&oldid=1102092)
:: SamB, I think I will get back to making constructive edits and creating new content rather than hanging out on Talk pages. Good day. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:34, 5 January 2015 (EST)

*He has written extensively about [[amateur radio]], which, as an extra-class licensed ham, I think is fine. But the implication is that hams are just supposed to do this so they can communicate with each other "off the grid" in their "redoubts". I can assure everyone that the vast majority of hams (even those in call sign area 7) are fully engaged in society. We take emergency preparedness very seriously, of course, and have a big annual contest on this topic every year, but this is always done in cooperation with existing local, state, and federal emergency organizations. We have sub-organizations (ARES and RACES) dealing with this. We are very much on the grid and in society, and I object to the implication that we are not.
*His [[IP camera]] article, to pick just one of dozens of examples, links to [[Survivalist retreat]]. This is absurd.

In addition to his fanatical edits to Conservapedia articles that, by themselves, materially alter this site's direction, this huge web of interconnected categories and "see also"s makes it impossible for readers to escape his actions. This is significantly worse than what [[User:Conservative]] has been doing because, in the latter case, one simply needs to ignore any article with "hot button" phrases like "obesity", "evolutionism", "creationism", "atheism", "ponies", "walrus slides", and "long-haired creationist ladies". It's much much harder to escape from [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]]'s behavior.

I urge the administrators to put a stop to this. The rest of us simply can't do it.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:08, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:SamHB, I did a Google search of instances of the phrase "long-haired" on Conservapedia and none of the instances were done by the User: Conservative account. Are you jealous because you suspect that an editor of the User: Conservative account has a long-haired maiden as a sweetheart and you do not? :)

:::Try [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/120#please_make_a_cost.2Fbenefit_analysis_in_terms_of_human_welfare]]. It has "long haired, sweet and gentle Christian lady wife", no hyphen. Sorry. Anyway, I'm glad that at least one of you (male, I hope!) has "a long-haired maiden as a sweetheart". [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 16:53, 4 January 2015 (EST)

:Second, the odds of you being listened to by Aschlafly in terms of suggestions/complaints, etc. would go dramatically up if you created more content. Right now, I think the odds are pretty much zero given your level of content creation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:21, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:::I agree that the odds are nearly zero, but not for the reason you give. My history as a constructive contributor of long standing is well known to Andy. But thanks for your words of encouragement. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 16:53, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:: Quote Right now, I think the odds are pretty much zero given your level of content creation. Doesn't mean SamHB is not right though. The edits from the redoubt are so obviously either parody or highly biased POV pushing that it is difficult to argue otherwise. Woo is not encyclopedic, no matter who peddles the woo. Now I leave both redoubt and the collective known as User:Conservative to indulge in last wordism. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:35, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:::Oh, and if the collective editors of the User:conservative account have a long haired maiden as a sweetheart then I would question how multiple people having the same sweetheart is in any way Christian? Seems more liberal hippy type behaviour to me. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 4 January 2015 (EST)
::::DavidSpenceer, you may believe that deceitful accusations based on altering the meaning of other people's words is clever. It is not. And it makes the accuser look bad. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:::::That is not what I was doing and you know it. Luke 4:23 Now, as I said I will leave you and redoubt to indulge in last wordism at this point.[[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 16:17, 4 January 2015 (EST)
DavidSpencer, I think posting long screeds to a person who is known to preferring brevity and doing it in a context that has an effective success rate is zero is irrational. But hey, that's just me! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 4 January 2015 (EST)

Is there a specific objection to a specific edit? I looked at [[transformer]], for example, and did not see anything objectionable about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 4 January 2015 (EST)

:I believe the objection was to the addition of the Survivalism category. If transformers are important to Survivalism, then it would be difficult to name a practical object that doesn't deserve inclusion in that category. [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 00:09, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:: I updated the [[Transformer#Transformers_During_an_EMP_or_CME|transformer]] article to reflect why I included it in the [[:Category:Survivalism]]. Thank you for pointing it out. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 01:54, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:: Thanks [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] for your observations. Each item I put in the [[:Category:Survivalism]] will have expanded, footnoted content added to the article to justify its inclusion in this broad Survivalism category. For now, please be patient with it. Unless [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] objects to the content. I will be, in due time, reasonably justifying it with actual expanded content that respects copyright. Please see: [[Talk:Fair_use#Authorization_by_NYT_Best-Selling_Conservative_Christian_Preparedness_Author_James_Wesley_Rawles_to_use_.22up_to_3_Quotes_of_800_Words_Each.22_of_his_Writings_per_CP_Article]]. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:26, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:::SamHB and AlexanderS are worried that there are 404 articles and 125 subcategories in [[:Category:Survivalism]] now. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:35, 5 January 2015 (EST)

I am sure that SamHB has a better list, but you can review the user TAR contrib log for yourself:

A. Categories on Redirect Pages (he has promised to stop, but has not fixed):
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nonviolence&diff=prev&oldid=1128854 diff]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Unfree_state&diff=prev&oldid=1129151 Unfree state redirect categories subject of an edit war with SamHB, when nobody will ever see the redirect page]
B. Excessive See Alsos:
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=28_U.S.C._%C2%A7_453&action=historysubmit&diff=1128848&oldid=910327 what does 28 U.S.C. 453 have to do with the "Oath of the Hindu Physician"?]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Basil&diff=prev&oldid=1128985 Basil]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Priest&diff=prev&oldid=1128857 Priest]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pathology&action=historysubmit&diff=1128356&oldid=908582 Pathology] - also odd categories
C. Copy and Paste:
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tinospora_cordifolia&diff=next&oldid=1128194 SamHB called for a speedy delete] but this is obviously now a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tinospora_cordifolia&action=historysubmit&diff=1128974&oldid=1128895 derivative work with minor rephrasing]
*[[M.D._Creekmore]] from [http://www.thesurvivalistblog.net/about3/]
D. Odd new categories:
* [[:Category:Breathing]] - now 5 martial arts articles have been added but the see also and subcategories don't match the martial arts.
* [[:Category:Respiratory System]] - a bit of back and forth between TAR and SamHB - the 12 articles in this category don't match the ideas added by TAR.
E. Adding novel categories to long-standing articles:
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vibration&action=historysubmit&diff=1127925&oldid=519263 Category Vata to Vibration]
* Due to TAR's massive efforts, there are now 404 articles in [[:Category:Survivalism]] as well as 125 subcategories, including [[:Category:Fruits]]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Inspiration&curid=117861&diff=1129179&oldid=945211 Category Breathing to Inspiration]
F. Sloppy linking:
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Free_States_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=1124521 see also reference to "Cumberland Redoubt" is linked to a CP article about a geographical portion of England, which was not what TAR intended]

G. Unilaterally modifying our legal disclaimer framework
* {{Tl|Medical Notice}} - unlike our general legal disclaimer, TAR's wording implicitly promises that CP articles will be reviewed by experts in the future and that CP will implement a certification program to show which articles have past a review. It implies that a nurse or herbalist have as much expertise as a doctor. A lot more discussion and review should occur before this template is put into article space. TAR has already deployed it at: [[Medication]], [[:Category:Food as Medicine]], [[Ocimum sanctum]], [[Withania somnifera]], [[Embilica officinalis]], and [[Tinospora cordifolia]].
::: I have modified my rough draft [[Template:Medical Notice]] to be more generic. I have now linked the template clearly to the official CP legal disclaimer ([[Conservapedia:General_disclaimer]]). Please feel free to edit the template. But I do think we need a specific medical disclaimer template like the rough draft one I created. This is why I attached it to my several rough drafts he astutely cited above. Please see [[Template_talk:Medical_Notice]] [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:56, 5 January 2015 (EST)
::::With utmost respect, {{Tl|Medical Notice}} should not be put into article space as a "rough draft". Create a page at [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt/Medical Notice]] for the rough draft and then invite other people to edit it with you. Once there is agreement and editors who are lawyers have had a chance to review it, then we will have the go ahead to add {{Tl|Medical Notice}} into articles. Also, interweaving this discussion in the middle of my earlier posting msy confuse other readers. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:30, 5 January 2015 (EST)

I don't want to come across as negative, but there have been a lot of edits from TAR without people taking the time to train him properly. We need you to set the standard so that the end product will meet our consensus expectations. Many thanks! [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:05, 5 January 2015 (EST)

Please see my response to TAR's questions about categories [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category_talk%3AExercise&action=historysubmit&diff=1129321&oldid=1129307 here].

==Withholding judgment for now is good==

The American Redoubt's proving the relevance of [[Transformer]] to survivalism as we speak. I don't agree with every cross-reference he added, but I don't want him to feel pressured to complete all the red links and for-now-obscure connections he made immediately just because some people don't like him trying to be an effective voice for conservatism, and so they unfairly single him out. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:55, 5 January 2015 (EST)

:::Thank you VargasMilan for your kind and inspiring words amidst the loud noise and shock coming from the transformer. :) I will follow your advice and focus on the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]] [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:56, 5 January 2015 (EST)

::I think that if you read User talk:TAR, you will see that everyone is trying to be respectful and constructive. I have also left my comments on the recent [[Transformer]] edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Transformer&oldid=1129177 here]. (His additions go to the question of grid reliability, not the question of whether someone '''should''' go off the grid.) The problem is that CP has a traditional view of conservatism. We need Andy to tell us where to go on non-Western medicine and survivalism. In general, I know a lot about law and social order and the electric industry. <s>I am not an expert in living as a mountain man in a post-civilization world.</s> I am not an expert in non-Western medicine. So, if we go in those new avenues, I would step back from the project. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 02:32, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:::Each time you commented about The American Redoubt's present shortcomings in completeness, you reproduced the section title "This Site Is Being Hijacked" in the edit summary. For someone who claims to know so much about transformers, you didn't seem to realize that you could have been administering to The American Redoubt quite a shock! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:47, 5 January 2015 (EST)
::::I did not name that discussion heading, but that is where Andy asked for specific links. Please look at the user talk page. I believe we must be positive and encouraging to new editors, but we have asked Andy for guidance for five days now. This is like Humpty Dumpty - each hour of indecision creates more and more clean up work. Everyone involved has been very polite, but TAR is pressing ahead full steam rather than consulting and soliciting feedback in an incremental, consensus building way. It is too bad that the Style Manual is protected. Otherwise, I would add further guidance about "see also" lists and categories. Many people come here after using Wikipedia, so they understand the concepts, but TAR is going off in his own direction. Similarly, the Style Manual needs to be clarified on what content should go on a category page and that categories should not be assigned to a redirect page. Thanks! [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:19, 5 January 2015 (EST)
The [[Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages|Manual of style]] page is now unprotected. After reasonable changes have been made to Manual of Style (which are not overly restrictive), ask an Admin to protect the page again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:31, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:I'm done. Please look it over and protect. Many thanks. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:04, 5 January 2015 (EST)
::The edits looked practical. I protected the article again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:24, 5 January 2015 (EST)
::: Looks great [[User:Wschact]]. Thanks for putting it in writing for newer editors who don't know the unwritten policies of the past. I will do my best to follow it. See my responses to your appreciated and polite mentoring over at [[Category_talk:Exercise]]. It's great Wschact that you are pleasantly civil and don't use words like "Rubbish!" and "Hideous!" as you delete my edits without even a Talk Page comment like a certain Expat American from the liberal bastion of Massachusetts. :-) [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]]
::::People are telegraphic and brief in edit summaries. SamHB and others all want CP to be a good resource, and for editors to work well together. The problem is that some people amp up their word choice when they feel that they are being ignored. You cannot finish CP in one day, so don't feel as if we are putting pressure on you. Just focus on one or two things at a time and give people an idea of where you are trying to go. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 17:02, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:::::The abolitionist [[Harriet Tubman]] declared: "I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if they only knew they were slaves." If only SamHB would be open-minded enough to recognize the truth of TheAmericanRedoubt's [[Essay:Free States Movement|essay on unfree states]]. Then he could escape the taxation scourge and big government scourge of Massachusetts that are robbing him of his economic freedom and other liberties! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:41, 5 January 2015 (EST)
Wschact, your "mountain man"/"outside my expertise"/"I'll have to step away from the project" comment is not conducive to building an encyclopedia.

Encyclopedias are broad based reference works. They don't solely cover urban living for example and can cover such topics as eskimos, Middle Eastern and African nomadic life, Australian aboriginal life, anarchy in Somalia, etc. If we wanted a project which solely covered your expertise such as law and social order in first world countries or the electric industry, it would stop being an encyclopedia.

If someone wants to create a wiki called UrbanWhiteLiberalElitePedia.org, I have no problem with that, but it will not be a very encyclopedic work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 12 January 2015 (EST)

On January 12, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] left a message on my talk page about a sentence that I posted above on 02:32, 5 January 2015 (EST). Basically, I argue that being a Conservative means working within society to build a social structure that promotes individual freedom and liberty while using government in a prudent fashion when necessary. I feel that certain extreme people are trying to scare prospective followers into leaving society '''now''' to live alone in a lightly populated area outside of the fabric of society. (This is a separate question from being prepared should society fail due to some crisis or catastrophe.) A conservative perspective should help us learn how to live together with wisdom, rather than endorse a viewpoint that assumes that society will fall apart completely very soon. So, I enthusiastically endorse covering '''all''' human knowledge including mountains, eskimo culture, and even guns. However, under Conservapedia Commandment #5, those article should be written without bias, including bias that advocates that people should leave society '''now''' to anticipate the imminent collapse of American society. I am sorry if my remarks were not clear. I know we both believe in Conservapedia Commandment #5 and don't see any difference in our policy objective. I am putting my energy into building a better encyclopedia within a constantly improving American society, rather than advocating a withdrawal from society based on the assumption that American society will fail soon. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:36, 12 January 2015 (EST)
:Did the 1929 Great Depression in the USA happen unexpectedly to many people? Did many people experience great hardship during the Great Depression? Has the US government, which is 13 trillion dollars in debt and engaged in a lot of money printing, nullified the business cycle and immune from the laws of economics? Are there reputable economists who believe that very seriously harmful, black swan events can still happen to modern economies?[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703791804575439562361453200][http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/01/08/how-falling-oil-prices-makes-a-black-swan-event-more-likely/] Did liberal economist community predict the 2007 economic crisis or did the conservative [[Austrian School of Economics|Austrian school of economics]] much better predict it?[http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMAM1_96GSc] Which liberal economics department at a major university predicted the 2007 economic downturn and made a public announcement beforehand? Is the correct answer none of them did? Are many Austrian economists predicting an extremely serious economic downturn? Are there respected financial analysts (often from the Austrian school) with strong track records predicting an extremely serious US economic downturn?[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e8GMfjgE58]

:Does Conservapedia have a worldwide audience? Is English fluency common in the world? Are most Christian conservatives outside the [[Western World]] (see: [[Global Christianity]])? Are conditions often difficult in developing countries where many Christian conservatives live and would survival skills be useful to these people?

:Are you saying that the devout Christians who witnessed the fall of the Roman Empire were not Christian conservatives? Are you saying that the devout Christians who witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union and experienced significant hardship were not Christian conservatives (when the fall of the Soviet Union occurred some people could not get their insulin, etc. etc.)?

:Would the people of New Orleans who experienced Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath have been better of if they had some survival skills or were they better off relying on big government? Were the [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/lingering_lakeeffect_snow_questions.html 13 people of the 2014 NY State blizzard] who were stranded on the NY State thruway who died better off relying on the liberal Cuomo administration's judgment on when the thruways should be kept open and not shut down for safety reasons or would they have been better off having some survival skills and preparation (weather radio, arctic sleeping bad in their car trunk, etc. etc.)?

:Could survival skills have been helpful to the people who died in the Ferguson riots?

:If one person read about some survival skills from a Conservapedia article and saved their life as a result, would it have been worth it? :)

:There is more in heaven and earth, Wschact, than is dreamt of in your liberal, urbanite/suburban philosophy. :)

:"Be prepared." - USA Boy Scout Motto

:"But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come." - The Apostle Paul

:The 4 Gs: God, gold, guns and a getaway plan! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:17, 12 January 2015 (EST)

::will the users of the conservative account continue to not use the show preview button? Will Karajou and Andy continue to ignore user requests with comment? Will the users of the conservative account continue to berate other users for having multiple people using one account? Will the users of the conservative account continue to pretend that Karajou and Andy actually speak to them? -[[User:RalphWi|RalphWi]] 00:14, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:::The users of the User: Conservative have never pesterfested anyone at CP! A user of the User: Conservative account got RobSmith banned for pesterfesting among other sins. If he hadn't pesterfested, he might still be an Admin.

:::Will the liberal, urbanite/suburban, pesterfester Wsachat be next to get the axe or will he take the hint and stop pesterfesting TheAmericanRedoubt? A user of the User: Conservative account knows that some of Wschat's pesterfesting is ideologically driven and uncalled for. In addition, his liberalism and ignorance of history/economics driven disdain for TheAmericanRedoubt (which inspired his "mountain man" cultural/economics myopia) caused him to have a less than a cooperative spirit. This must change and will not be tolerated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:32, 13 January 2015 (EST)
::::Just what is pesterfesting, anyway? When User:RobSmith was an Admin, CP was in the top 50,000 websites and moving up - [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com today it's in the toilet]. User:RobSmith today is an admin on site that allows some diverse and varying opinions - or at least pretends to have policies and processes to deal with abuse (like the egregious policy abuse of pesterfestering). Together with a handful (fewer than a half dozen) of un-likemindful editors, that site has gone from nothing (read: nothing) to a top 7500 website globally. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 22:55, 17 May 2015 (EDT)

==Quality over speed==
I realize that [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] has a lot of energy and wants to add a lot of material to Conservapedia. However, we value quality over speed. For example, today we have a brand new article [[CETME‎]]. It appeared nine minutes after TAR's edit to a different article. If I understand correctly, this article is a 45 word cut and paste from the "Survivor Blog" (according to footnote 1). The article then has a See also section and Further reading section to two of James Wesley Rawles books. The new article gives the overall impression that if you want to know about a Spanish manufacturer of army rifles, Rawles is the expert. I find that difficult to believe.

: Dear [[User:Wschact]], you may find that hard to believe, because you haven't read those books. I have read at least 15 minutes per day of his SurvivalBlog articles daily for about 6 years. That's more than 500 hours more of reading of just his Survival Blog which contains a LOT of firearms articles. I read/listen to about 1.5 hours a day from about 5 other firearms and survival blogs/podcasts. I can safely say that he, [[Jack Spirko]] and [[Boston T. Party]] are indeed respected firearms people. Have you read those two books? I have, several times for the 2009 one. Mr. Rawles is indeed an "expert" on them, as much as anyone else I have read writing generally about firearms. I will add additional material at a later date from [[Boston T. Party]]'s [[Boston's Gun Bible]].
:I think we have a 90/10 issue here and I am starting to spend as much time defending my edits/articles as I am making edits.
:I have been working on these offline in MS Word as you suggested and pasting them onto CP. You asked me to do that rather than write it online as lots of drafts. There is not a lot to say about these things unless you are a [[gun enthusiast|"gut nut"]] like me. I am writing them for a basic audience like a new gun owner, not a highly technical one and not with huge amounts of extraneous details like Wikipedia. The gentleman "doth protest too much, methinks" [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

I would suggest that an editor should take more than 11 minutes to write a new CP article.
: See above response. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

When I write an article, I look for two or more independent, reliable sources.
: I did and do. Have you read my sources? I have. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

I then write the article using my own words because I don't want Conservapedia to necessarily or inadvertently adopt some other person's views as its own.
: No, they will adopt your views. I am relying on words from respected sources with permission. Would you like to e-mail him yourself to verify the permission? [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::Perhaps you should look for newspaper or magazine articles about CETME. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:31, 7 January 2015 (EST)

James Rawles' views on CETME are irrelevant, because there is no indication that he has given thought or study to this topic.
: I don't think you are qualified to make such a statement and are showing your bias now. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::With utmost respect, the topic is a Spanish gun manufacturer. Mr. Rawles may know a few of the products, but what does he know about the overall company and its history, structure, capabilities and ownership? How many CETME‎ factories did he visit or employees did he interview? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:31, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Further, when Rawles writes about some CETME products, it is incidental to his writing about survivalism and any article based on his writings will over-emphasize the relationship between those products and survivalism.
: Or not. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

If I were to write an article about a company, I would include where the company is located, how it got started and its subsequent history, its products and how those products have been received in the market place. Ownership and structure can also be important.
: Not for this article. Maybe for IBM, or Microsoft, but not CETME. I think you should go talk to a qualified "[[gun enthusiast|gun guy]]"[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:: I accept that a computer enthusiast would write about IBM or Microsoft and that a gun enthusiast will write about CETME. But a good article about ''any'' company would contain the items I listed above. Look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Gun_Company the Wikipedia article covering the Ithaca Gun Company]. It was probably written by a gun enthusiast, but it covered the company. Could you please write articles like that when you start articles about companies? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:38, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Writing a CP article takes more than 11 minutes and takes a bit of thought about the article's subject.
: I spend more time than that. Ibid [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

This is because CP's audience is different than the audience of the Survivor Blog, and a good author should ask himself "What would a CP user want to know about this subject?"
: I do. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Time is better spent producing 10 articles of a decent length, than creating 100 snippets as articles.
: Your opinion. There are thousands of very short one sentence place holder articles on CP. They serve a valid useful purpose. I have now spent more time defending my edits then is interesting for me. So I will continue doing what I am doing in terms of topics and current quality of work and time spent unless I am told to do otherwise by [[User:Aschlafly‎]], [[User:Karajou]], [[User:Conservative]]. Until I hear from admins telling me to stop what I have been working diligently on and that they consider it not useful to CP objectives and not fitting the CP audience of conservatives, who are generally not [[hoplophobia|hoplophobic]] as I begin to wonder if you are perhaps certain liberal editors here. But until then, "I'll stick to my guns" -- pun intended. :-)
::I am not biased against CETME. I am suggesting that if you want to write about CETME, you do an adequate job of it. If you don't think it is worthwhile to write about CETME, then don't wikilink to it in your other articles. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:31, 7 January 2015 (EST)

I hope this helps. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:46, 7 January 2015 (EST)
: You advice before on CP unwritten policy was helpful. This not so much. Thank you anyway. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:25, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Time is better spent producing 10 articles of a decent length, than creating 100 snippets as articles. I hope this helps. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:46, 7 January 2015 (EST)

: Again, your opinion. If I do what you want then [[User:AlanE]] will be upset at so many red links. Please see the myriad useful 1 paragraph articles I CP, many of which I have learned from. I will get back to 90-10 rule actual work now. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:25, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::AlanE has clarified his message further [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlanE&action=historysubmit&diff=1129929&oldid=1126708 here]. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:29, 7 January 2015 (EST)

:I have the same concern with the article [[G3]]. It also appears to be a 30 word quotation from Rawles, but the quotation marks are missing. It appeared 5 minutes after TAR's last edit to CETME. Isn't there a good source other than Rawles about this NATO battle rifle? Why was this article not entitled "Heckler and Koch G3"? (For a list of other meanings of G3, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G3) Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 04:01, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:: The gentleman "doth protest too much, methinks" [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::By the way, please look at the history of the G3 article which I didn't create... And you will see I improved it. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:27, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::On Internet [[forum]]s at this point, we have seen the word [[popcorn]] :-) Which by the way, Popcorn is a 24 word article. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:28, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:::Correct, the G3 article did exist before, but you overwrote the meager prior contents replacing it with a new version based on a 30 word quote from SurvivalBlog.
:::I have a concern with the article [[7.62x51mm NATO]]. Why was this article not entitled "7.62x51mm NATO rifle"? Again the quote should be in quotation marks. I think that when [[User:Conservative]] gave you a 2500 length guideline, he did not have in mind that most of the article would be See also, External references and Bibliography. When [[User:AlanE]] was discussing red links, I think that he thought that the red links would be eliminated by writing sound articles, not one sentence articles. Perhaps we should ask him for clarification. Cheers.[[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:18, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::::Micromanagement. Cheers? You must be British? [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 05:28, 7 January 2015 (EST)
If you go to the most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, AOL, Duck Duck Go, etc.) and query various topics, you will see in the top 10 search results decent size articles and not stub articles. Why? Because website visitors like more informative articles and not stub articles. The search engines are giving people what they want. If they didn't give people what they want, they would be out of business.

When the liberal ''LA Times'' gave a review of Conservapedia in its beginning stage, the reporter pointed out that Wikipedia had a lot more articles. So some Conservapedians went on a binge of creating stub articles. I was against this. Stub entries are fine for a dictionary, but not for an encyclopedia. And as I pointed out above, the public prefers more informative articles and not stub articles.

As far as Monday Night quarterbacking of articles in terms of the talk pages, if reasonable objections are raised, that is fine. But if it is largely a matter of liberal bellyaching due to their sacred cows being tipped over, then the author/authors of articles should not be obligated to engage in wheel spinning due to unreasonable liberal opponents of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:01, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:Thank you, Cons. One problem is that we patrol edits, and red flags should go up if there is a pattern of edits which raise reasonable objections. I agree that we are here to better serve our readers and to attract new readers. We are not under pressure to create one sentence articles. We developed our style manual because we are collectively being judged by our readers, who do not know who wrote which article. So, it is up to the patrolers to keep training all editors and push everyone toward compliance with Conservapedia's standards.

:Perhaps Conservapedia needs to establish a two-part strategy of recruiting more editors and then having a formal mentoring program to greet and train them when the new editors arrive. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:08, 7 January 2015 (EST)

== Window of opportunity for editing seems to be closing. What's going on? ==

The past 5 days while attempting to contribute additional information on the series of articles I have contributed on the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals of the Bible I have been startled and dismayed that the window of opportunity to make additional edits has been shortened.

Up to that point I have been able to begin at 08:30 and normally found the cut-off time for editing has been 02:30. Then, when I attempted to page preview about 8 hours work, believing that I would be able to further refine the text, the message that "you are not permitted" appeared about 22:35, 4 hours earlier than what had been normal (and which I had come to expect). I was able to return to the edit page I had been working on and leave it alone all night long until after 08:30, then continued editing it and finally submit it. It had taken a long time to complete. I'm glad it hasn't been altered.

I continued Monday 5th January with a brief period of editing to provide additional information to [[Book of Wisdom]] and successfully submitted it. But when I continued with [[Book of Sirach]] on Tuesday, the cut-off time was unexpectedly earlier at 18:35 hrs, 8 hours earlier than had been normal. So I returned to the edit page as it was and left it alone overnight until this morning with the computer still on. I copied it, then went to today's page, logged in, and replaced its text with the saved edit text pasted onto the page, and this was successful. Then I worked on it some more, adding some useful documentary links and then laboriously copied by hand, keyboarding from a book in the public domain two "Prologues" to the Book of Sirach, one of which is not available online (which is in an antique family Bible on display in my living room), and when I clicked "Preview", the message "you are not permitted" came up, and it was a real unexpected shock. This was at about 11:48 hours, almost '''15''' hours earlier than what had been usual. In attempting to printout the text I had edited (''without using the "copy" tools feature'') I lost about 2 hours work. I got some of it saved that way, but the majority of it was now lost, and I shall have to reconstruct it again later, if I can.

Is this circumstantial, because of the holiday season?, perhaps because most of the administrators are taking a break?, or is it because of cold weather issues with internet and web hardware interlinkages?

It is curious in the context of the above that I was able to successfully preview this query without getting the "you are not permitted" message.

So, What's going on here? Please let me know. I wish you well. ''Pax vobis'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 13:57, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::Contact the owner of the website at [[User talk:Aschlafly]] and briefly as possible explain the situation. In addition, ask for night editing rights. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:03, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:::Thanks, Conservative! I left a brief note with Andrew Schlafly, with convenient link back to this entry. Appreciate your recommendation for request night editing rights. ''Pax vobis''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 11:20, 9 January 2015 (EST)

==Glossary categories==
Conservapedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. There are a number of new categories being created such as: [[:Category:Firearms Glossary‎]], [[:Category:Preparedness Glossary‎]] and [[:Category:Military Glossary‎]] which would be better combined with [[:Category:Firearms]], [[:Category:Survivalism]] and [[:Category:Military‎]] respectively. It is not clear why any particular article would be in the Firearms category or its Glossary counterpart. I wanted to get the views of other editors before I combine them. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:31, 8 January 2015 (EST)

===Response to Wschact's Monday Night Quarterbacking===
What [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] said: (see also [[Category_talk:Firearms_Glossary]])
"Conservapedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Therefore it makes sense to have only one set of categories. All of the articles that would be placed in the "Firearms Glossary" category should be placed in the "Firearms" category. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:25, 8 January 2015 (EST)"

My final response:
Dear [[User:Wschact|Wschact]], I strongly disagree about the Categories I have created. Based on these words of support for my [[Firearms]]-[[Preparedness]] project from [[User:Conservative]]: [[User_talk:TheAmericanRedoubt#User:Conservative_OK_on_the_Addition_of_Preparedness.2FSurvivalism_and_Gun_Articles_on_CP]], I will be creating literally hundreds of articles on the the topic of firearms over the next few months. More than 50 in the next 2 weeks. And MANY of them will appropriately be initially short topics that will categorized under [[:Category:Firearms Glossary]] versus the broader [[:Category:Firearms]]. Otherwise [[:Category:Firearms]] will over time become too large like the [[:Category:History]].

These short articles will include items such as [[recoil compensators]], [[half-cock]], [[headspace]], [[IMR powder]], [[wildcat cartridge]], [[out-of-battery]], [[zero-in]], [[internal ballistics]], [[length of pull]], [[muzzle brake]], [[percussion cap]], [[trunnion]], [[Picatinny rail]], [[varmint rifle]], [[pump-action]], [[lever-action]], [[action (firearms)]], [[safety (firearms)]], [[trigger (firearms)]], [[hammer (firearms)]], [[stock (firearms)]], [[forearm (firearms)]], [[match grade]], [[rate of fire]], [[Red dot sight]], [[sabot]], [[sawed-off shotgun]], [[semi-wadcutter]], [[short-barreled rifle]], [[slamfire]], [[hangfire]], [[spitzer bullet]], [[swage]], [[telescoping stock]], [[hammer bite]], [[slide bite]], [[slide (firearms)]], [[frame (firearms)]], [[receiver (firearms)]], etc, etc. to name a few.

I have put a lot of thought and energy into this project to attract a different audience of conservatives to our beloved Conservapedia. I first learned of Conservapedia from a hyperlink from [[James Wesley Rawles]]. And his popular website ([[The_Survival_Blog#Strong_Advocate_of_Conservapedia_over_Wikipedia]]) with more than 80 million unique visits since July 2005 and more than 320,000 unique visits per week is very happy to more frequently link to us where possible, doing his best to avoid what frequently calls the "[[Wikipedia|LiberalPropagandaPedia]].

[[User:Wschact|Wschact]], regarding the rather long See Also's I created a few thousand edits ago when I was new to Conservapedia editing, please allow me to shorten them for you by creating collapsible bottom of page Navigation Bar templates. Please see: [[Template_talk:Firearms_topics]]] and [[Template_talk:Internet_security_topics]], etc.

{{Template:Firearms_topics}}

----

{{Template:Preparedness_topics}}

[[User:Wschact|Wschact]], perhaps you would please consider working on creating some '''new content''' yourself or on editing existing articles in a field in which you are "subject matter expert" rather than constantly nit-picking the guns, preparedness and computer security fields. Did you notice I didn't say [[Ayurvedic medicine]] or [[Traditional Chinese medicine]]. I have put those [[alternative medicine]] projects which so upset you on hold for a bit in order to wait and see what the CP Admins have to say or not say.

[[User:Wschact|Wschact]], if you kindly would let me focus and get back to lots of editing of the areas in which I have a good amount of knowledge and maybe you could then review my edits in 30 days and I will have a more open mind to your suggestions which at this point are not very constructive.

I think I will go back to the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]] rather than pay to much attention to "[[Liberal whining|squeaky wheel]]" noisy liberal and/or [[RINO]] [[liberal style]] critics here. Not to suggest that you are either of those since I don't know anything about you except for what you write here.

I will not be responding as often to your very frequent comments since it is beginning to take up an inordinate amount of time diplomatically answering then and justifying them compared to [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]].

I will quote [[User:Conservative]] to answer your continued attempted micro-management of so many of my contributions:
"As far as Monday Night quarterbacking of articles in terms of the talk pages, if reasonable objections are raised, that is fine. But if it is largely a matter of liberal bellyaching due to their sacred cows being tipped over, then the author/authors of articles should not be obligated to engage in wheel spinning due to unreasonable liberal opponents of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:01, 7 January 2015 (EST)"

This will be the last I shall write to you on these matters.
Again, I repeat, the gentleman "doth protest too much, methinks".

Why don't you please live the gun stuff to the [[gun enthusiast|"gun nuts"]]. :-)

Good day.
[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:35, 8 January 2015 (EST)
:This is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia as a group. We are writing a fair and factually accurate encyclopedia as a team. Our writing level is targeted to the reading skills and background of a high school age student. While we make a sincere effort not to step on each others toes, we work together and any of us is free to correct each other. Such changes are not to be taken as a personal affont, but rather as a good faith effort to improve the product. To the extent that I and other people have commented on TAR's contributions by name, this was in an effort to mentor a newcomer who still has a lot to learn about Conservapedia's writing style.

:It is too easy to dismiss valid criticism as "noisy liberal and/or RINO" comments. Anyone can see that the criticism has been about a lack of content or inaccurate content rather than the content being insufficiently liberal and/or RINO. It is impossible condemn criticism here as "micromanagement" because Conservapedia strives for accuracy and consistency. Some mistakes are small, but if repeated enough times can create big problems.

:We cannot stop editors from creating short articles, but we hope that the short stub articles will grow into more comprehensive ones. If you believe that an article will never grow beyond a short definition, then do not create a separate article for that subject. Instead, consider creating a single article entitled "Firmarm terminology" or "Firearm glossary".

:Our goal is not "to attract a different audience of conservatives to our beloved Conservapedia." Our goal is to attract the general public here and to provide them with the best possible content. If the content is good, then they will return and we will get more traffic. We also have a goal of attracting more editors, so using pejorative terms like "gun nuts" does not help on that front. We ask that when someone does join our editing team, they check their biases at the door but retain common sense in making this group effort a success. I will welcome the comments of other people on whether we want separate glossary categories. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:56, 8 January 2015 (EST)

==The Liberals smear campaign Won -- I now retire from editing Conservapedia==
I must say that the liberal smear campaign and relentless edits/deletions from 5 very loud CP liberal trolls / RINOs (besides the vociferous [[User:Wschact]], you know who you are and will be happy to know you have won) has been no fun. I am sad to say, it is much worse edit wars and liberal reverts than ''anything'' I contributed over the years to Wikipedia. Sorry [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:Conservative]] and [[User:Jpatt]], but I have lost the enthusiasm to continue contributing to CP in the face of this much liberal opposition. Thank you 3 for what you do for the conservative movement. I strongly suspect that the frequent sock puppet hacker-vandalist accounts were [[User:Wschact]] or one his friends using a VPN since all the vandals edits were directed to things he was revert warring with me over. God bless. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 02:26, 9 January 2015 (EST)

==User:Wschact's Stubborn Hounding: 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work out of 179 edits, 129 concern my edits ==

Between December 16 and January 8, out of 179 edits made by Wschact, 129 concern either Wschact rapidly changing my edits soon after I complete them / reverting them or complaining to the Community/Admins about my contributions. That is to say, 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work. That is a good example of being tenaciously hounded by strong opposition. Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Wschact

I didn't really want to put this part about Wschact on CP Talk pages or Community Portal since I don't want to further alienate him from me or make him more dogged in his pursuit of editing/patrolling/trolling my contributions. But his recent remarks to my "Retirement" posting, made me decide to mention these 72% statistics and to come out of "retirement". [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 19:42, 9 January 2015 (EST)

===Inspired by Karajou and User:Conservative to Not Retire due to User:Wschact' Dogged Hounding===
Dear Admins Karajou and Conservative

My biggest concern, that finally '''temporarily''' "took the wind out of my sails" and prompted me to '''temporarily''' retire as a contributor, is Wschact, who makes my Conservapedia contributions the subject of 72% of his edits over a 24 day period, as I will show below.

My biggest concern isn't SamHB who explained himself well here:http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB#.22Troll.22_Editing_by_User:SamHB_of_Numerous_articles_I_am_Working_on_.2F_Editing_.2F_Contributing, saying that "I promised that I would revert your things only once, and I mean it."

Nor is my concern AlanE's presumptuously slanderous race baiting comment here:
I first said to AlanE: "Please better to stop the "Revert War" (unless it is by an American CP administrator) and instead make comments and suggestions on this talk page for editing the material. "Free state" is a big topic in the American Conservative, Libertarian and Christian circles. The old meaning of Antebellum south is rarely used except among historians. I would be willing to move some of it to an essay, however, the majority of it matches conservative values. Please discuss in a civil way without using words like hideous, offensive, etc like User:SamHB used for the previous revert." TheAmericanRedoubt 02:57, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Alan rudely Ad hominem responded to me:
"Excuse the following...but I am cross, and Sam is I know to be a reasonable and intelligent man - and a friend.... Obviously I can't win against someone who probably sits at his computer for hours on end with an assault rifle beside him with one eye out the window just hoping that some one who is black or jewish or liberal will put a foot onto his property so that he can shoot them. What larks!! (Pip old chap)). I won't go on because I see you are like those I occasionally met in the old days in Outback pubs who felt naked without their firearms and were usually relieved of their ammunition before the publican would serve them a beer. Cheers mate." AlanE 04:06, 17 December 2014 (EST)" Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Free_state
I decided to simply ignore AlanE since that was the last I heard of him.

What finally '''temporarily''' took the remaining "wind out of my sails" is Wschact’s almost month-long dogged efforts:
I assert that between December 16 and January 8, out of 179 edits made by Wschact, 129 concern either Wschact rapidly changing my edits soon after I complete them / reverting them or complaining to the Community/Admins about my contributions. That is to say, 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work. That is a good example of being tenaciously hounded by strong opposition. Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Wschact

Here http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany#Interpretation_of_copyright_policy
Wschact doesn't even know the difference between 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge/ammunition and a "7.62x51mm NATO rifle" and hence wrongly insisting that the Admins move 7.62x51mm NATO to "7.62x51mm NATO rifle". And the so-called copyright issues he brings are been handled by MLA citations/references/bibliography and [[fair use]].

I made more than 1000+ small edits on CP for several months before contributing much of anything original to be sure that I got a feel for the actual format, content, categories, see also's, stubs or lack of stubs, politics, guidelines, etc. I also wanted to make sure that my edits proved to the CP admins that I am sincere and trustworthy, not a troll or parodist. Then in late November when my sabbatical began I begin much more extensive CP contributions. That was when on December 16 I can on the Wschact radar scope.

I was asked by one JoeyJ (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TheAmericanRedoubt&oldid=1130110#Orphaned_Pages) to deorphan pages which I then began to do. But the edits I make to de-ophan them by adding them appropriately to a See Also or a wiki link within the article were getting frequently deleted by Wschact. This happened a lot. He would keep saying I am violating the CP policy.

Over the next few months while I am taking a sabbatical from my work, I have a lot of time/energy/knowledge to contribute to CP generating new content. Alas, at the moment I am feeling too harassed by their constant rapid nit-picking and having to 10/90 Talk Page explain my every step versus doing 90/10 actual article work. I've never experienced this before in an online Wiki or forum community, I am sad to say. Even on Wikipedia, I would get at least a few days to a week to perfect a short article or a contribution to one before the liberal vultures would swoop in to eat it up (if they did even). Because CP is a much smaller community of editors, they give me no time to improve upon my work before they come in and revert/delete. It's truly demoralizing/intimidating for a new editor. I don't know what else to say. I feel CP is an amazing voice for our American conservative movement, but I didn't know it would have so many fast-moving critics/deleters/reverters against anything I contribute in the realm of firearms or survivalism/preparedness articles. Yet they were against much on complementary medicine and amateur radio as well.

It's funny, the ONLY contributions of mine that the liberal/RINO editors didn't touch were the Buddhist articles. I think that is because most liberals like Buddhism. Although Catholic, I formally studied comparative religions and CP's Buddhist and Hindu articles are very slim at the moment, so I have much to add there as well. But again, at the moment, I am becoming "gun shy" with their liberal/RINO sights all aimed at me now, especially on http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal.

[[Persistence]] is a virtue, as Calvin Coolidge said:

:"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.
:Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
:Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
:Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
:The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

Thank you for listening. Any advice or encouragement would be appreciated.

[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 19:42, 9 January 2015 (EST)

:Your sheer volume of edits has the liberals worried. Since they can't take CP down, they need to force out productive members. Improving CP is against their interests. Every edit is a poke in their eye. Stay the course and keep on trucking. Good work!--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 9 January 2015 (EST)

:: Roger that [[User:Jpatt]]! The encouraging words are sincerely appreciated. My sails now have full wind in them again and I added a backup [[generator]] just in case so I can stay the course amidst the gusty liberal winds that try to sink the ship. I feel supported now in adding lots of firearms articles. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 23:25, 9 January 2015 (EST)

:::Lock and load! And keep your powder dry and don't let the liberals rain on it. :) If SamHB behaves rudely, tell Karajou and he will straighten him out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:10, 10 January 2015 (EST)

::::What is this? A mixed metaphor competition? And Cons. If you are going to invoke Oliver Cromwell, it's load and lock. (I struggled against the thought that you might be going off half cocked.) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:56, 10 January 2015 (EST)
::::::''This thread seems to be in two places; here, and in TAR's talk page.''

::JPatt: You have always been fair-minded in your dealings with me, but I think you are falling into a rhetorical trap in your comments above about liberals:

:::Your sheer volume of edits has the liberals worried. Since they can't take CP down, they need to force out productive members. Improving CP is against their interests. Every edit is a poke in their eye.

::The rhetorical trap is conflating anyone who disagrees with oneself as a "liberal". It is a very common fallacy here at CP. What you said about liberals may well be true, but the context suggests that you are applying it to the 5 people that TAR is complaining about. (I assume the 5 are myself, Wschact, AugustO, PhilH, and AlanE.) I don't think the things you said above about liberals apply to all of us. We are not forcing out productive members; in fact, I have just been forced out, complete with extremely explicit block threats (above and below) by Cons. Improving CP is not, and has never been, against my interests.

::I believe that abhorrence of treason is a very conservative value. I abhor treason, and I take accusations that my home state is treasonous and unconstitutional very seriously. Yet this accusation has been put back in, and there is nothing I can do about it except leave. My rude language was because of that abhorrence.

::I believe that CP's presentation on relativity is in good condition, so no further editing on my part will be necessary. I will leave now. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:44, 10 January 2015 (EST)

:::::''Some material here, being about SamHB personally, and various disagreements with him personally, has been moved to his talk page, [[User_talk:SamHB#Material_moved_from_the_Community_Portal]]. It is not relevant to Conservapedia generally. As the person who initiated the use of this page to discuss matters of general interest to the Conservapedia community, I feel a certain responsibility to keep the discussions on topic.'' [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:22, 11 January 2015 (EST)

==Interesting article==
While researching this topic, I came across an interesting article from the Chicago Tribune from 2011 at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-11/health/ct-met-nccam-overview-20111211_1_cancer-treatment-alternative-medicine-breast-cancer-researcher
:In traditional/folk medicine there is a strain of thought based on practicality and treatments working for families/communities/societies over a long time. On the other hand, there is another strain based on New Age impractical ideas and other impractical ideas.

:In Western medicine, there is a problem with greed/fraud and the strength of marketing campaigns/market position (industry leaders with name recognition and a strong brand are hard to combat) winning the day instead of an objective cost/benefit analysis. Plus, the case of Ignaz Semmelweis (he proposed that doctors wash their hands due to its beneficial effects and was met by fierce opposition) shows that errant tradition (we have always done it this way) rather than objective criteria does happen within Western medicine. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:30, 11 January 2015 (EST)

== Subject matter expert in electromagnetism ==

I notice the recent creation of the [[Lenz's Law]] page. This really isn't encyclopedic—people aren't going to come away with the feeling that CP is a source of good information on the topic. I think there may be a connection with the Meissner effect and with "eddy currents". Does anyone know about this?

Is there someone with the knowledge, expertise, wherewithal, and motivation who can put together a good explanation? I think it would make fascinating reading if done well. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:14, 13 January 2015 (EST)
==Response to [[User:Conservative]]'s January 13 question==
[I struck out my Jan 5 sentence above before Cons left his Jan 13 posting immediately above.] Conservapedia faces a number of challenges in attracting readers and maintaining viability (and beyond that thriving). On the one hand, Cons is correct that there have been some vandals and "parodists" like Markman who have wasted our time and chased some valuable editors away. On the other hand, bad writing, inconsistent format, and other technical glitches undermine our credibility and discourage readers from returning. So, what we need (and what I have done) is to work '''here for years''' on cleaning up after vandals as well improving the writing quality and consistency of style. Of course I have also added a ton of content. If Cons wants to identify "enemies of Conservapedia", he should be equally on the lookout for vandals, parodists and poor writing that does not meet our style guide. I agree that generally people should not hover over or smother other editors while they are working. I am giving TAR more space to learn. Yet, because this wiki is a '''group collaboration''', I expect people to come along and edit what I wrote last week, and everyone else here expects that I will edit what they wrote. The best of the public will produce a coherent whole from the collaboration. (By the way, I do not have any "distain" for TAR and respect his wide variety of interests and background.) Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:01, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:Three points: 1) TheAmericanRedoubt said some of your edits related to his were helpful. But the sheer volume of them were uncalled for. 2) Your "mountain man" comment reeks of disdain. There is no hiding it. Best to admit it and move on. The same liberal elitist attitude could be said of your absolutist stance against traditional medicine given that many people of modest means throughout the world depend on it and common things like turmeric/ginger have been scientifically shown to benefit people medicinally without toxic side effects (I recognize traditional medicine has its problems, but so does Western medicine so good judgement needs to be used by consumers. Conservatives believe in giving adult consumers choices. It ultimately comes down to a cost/benefit/toxicity/"willingness to risk" decision. Japanese consumers, who tend to be more health conscious than many cultures, use highly advanced Western medicine and often use traditional medicine too and there life expectancy is 5 years longer than Americans). 3) Some of your reversions were ideologically based and uncalled for. One way or another, this is going to stop. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:21, 13 January 2015 (EST)
::Wschact, it's not your job to edit out conservatism, which is what I and other people here have seen you doing. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:24, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:::Cons: I withdrew the comment at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=1131542&oldid=1131537 22:34 12 January] so let's move on. Let's wait for Andy to decide the medicine question or whether Conservapedia embraces a [[Dystopia]] vision. Vargas: I would never intentionally "edit out conservatism". Perhaps we have different ideas of what good writing requires. I take item #5 of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]] seriously: "We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts." Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:48, 13 January 2015 (EST)
::::Wschact sometimes (not always) has an arrogant attitude hidden under a veneer of politeness. If something falls out of his area of expertise and he is against it, well it has to be reverted. I demonstrated above that his knowledge of economic history and economics is quite limited. In addition, he has a disdain for those outside of cities/suburbia or he never would have used the term "mountain man". I am not saying he cannot change his attitude, but there is definitely a problem. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:58, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:::::Preparedness is not synonymous with dystopian. People can have sizable amounts of precious metals in their portfolios for example, but still own stocks. You can have an emergency kit in your car without thinking that sooner or later you are going to get into a very serious accident. You are setting up a false dichotomy. In addition, it is possible for an encyclopedia to cover survivalism in an objective manner. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:06, 13 January 2015 (EST)
::::::With due respect, the statement in question, which I withdrew hours ago was, "I am not an expert in living as a mountain man in a post-civilization world." It was a statement of self-depreciation and modesty in recognition of my own limitations, not one of arrogance. I do not want to plan for a post-civilization dystopia but rather I want conservative principles applied to American society. I and other conservatives believe in America and its ability to overcome any challenge. A small faction is trying to bet against American society surviving and to profit from its downfall. I sense that you agree with my side of this bet, and you agree that my remarks about dystopia were not directed toward preparedness. (The Scout motto is "Be Prepared.") Let's move on. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 02:18, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:::::::The alternative/traditional medicine decision has already been decided. I suggested that TheAmericanRedoubt compromise by not adding ayurvedic medicine content and he is amenable to this. Second, I already know beforehand that your acts of illegitimate behavior towards TheAmericanRedoubt will cease one way or another. I am hoping that things are done in the most harmonious way possible. Hopefully, you take the hint and act in a more productive manner. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:37, 13 January 2015 (EST)
If memory serves, and it may not, I have the impression from your main page talk comments that you are a liberal/moderate. And VargasMilan indicated that you are attempting to edit out conservatism from Conservapedia. I said my piece. I am also willing to move on. I don't believe in holding grudges. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:46, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:One other matter: Not all Conservapedians are American. Admin Joaquin is Mexican for example. And Conservapedia has content that covers areas outside of the USA. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:01, 13 January 2015 (EST)
::We agree on non-American conservatives, and we agree that Survivalism can be covered objectively on Conservapedia. The reason I focused on the American context above is that society in some foreign countries have indeed collapsed, but that America is exceptional and we should not bet on an American collapse. Also, although I may be more moderate than some people, I am certainly '''not a liberal'''. Perhaps some of my libertarian views might create that mis-impression. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:09, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:Not hoping for America to collapse and it has a lot of tangible/intangible assets. And even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia did not turn into a third world nation. Second, no doubt many dominant players on the world stage who collapsed thought they were exceptional before they fell. Success followed by complacency is a common human failing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:26, 13 January 2015 (EST)

==Temporary 7 Day Ban: WShact again removing Conservative POV material from Survival/Firearm Related Articles==
Dear [[User:Jpatt]] and [[User:Karajou]], I would appreciate your help on addressing Wshact issue again this since [[User:Conservative]] told me to talk to you since he is temporarily busy on off-Wiki related business. Thank you again.

Instead of contributing new material, I again have had to spend significant time restoring the diverse conservative point of view topics/materials that WShact continues to remove/delete/subtly edit out from [[:Category:Survivalism]] and firearms, Second Amendment related articles. [[The Survival Blog]] articles in particular took 30 minutes to restore material deleted by Wshact from his numerous small edits (so they couldn't be easily reverted). I had to spend time removing Wshact's biased (and improperly formatted resulting in a reference error) source/ref from a biased competing commercial website rather than unbiased actual Alexa site reference. http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:The_Survival_Blog#WShact_again_removing_Conservative_POV_material_from_Survival.2FFirearm_Related_Articles
[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:47, 13 January 2015 (EST)

In re-reviewing Wschact's continued harassment of Survivalism-Prepper-Firearms articles under the guise of making lots of small improvements to the article (which cannot be easily reverted). I realized Wshact, under the guise of reorganizing the article and putting it in the active voice instead of passive voice, has again deleted significant conservative point of view content. It was to hard to continue trying to restore the vandalized article. Thus I had to restore my original version of the article.

Dealing with this whole affair of continued harassment has just cost me 1 hour of my time that I had budgeted to spend contributing new firearms content.

In response to Wshact's continued harassment despite repeated warnings, I am temporarily banning him for 7 days. Admins who have been involved in correcting Wshact's aggressive behavior, please correct the ban time if appropriate. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:11, 13 January 2015 (EST)

===My comments===
From what I have seen so far, user Wschact has taken it upon himself to follow TAR on this site, either in removing material previously posted or taking actual control of particular pages away from him. This raises a serious problem as to the subject of collaboration between individuals - which has been stated by Wschact several times that that is what his intention is. What I am seeing instead is a typical tactic used in Wikipedia when an editor takes over someone else's project, then blames the original editor for being uncooperative; tells the the original editor that he cannot "own" the page, but takes control of the page away from him in such a manner that he is the new "owner" of it. That is a tactic which has no business within this website, and it is not going to be tolerated here.

<s>So, what will happen is this: persons who originate/create pages will be allowed to finish them, unmolested. Anyone else who wishes to contribute to the page concerned will ask the creator of the page first; or leave pertinent, additional information on the talk page; or do nothing more than simple grammar/spell check. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:44, 13 January 2015 (EST)</s>

:*Most of us look regularly at [[Special:RecentChanges]] to see where the action is.
:*The number of [[Special:WantedPages]] has increased sharply to 2,500 - mainly due to the actions of "TAR". [[User:Conservative]] wrote on Jan 11: "''I contacted TheAmericanRedoubt. The red link invasion will stop. :) '', but this was just an empty promise, see e.g., [[Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists]] written on Jan 12.
:*"TAR" tends to include both categories and their sub-categories into articles, as well as unnecessary doublings like [[:Category:Conservative Blogs]] and [[:Category:Conservative Bloggers]] (only one of those will ever be appropriate). I've tried to clean-up such instances, but I get [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Wesley_Rawles&curid=64196&diff=1131716&oldid=1131300 reverted].
:*At the moment, there are more then 10 red links to essays at [[Conservapedia:Essays]], announcing future projects of "TAR". Why?
:The points above have nothing to do with the content of "TAR"'s contributions, he is just disrupting the very structure of this wiki. If you have a bull on speed in a china-shop, it doesn't matter much whether he is well-meaning or malevolent.
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:18, 13 January 2015 (EST)

::After some thought, I am rescinding the above. It prevents people from openly cooperating in a voluntary manner, and that's what I'd rather have. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:20, 14 January 2015 (EST)
==== I contacted TheAmericanRedoubt about the red link situation ====
Two things:

1. He is going to be lighter on the red links, but not completely stop. It would require a lot of extra work for him to completely stop.

2. He is going to be a long term editor so the red links will be filled in. He isn't counting on others to fill in the links.

I think this is a reasonable compromise. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:15, 14 January 2015 (EST)

=====TheAmericanRedoubt's Red Link Response During Phone Call with User:Conservative=====
: Thank you [[User:Conservapedia]] for your phone call with me and for your inspiring and unwavering dedication both to Conservapedia and to our conservative movement. I agree with both of these points. Over the next 12 months I promise to completely fill in at least 95% of my red links with actual full fledged detailed articles or at least 2 to 3 paragraph shorter articles only in the cases where a long article is not useful and would be like Wikipedia style excessively detailed unnecessary verbosity. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 14:22, 14 January 2015 (EST)

== Category tag compromise and TheAmericanRedoubt ==

I will agree that TheAmericanRedoubt has been overdoing the category tags. For example, for "police state" he would put a category tag of "internet". Yes, a police state attempts to control the "internet", but that is not how someone would look up an article on "police state".

I told TheAmericanRedoubt to pretend he was playing the game show "Family Feud" with Richard Dawson where people try to come up with a word/phrase that matches a topic/word. Now if he was on that game show and said "Internet" for the topic "Police state" he would lose in that game show every time. The user TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) saw my point and is going to do his category tags differently from now on.

And although I am not a Wikipedia fan, I said as far as the category tags, pretend you are creating a Wikipedia article in most cases.

My request to other editors, please do not be persnickety with TheAmericanRedoubt about the category tags. He promised to do better on the category tags and now sees how he has been overdoing it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:38, 14 January 2015 (EST)

=== TheAmericanRedoubt's Category Response During Phone Call with User:Conservative===
: I agree on the [[police state]] article and quite a few others. Thank you for the mentoring User:Conservative and [[User:Karajou]]. Although I too am not a fan of Wikipedia, as far as the category tags, I will comparatively look at similar articles in Wikipedia to see how many category tags they are using for a given article. User:Conservative and I discussed on the phone the [[:Category:Firearms]] and I told him I will still be using/creating "granular" categories, similar to how Wikipedia does it. For example, today I just created the categories:

: [[:Category:Bolt-action Rifles]] to match my newly created article [[Bolt-action]] which contains new red links that I promise to fill in for all of these new shorter articles on firearms such as [[action (firearms)]], [[bolt (firearms)]], [[breech (firearms)]], [[barrel (firearms)]], [[bolt handle]], [[cheek weld]], [[stock (firearms)|stock]], [[trigger (firearms)]], [[round (firearms)]], [[chamber (firearms)]], [[magazine (firearms)]] [[firing pin]], [[shell (firearms)]], [[accuracy (firearms)]], [[reliability (firearms)]], [[action (firearms)]].

: Over the next 12 months, I will be creating an article for each of the major [[bolt-action]] [[rifle]]s in the [[:Category:Firearms Manufacturers|firearms industry]] such as the [[Remington Model 700]], [[Savage Model 110]], [[Ruger American Rifle]] ([[hunting rifle]]), [[Ruger M77]], [[Ruger Gunsite Scout]], [[Steyr Scout]], [[scout rifle]], [[Barrett M99]] [[.50 BMG]], [[M24 Sniper Weapon System]] and [[M40 rifle]] ([[sniper rifle]]), [[Mosin-Nagant]], [[Winchester Model 70]], [[Mauser]], [[Mauser M 98]], [[M1903 Springfield]], [[Lee-Enfield]], to name just a few. Now you can see how I really am a [[gun enthusiast]]. :-)

: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Bolt-action_Rifles&curid=133817&action=history

: [[:Category:Firearms Components]] - In both of these new categories, I will be creating '''numerous''' articles over the next 12 months, so other editors removing the Category tag or the internal Wiki link brackets from ''any'' existing articles in the [[:Category:Firearms]] or [[:Category:Survivalism]] (like [[bolt-action]]) is just creating lots of unnecessary additional work for me in the near future to have to go back and re-add the categorization and Wiki link brackets and will thus "orphan" my new articles which would have been well integrated into the Wiki link system. Some, but not all of these articles will be part of the new category [[:Category:Firearms Glossary]], [[:Category:Military Glossary]], [[:Category:Preparedness Glossary]]. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Firearm_Actions&curid=133818&action=history

: Fellow editors: Thank you, in advance, for your patience and following of the guidance from [[User:Conservative]] regarding his advice to not be overly "persnickety" / fastidious about my work in this area. I appreciate it. I promise that over the next 12 months I will re-adjust my categorizations on most of the articles I have edited to be similar to the granularity level seen on Wikipedia. This is quite "granular" however. As I discussed on the phone with User:Conservative, it doesn't mean I will be having each article I edit/contribute having only 1 or 2 categories. As evidenced by the [[James Wesley Rawles]] or [[The Survival Blog]] articles, some articles may have many valid, yet granular categorizations.

:[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 14:31, 14 January 2015 (EST)
::On numerous occasions, it has been pointed out that the user:conservative account is accessed by a number of different people. Yet you state that you were in contact with only one person - ''I told '''him''' I will still be using/creating "granular" categories, similar to how Wikipedia does it '' - Are you saying that the user:conseravtive account is in fact only accessed by one person? And that person is male? Your post concerning your ''phone-call'' contradicts many of the claims that the user:conservative account has made... [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:07, 14 January 2015 (EST)
:::In the phone call in question, TAR was told that User: Conservative account consists of more than one editor. Feel free to confirm this matter with TAR (In addition, you can ask Karajou who was informed of this matter also).

:::Second, given the existence of voice changing software and an editor of the User: Conservative account possibly speaking through an agent/friend/family member/etc., the User: Conservative account remains veiled under a fog of mystery. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:40, 14 January 2015 (EST)

:::: ROTFL. :-) When I first talked with the [[User:Conservative]], despite the male voice, due to the sound I suspected the voice did seem a little like it was going through some sort of [[voice distortion box]]. The User:Conservative wouldn't tell me his/her name since he/she said he/she is part of a Conservative group of users and that the current speaker is merely the vocal representative of the diverse members of that secretive group. Despite talking with the User:Conservative, I wasn't able to pierce the veil of secrecy and hence am not able to resolve [[User:AugustO]]'s and [[User:EJamesW]]'s pressing concerns. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 16:48, 14 January 2015 (EST)

A voice distortion box

*[[James Wesley Rawles]] doesn't have a ''valid'' categorization as it entails, e.g. [[:category:Christians]] and [[:category:Christian Authors]], as well as [[:category:Authors]] and [[:category:Science Fiction Authors]]
*I'm willing to cut new editors some slack. However, I expect them to respect the traditions and rules of this site! You should spend some time getting to know your new home before you start redecorating the rooms - and tear down whole structures. It just a question of politeness.
*[[User:Wschact]] seemed to have some valid points - as the section above show. Shouldn't his block be reduced/commuted?
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:51, 14 January 2015 (EST)

===Category:Nuclear Target Structures===
Can someone please tell me how [[France]] - or the [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]] - belong in this category? Can someone please tell me what sense it make to wait for [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] to put every article with the slightest connection to nuclear power (or perhaps the letter "N") into this category? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 15 January 2015 (EST)
:There are any objections to dropping this category? Today, the main threats are to terrrorism targets rather than Soviet intercontinental missiles. So, there is a danger that if we put undue emphasis on Cold War threats, home schooled high school students will over-react. Categories are short hand and do not properly communicate the subtle dimensions for evaluating the "Nuclear Target Structures" designation. I do not object to a stand-alone article on this topic. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:11, 7 February 2015 (EST)

== Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves. ==

[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] writes in his [[Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists]] on [[Charlie Hebdo]] that "''Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves"''. [[User:EJamesW]] asked for a citation for this claim, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:France_Pays_Dearly_-_Gun_Control_Laws_and_Gun_Free_Zones_that_Welcome_Terrorists&diff=1131801&oldid=1131418 I did so too]. Unfortunately, [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] hasn't shared his sources with us yet - and I haven't found any source stating something similar...

If President Obama really said something along this lines, it should make the front-page of Conservapedia!

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:21, 15 January 2015 (EST)

:The arrogant and highly atheistic/secular French and French muslim situation is a volatile mix. The French atheist/muslim situation will probably get worse before it better. There seems to be a feedback loop of discrimination/hatred/violence/non-assimilation going on.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/01/14/terror-in-france-implications-for-muslim-integration/]

:The Ireland/Italian muslim situation seems a lot less volatile. I think the Irish/Italians (who tend to be more religious) are nicer and less arrogant then the atheistic/secularists French.[http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/it-is-frances-arrogant-secularism-that-is-the-truly-intolerant-religion-306959.html] And Ireland's Muslims are more highly educated.[http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/it-is-frances-arrogant-secularism-that-is-the-truly-intolerant-religion-306959.html]

:In addition, judging from his radio mini-debates with theists, the Irish atheist [[Michael Nugent]] seems nicer and less abrasive than many prominent atheists/agnostics (see: [[Atheism and arrogance]]). Research shows that atheists are more charitable when they are around Christians/Christian culture.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ&feature=sub] Maybe atheist become nicer when they are around theists/Christians as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:29, 17 January 2015 (EST)

::All interesting observations, but they have nothing to do with the problem: '''''Please give a source for the claim that Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves.''''' Do you anything about this, User:Conservative? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:28, 17 January 2015 (EST)
:::If TAR did indeed say this, I think he made a mistake. At the same time, Obama is pretty fanatical about not calling Islamic terrorists Muslims. And Islam does have one of the most violent pasts in terms of various religions.
The secular/godless and evolution loving countries of Germany/France/UK who have sub-fertility rates are projected to be overrun by Muslims by 2030.[http://time.com/3670892/muslims-europe-map/]

I do know that a German Christian denomination that adheres to creationism is growing.

I think this is due to businesses having labor shortages and needing workers and the respective countries immigration policies and the countries wanting to support pensioners, but I could be mistaken.

In Switzerland, which is one of the most biblical creation loving countries of Europe and has more restrictive immigration policies, the proliferation of problem causing Muslims by 2030 is not projected to be an issue. Ireland does not appear to be projected to have a problem either (Perhaps it is because they are more religious than most Europe. The fertility rate of Ireland is 2.01 births per woman).

Of course, the projections of Muslims overrunning Germany/UK/France has the militant evolutionists/atheists/agnostics/secularists upset. For example, Richard Dawkins frequently mentions Muslims on his Twitter feed. If only these countries were more Christianity/creationism loving and had more children. All this unpleasantness with radical Muslims causing significant problems in their countries could be avoided.

On December 23, 2012, Professor [[Eric Kaufmann]] who teaches at Birbeck College, University of London wrote:

“I argue that 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious.

On the other hand, the secular West and East Asia has very low fertility and a rapidly aging population. The demographic disparity between the religious, growing global South and the aging, secular global North will peak around 2050. In the coming decades, the developed world's demand for workers to pay its pensions and work in its service sector will soar alongside the booming supply of young people in the third world. Ergo, we can expect significant immigration to the secular West which will import religious revival on the back of ethnic change. In addition, those with religious beliefs tend to have higher birth rates than the secular population, with fundamentalists having far larger families. The epicentre of these trends will be in immigration gateway cities like New York (a third white), Amsterdam (half Dutch), Los Angeles (28% white), and London, 45% white British."[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/04/97-of-worlds-population-growth-is.html]

Of course, this all bad news for evolutionists/atheists/agnostics. I am hoping that theological conservative and biblical Christianity ultimately prevails in Europe in the 21st century. A lot is dependent on evangelism and policies regarding immigration. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:13, 17 January 2015 (EST)
:In addition, in Switzerland, they have generous gun laws and a gun culture (and low gun fatality rates), so citizens are better able to protect themselves against radical muslims. They are not so dependent on police/SWAT response times. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:25, 17 January 2015 (EST)

== Spamming links to external sites ==

"Spamming links to external sites" once was a blockable offense. So, what is Conservapedia's current policy regarding the new [[User:OGSMEDIA]] (get it: OGS Media) advertising the site http://offgridsurvival.com/, where all kinds of outdoor equipment is advertised and sold? (See: http://offgridsurvival.com/store/ ) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:17, 16 January 2015 (EST)

==Hottest year ever!==
The drive-by media does this "hottest-year ever" hooey almost every year, although this year they seem to be laying it on especially thick. The most accurate available temperature record is the UAH data based on satellite readings.[http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/12/03/no-record-temperatures-according-to-satellites/] By this standard, 2014 was only the seventh warmest year on record. (1998 was the warmest.) It will be months before the surface temperature record for 2014 is complete. NASA is just guesstimating at this point. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 06:00, 17 January 2015 (EST)
:[http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Screen_shot_2015-01-15_at_8.04.49_PM.png Here] is the global temperature record since 1979 based on satellite data. In the last 35 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.2 C. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 06:21, 18 January 2015 (EST)

== Template:Outdated ==
When I peruse [[Special:Random]], I often encounter articles displaying information which is quite out of date (e.g, [[Stewart Bradley]] or [[Anne Arundel County, MD]]). Sometimes I'm able to update it, but at other times, it isn't in my field of special knowledge (or interest). I hope that I haven't overstepped my bounds, but
#I created the [[:Category:Outdated Articles]] for such pages
#I made the [[Template:Outdated]]: this will put a small warning on top of a page and put the page in the category. See [[Anne Arundel County, MD]] for an example.
I'd appreciate if someone would check the template and approve of it. Thanks --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:25, 18 January 2015 (EST)

== User: TheAmericanRedoubt ==

I received some communication from TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR). He is tackling an off wiki project right now. I believe he will be editing '''later this year.''' That is all the information I have right now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:56, 4 February '''2015''' (EST)

:*It's not the first time that [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] took off for a considerable amount of time: after making hundreds of edits until mid-July 2014, he seized editing for three months.
:*I hope no one expects us to cope with eye-sores like [[Preparedness]] (Conservapedia's article with the most categories) for the next three months!
:*I won't comb through the articles to which [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] contributed, but should I encounter something like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Orange_%28color%29&oldid=1127987 this], e.g., via [[Special:Random]], I will take action.
:*Thanks for unblocking [[User:Wschact]]!
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:53, 4 February 2015 (EST)

::I think we would all be in a better position to make decisions about what to do with TAR's material if we knew his actual intent. We're all relieved, of course, that the "Ayurvedic medicine", "Vata", "Dosha", "Kapha" stuff has been removed, but it would be good to make a decision about a few other things. I'm sure we're all in agreement that [[water]] doesn't really have a noteworthy relationship with survivalism. But there are many other irrelevant categories and "see also"'s that need to be addressed, as well as the implication that Andy's, Cons's, and my home states are treasonous.

::So I would suggest that we get TAR to tells us his intentions directly, rather than taking the word of someone who is known to have peculiar fantasies about his alter egos. I fully believe that Cons and TAR are different people, but it would be good if TAR were able to communicate other than through Cons. It's a little too much like Clark Kent's uncanny ability to summon Superman.

::@TAR: I realize you may be busy with other things, but it should be possible for you to post a really quick note without getting distracted. If you don't want to communicate in this public forum, could you please send me an email at sam4557@gmail.com?

::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:42, 4 February 2015 (EST)
:::Sometimes volunteers "bite off more than they can chew". This happens a lot, because the higher priorities of life obligations get in the way of a volunteer's best intentions. That is why projects like Conservapedia are team efforts -- so that others can pick up the slack when any volunteer has to step back. TAR volunteered to take existing content from certain sources and to convert it into the proper form for Conservapedia articles. 1) Some of his conversions needed more work on the Manual of Style front. 2) Some of his anticipated article subjects are red links, but TAR has not have a chance to bring over the content to actually write the article. 3) TAR made red links for a number of essays, which have not yet been written or adapted from the other website. 4) TAR started a large number of new categories before he appreciated the tree structure of categories and those categories need to be repositioned corrected. I estimate that it would take about a year of full time work to complete TAR's ambitious plan.
:::Since TAR is unavailable for a while, the entire team needs to work out a plan for addressing all four areas. While I am stepping back to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, I would encourage the team to create a check list of items that need to be addressed. Once the plan is mapped out and approved, I would volunteer to do my share, if that was the consensus. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:28, 4 February 2015 (EST)
=== What I don't want to happen ===

I believe that 3 of the primary reasons why TAR rubbed Wschact the wrong way and caused him to act inappropriately in some ways (both myself and VargasMilan believe this happened):

1. Alternative medicine issue - This issue has been resolved for the time being. Personally, I think that both Western World medicine and alternative medicine both have a lot of quackery within them and that an evidence based approach is best (there has been a lot of medical science fraud in recent years [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/science-has-lost-its-way.html][http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-intrinsic-unreliability-of-science.html]). To a certain extent, Billy Bones in the classic work ''Treasure Island'' was right: Doctors is all swabs, Jim! The Japanese, who live longer/healthier than the people who live in many countries of the Western World, use both systems of health care.

2. Survivalism - One of the reasons why I think this rubs Wsacht (who is a liberal) the wrong way is that much of the recent popularity of survivalism within some quarters of conservatism/libertarianism has the assumption that the economic system fashioned by liberals is economically unsound/unsustainable.

The claim of the unsoundness of liberal economics usually focuses on these factors: High amounts of sovereign debt in the world (The USA has 17 trillion dollars of federal government debt, etc. etc.), the failure of Keynesian economics, money that is not backed by a hard asset(s) (Gold or a basket of commodities), high amounts of money printing, the Soviet empire and various Latin American countries having their economies collapsing due to communism/socialism, etc., etc. I really think this irritates Wsacht.

Personally, I would first point out that liberal economists by in large did not predict the 2007/2008 crisis. Second, given the 2007/2008 crisis and the fact that some of the factors that caused it have never been resolved, I think the best approach is to follow the advice given by financial planners and have AT LEAST 6 months of wages saved up in some fashion where the wealth is readily available.

Also, some people believe that another 1930s like depression or worse is around the corner so they would advise having much more saved up and to take other measures such as growing your own food and storing food, etc. etc. I guess time will tell, but this is not impossible. The Western World and the world at large has gone through some periods of economic/political instability from time to time.

For the record, TAR takes the view of hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

3. His staunch Pro Second Ammendment views.

I have asked Karajou to make sure that Wsacht does not mess with TAR's material and create a lot of unnecessary, extra work for TAR due to Wsacht disagreeing with TARs political/economic views. I don't think CP liberals should dictate the ideology at CP so it conforms with liberalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:31, 5 February 2015 (EST)
:Thank you for sharing your concerns in an open candid way, and I will respond with equal candor.
:1. We are close to agreement here, but minor editing is necessary to bring some articles up to Manual of Style standards and the category tree structure needs repair.
:2. If Cons or TAR want to write essays expressing personal views on survivalism or giving advice, I will defend their right to do so. Similarly, if we take a team approach to writing objective, consensus articles on survivalism, Conservapedia will benefit as well. The conservative movement has a wide spectrum of view as do the survivalists. There are some survivalists who advocate immediate action due to the imminent collapse of Western civilization. Some of these advocate succession of "Cascadia" from the United States, and others advocate an separate all-white nation in the Pacific Northwest. Those views are beyond accepted conservative thought, because conservatives seek to improve society and the social order rather than to destroy it. Articles discussing preparedness for natural disasters or emergencies would help Conservapedia. I assume that they would comply with current Conservapedia policy that does not allow for advertisements or how-to manual articles. So, I think we are very close to an agreement here.
:3. The Second Amendment has been a part of the Constitution for 200 years, and I have not seen anyone on Conservapedia attack it. However, materials added to existing articles should be relevant, well-sourced and comply with the Manual of Style. One does not advocate for the Second Amendment by adding a category to every page on Conservapedia. If the person covered by a biography article favors gun rights, then add a sentence to the article preferably with a footnote. Same holds for gun rights opponents. If an article is about a brand of rifle, put "rifle" in the title. If the article is about just ammunition, make that clear as well. If TAR wants to write an article about a gun company, I suggest he use [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Gun_Company the Wikipedia article on Ithaca Gun Company] as a model. I have no objection to TAR moving over a lot of detailed articles providing reference materials on guns, so long as they are accurate and comply with the Manual of Style. I welcome people writing about things that interest them, including guns.
:So, I think we are mostly in agreement. Karajou, Cons and I have all advised TAR to focus on writing longer articles rather than just one or two sentences followed by a lot of "See also" links and category lists. I am not objecting to the subjects TAR has chosen, but rather the way TAR adds "See also" and categories into what appear to me to be unrelated articles. Possibly TAR may see a relationship that I can't, but that means that he should add a sentence or paragraph explaining to the reader those implications and relationships.
:I would welcome TAR back with the hope that he can clean up his many edits from December and January. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:21, 5 February 2015 (EST)
::TAR was under the impression that category tags generate a good amount of web traffic to articles. I showed him that the category tags effect on web traffic to articles is negligible. So I think the "Battle of the Category Tags" is pretty much over. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:15, 5 February 2015 (EST)
:::Good news! [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:20, 5 February 2015 (EST)
::::Also, a former Aussie admin, PhilipRayment, disagreed with Andy about gun control. If memory serves, and it may not, this may have been the final straw that caused Mr. Rayment to stop editing CP and launch his own wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 5 February 2015 (EST)
:::::I believe I am agreement with Andy about gun rights/gun control. I understand that there are a number of spin-off wikis running under Media-Wiki software. So, this raises two questions: 1) What can be done to recruit, train and retain competent editors here? 2) How quickly can we repair our wiki so as to avoid being penalized by search engines for our current profile that could be misinterpreted as a link-farm and also to avoid losing credibility with our readers? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:46, 5 February 2015 (EST)

== Merge candidates ==

Could someone please help me to work off all the [[:Category:Merge candidates|Merge candidates]]?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 12:42, 5 February 2015 (EST)
:Since a proper merger would involve merging the change histories, I believe that only an administrator can do it properly. Am I wrong? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 13:28, 5 February 2015 (EST)
::You just have to move the content to the other article and then redirect to the article.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 10:25, 13 February 2015 (EST)

== Stolen Valor ==

According to an article [http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/03/obama-signs-new-stolen-valor-act.html "Obama signs new Stolen Valor Act"] by Bryant Jordan of Military.com, on Jun 3, 2013 a law called the Stolen Valor Act was signed, "which makes it a federal crime for people to pass themselves off as war heroes by wearing medals they didn't rightfully earn.

:"The legislation passed both houses of Congress with overwhelming majorities.

:"An earlier version, passed in 2005, was struck down in June 2012 when the Supreme Court ruled that lying about military heroics was constitutionally protected speech unless there was intent to gain some benefit or something of value by fraud."

:"The law signed Monday at the White House includes such a provision, making it illegal to make the claims with the intent to obtain money, property or other tangible benefits."

Needless to say, this article indicates that NBC anchorman Brian Williams' false boasts of coming under fire in Iraq are not constitutionally protected free speech.

Perhaps there's a chance that viewers who were misled by Williams' claims and proceeded to watch NBC News because of them can initiate and engage in a class action lawsuit against Williams on that basis. Just a thought. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 20:36, 11 February 2015 (EST)

== vandal attack ==

I hope someone with block powers is paying attention. And doesn't have their talk page locked while they go about making numerous edits. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:06, 12 February 2015 (EST)

== No more stubs ==

*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ShortPages&limit=500&offset=0 Here] you can see a list of short articles. Please try to expand them.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 10:26, 13 February 2015 (EST)

== Affirming the "username policy" ==

[[Conservapedia:Community Portal#Make the username policy more clear|I raised this concern]] two months ago, but no user has shown any willingness to comment on this blatant issue, so I will reiterate it once again below. Users have been blocked on nearly a daily basis for having "spam-like formulas" to their username when a Conservapedia username policy is nonexistent. The only advice that the website provides on account creation is a mere suggestion that a username should contain a first name and last initial; nothing is said about having numbers in usernames, or using pseudo identifiers. While there are obvious times when users should be blocked, especially in cases where usernames are blatantly offensive, there are quite a number of users that get blocked that are possibly good-faith editors, like [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Robbyrain65 Robbyrain65], who was simply blocked for violation of the nonexistent username policy, or [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Marci18 Marci18], who was only blocked-by-association because they had a seemingly similar username to 'Natashia36', who apparently [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Natashia36 did nothing]. In addition, it is only ironic when one of our best users, Conservative, which is obviously neither a first or last name, blocks [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/ProgressiveBrit ProgressiveBrit] and tells them to 'pick a more respectable username'. It only produces an appearance of hypocrisy when some of the site's best editors, including Karajou, Conservative, TheAmericanRedoubt, and Aschlafly himself, violate this nonexistent username policy used to block other editors, many of which have not even made a single edit. There should be something tangible on this website that points out what exactly is expected of a username.

-- [[User:DanielJackson|DanielJackson]] 20:04, 13 February 2015 (EST)
:Two points: 1) The Username policy is not changing unless you convince owner of the website of the benefit of doing this and address any objections he may have. You can contact the owner of the website at: [[User talk:Aschlafly]] 2) Sometimes users are banned due to IPs associated with commercial spammers without any reason being given as a block reason. I know I have done this. If we had a more explicit username policy, it would give me more incentive to give block reasons. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 13 February 2015 (EST)
::I see what you are saying, but the problem I have with your first point is that, unless I'm mistaken there ''is no username policy''. [[User:DanielJackson|DanielJackson]] 20:52, 13 February 2015 (EST)
:::Well, you are correct in that there is no precisely stated policy. Perhaps this is intentional, to prevent people from seeing exactly how close to a violation they can go. But some of the more responsible sysops have lately been giving a block reason in an informal way -- "spam-like formula to user name". Perhaps some of the other sysops could start following that practice. For example, VargasMilan gave that reason in some blocks at 22:42 and 23:13 on Feb. 19. The users involved were "Tights07twig" and "Moatnoodle1". Other users blocked around that time were "Lakiesha32" and "Rachel21". It's not hard to see the formula-like construction -- nonsense words with digits. Why spammers do it that way is a mystery to me. So I think it would be fair to say that, official username policy or not, people desiring to do serious editing would do well not to create such ridiculous names. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 10:54, 21 February 2015 (EST)
::::Hmmm. Just after I posted the above, "Roadbarge4" came along. Countdown in 3, 2, 1, .... [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 10:59, 21 February 2015 (EST)

== Ken Ammi account? ==

Did Ken Ammi of True Free Thinker join Conservapedia or is [[User:Kenammi]] who joined February 16th/17th an impostor? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 13:58, 17 February 2015 (EST)
:Not an imposter. Please see: [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project - News Updates]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 17 February 2015 (EST)
::Imposter or not, he deserves a welcome. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 10:56, 21 February 2015 (EST)
:::The kenammi account account is not going to be used. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:22, 23 February 2015 (EST)

== Sloppy presentation of block reasons ==

A recent vandal spree (by user "Drunkard"; it was quite hideous) was brought to an end with a block, as expected. Followed by lots of reverts, of course. But the given block reason was "Silly and/or foul username. Account may be recreated as a first name and last initial". Now the user name was clearly silly and/or foul, and the block was done with account creation disabled. But doesn't the menu for blocking list "vandalism" as a possible reason? If not, it should. And if so, people should make an effort to use the block reason menu properly. There's been a lot of sloppiness in this regard lately. (Though "lack of machismo" hasn't been used for quite a while :-)

We recently had a user (Burke39) blocked for 2 months for "inserting false information". Some of his edits were later reverted by the blocking sysop, some were left alone, and some were praised on that sysop's own talk page. This raises the question: What were the false edits? There's too much stuff for me to track down. But, since he may come back in 2 months, he's going to want to know. Could someone leave a note on his talk page explaining just what it is that he must not do when he comes back? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:45, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

:I blocked Burke39 and corrected his edits mainly in a group. You can browse my contributions and can usually tell by the description. He also did some odd removals. I am not completely sure that the block doesn't need to be increased somewhat. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 19:52, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

::OK. I'm not defending him at all, mind you. I'm not going to browse his contributions for the details; I'll completely take your word for it. I'm sure that if I did look around, I'd figure it out. I guess all I wanted was some quick note pointing to the "smoking gun". So he doesn't have to look around and try to figure it out, possibly figuring it out wrong.
::If you're not sure the block doesn't need to be increased, you shouldn't. ''This isn't aimed at you; it's a general comment.'' There are two types of unsavory characters: people who need to be slapped, and people who need to be permabanned. The latter are clear, of course, and he isn't in that class. But slapping someone with a long but finite block just makes them angry and hostile when they come back. CP is basically treating them like children with these "timeouts". It would be better to treat them like adults who need to be told when they are doing something wrong. Assuming they are adults, they will presumably "get it". If not, well, then you drop the axe.
::The preceding paragraph wasn't something I was planning to write; it's just something I've noticed over the last year or so. You gave me a perfect lead in for it. Thank you for understanding. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:06, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

== Categories, again ==

What is the reasoning behind putting [[Hertz]], [[Ampere's law]], and many other articles into the categories [[:Category:Amateur Radio]], [[:Category : Solar Energy]], [[:Category : Wind Energy]] or [[:Category : Hydroelectric Energy]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:43, 23 March 2015 (EDT)

:I noticed the same thing. Looking just at some of the pages that I have been working on lately (AC, DC, current, voltage, etc), there is simply no reason to put these into categories like "wind energy". If one were going to be that exhaustive, one would have to put them into such categories as: wind energy, solar energy, nuclear energy, fossil-fuel energy, hydroelectric energy, geothermal energy, power distribution, piezoelectricity, conductors, insulators, semiconductors, electrostatics, electrodynamics, electromagnetism, electromagnetic radiation, Maxwell's equations, plasma, magnetars, pulsars, coronal mass ejections, vacuum tubes, diodes, transistors, integrated circuits, bipolar transistors, field-effect transistors, Schottky diodes, Zener diodes, computers, laptop computers, deskside computers, mainframe computers, supercomputers, motors, generators, transformers, telephones, radio, television, cell phones, smart phones, etc, etc, etc. I could go on for hours.
:All of the things listed above relate to physics or technology in some way. A few categories in those fields are all that are needed. For example, wind energy can be in a few categories like power distribution and electricity. From there one can get to electronics, electrical engineering, and so on, and, if one wants to go into great detail, to related topics like Maxwell's equations, electronics, physics, and the definition of the volt. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:10, 23 March 2015 (EDT)

::It's the same reasoning that links Leonard Bernstein with electrical wire. It seems they're both conductors. Actually, I think "reasoning" is not the appropriate word. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:42, 25 March 2015 (EDT)

:::I think I've cleaned that up a bit. Though I left a lot of redlinks. Maybe one of our more prolific writers who is interested in music (yes, Cons, that's you) would like to write articles for these people. Or Alan, of course. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:24, 26 March 2015 (EDT)
::::Redlinks gone. Sorry. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 02:09, 26 March 2015 (EDT)

::::Cons is on record on one of my articles' talk pages decrying articles under 600 words. Perhaps he should do it. TAR however, seems to get away with one-liners regularly. The various protocols don't seem to apply to our free-stater - I reckon he could write a line each on all of them, each complete with 20 see-alsos and any number of categories... within the hour. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:04, 26 March 2015 (EDT)
:::::Maybe an article on bestiality and string quartets? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 02:09, 26 March 2015 (EDT)
:What, foursomes? It's the trumpeters' doubletonguing I have trouble with.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:47, 26 March 2015 (EDT)

==While we're on the subject==
Cons, seeing as we have got you salivating over music, may I tell you that I have just been out to move our car from the front of the house to its bed for the night and ran slap bang into Renee Fleming singing Marietta's aria from Korngold's "The Dead City" on the car radio. Here t'is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1IzUbFMDGc Lotte Lehmann is my first memory of it - the duet with Richard Tauber recorded in the 1920s, which will be somewhere on YouTube no doubt. {Korngold later fled to America where he composed the soundtracks to various Errol Flynn movies among others and wrote one of the great romantic violin concertos. {Stick with me, babe, and learn.) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:04, 26 March 2015 (EDT)
:Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:23, 26 March 2015 (EDT)

== April Fool's joke ==

What Israeli coin is worth fifty cents? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:02, 1 April 2015 (EDT)

:Answer: The [[Haifa]] dollar. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 18:45, 2 April 2015 (EDT)

::At least it makes cents. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:27, 2 April 2015 (EDT)

== SamHB ==

I think SamHB is sick. He wants to do battle with ''me'' instead of misinformation, like you would expect a ''scientist'' to do. Why don't we join forces, Sam, and fight distortions in what is understood together? Don't be like [[Stephen Hawking]] who says today's physics is too advanced to be subjected to any kind of accounting. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:54, 12 April 2015 (EDT)

:OK, VM. I'll take you at your word that you want to collaborate rather than fight. I won't make the long message that I threatened (on the other page) to make about "relativity, science, personal insults, sycophancy, "mall cop" behavior, etc. etc. etc." It would be a waste of my time to write, and of your time to read. Though we do need to discuss the subject matter. I believe you are badly mistaken in your edit comment (23:45, 11 April) "Why not? It would make it easier for scientists to indoctrinate students to their worldview." But if you no longer hold to that, that's fine with me. We can move on.

:I accept your apology for saying what you said [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1110820&oldid=1110819 here], and for saying, just above, that I am "sick". I will withdraw my "sycophancy" / "spider sense" comment about physics being "subjected to any kind of accounting". I don't know what you were talking about there.

:But about relativity, and your edit of 23:45, 11 April, you removed several things of mine, most importantly the statement that scientists do not choose theories knowing that they are wrong, just because the mathematics is easier. The idea that the Newcomb-Hall hypothesis was "disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating" is just all wrong. It's been in the article for years, and I decided it was time for it to go. (If you're not familiar with the Newcomb-Hall hypothesis, please do your homework. It's been written about extensively, mostly by me, for years. The earliest reference I can find is just 56 days after your account was created.) Now there's another problem that I removed and you put back in---that "one of the other explanations" (beside relativity or Newcomb-Hall) involved "factoring in the pull of the other planets". No. The correction from the other planets was already taken into account, before relativity or Newcomb-Hall. That correction is much larger than the "anomalous precession" that is in dispute. I believe the gravitational perturbations are something like 5500 seconds, vs. 43 seconds for the "anomalous" precession. Everyone agrees on the gravitational perturbations.

:Now here's the deal: The straight Newtonian calculation is indeed simple. It can be (and was!) solved by Isaac Newton. That's the "elegance in integrating". The gravitational perturbation stuff was messy, but Newton, Lagrange, and Gauss could deal with it. Both relativity and Newcomb-Hall are messy. They can be solved numerically, but not, as far as I know, in closed form. I won't do the relativity stuff; you can look it up. But I did work out the Newcomb-Hall equation earlier today. It is
:<math>\frac{d^2 r}{d\theta^2} + r = \frac{G M r^\delta}{L^2}</math>
:where <math>\delta\,</math> is the Newcomb-Hall correction. Something like .000000157.

:When <math>\delta\, = 0</math> this reduces to the classic equation (the one that made Isaac Newton famous) for a planet without precession.

:But Newcomb-Hall doesn't work! The correction given above makes Mercury behave correctly, but is wrong for the moon and the other planets. In fact, because of the wrong prediction for the moon, Newcomb-Hall was dropped almost immediately, around the beginning of the 20th century.

:The real problem I have with your edit is the claim that the "simple", "elegant" differential equation (straight Newtonian) is favored over Newcomb-Hall because it is easy. This would be a case of adopting a theory that one knows to be wrong. Sort of like the old joke about searching for your keys under the lamp-post because the light is better there, even though it isn't where you dropped them.

:Anyone advocating the "elegance in integrating" idea must be taking the position that the '''anomalous precession simply does not occur''', even though it has been known, and accurately measured, for over 150 years.

:So I have no idea what "worldview" you are referring to when you say "It would make it easier for scientists to indoctrinate students to their worldview." What worldview is that? One that says that anomalous precession does not occur? Can you name one scientist, textbook, or teacher (beyond junior high school, of course) that holds to such a worldview and tries to indoctrinate students to it?

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 03:05, 16 April 2015 (EDT)

::If your justification for the edit was that scientists are above reproach, as was stated in the edit summary, that in itself was grounds for me for rejection of the edit, as alternate explanations are available. I didn't sustain the rejection, however, because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you had further reasons.

::But I can't help noticing you are contradicting what Andy said: namely that the calculation of the procession and the factors that supposedly "everybody agrees on" haven't been updated since the 1980s? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 07:30, 16 April 2015 (EDT)

:::I assume the edit, and edit summary, you are referring to was the one to the relativity page, with comment "Scientists don't choose wrong theories over right ones just because the math is easier." By no stretch of the imagination can that be construed to mean that scientists are above reproach. Also, I explained in great detail, above on this page, what the "alternate explanations" were that were given in the existing article. Do you have yet more alternate explanations?

:::"give you the benefit of the doubt that you had further reasons." --- no, I have no further reasons, beyond what I stated above. Were they not sufficient?

:::"grounds for me for rejection" and "didn't sustain the rejection" --- you make it sound like an executive vs. legislative issue, where you veto something, and I decide whether to try to override the veto or let it stand, and you can unilaterally "sustain" it if you still disagree. That's not the way Conservapedia works. We collaborate. Sometimes we argue. Respectfully, or course. We try not to use words like "rejection".

:::"I can't help noticing you are contradicting what Andy said" --- Yes. I am. This is a complicated issue, but it was an open-and-shut case. Or, as Andy likes to put it "two plus two equals four". I need to give you a long explanation of why I sometimes feel justified in reverting Andy. It's a long story. No time for it now; gotta run. But, basically, we trust each other. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:56, 17 April 2015 (EDT)

:::Sorry to leave these questions hanging. I'll be back in a few hours. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:58, 17 April 2015 (EDT)

:::I'm back. Here's the deal on relativity. I recognize that this is Andy's wiki, and that his position stands, even though I totally disagree. If I chose to, I could make edits designed to make him look stupid. But I don't. I want CP's stance on relativity to be expressed as clearly as possible. As such, I collaborate with Andy on making the [[Theory of relativity]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], and [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] articles to be the best that they can be. They are flagship articles. To be the best it can be, the relativity article should not list the gravitational effects of other planets as one of the hypotheses that was put forth to try to explain the anomalous precession, because it's just not true. The gravitational effects were the first thing that was tried. It was the '''anomalous''' precession that was left over that caused the problem. Also, the idea that scientists rejected Newcomb-Hall simply because the equation was harder is just wrong. If you want the simple equation, you have to go with plain Newtonian (the delta=0 case above) which means that you posit that the anomalous precession is zero. Which it isn't. Hence my "Scientists don't choose wrong theories over right ones just because the math is easier." edit comment. I believe Andy's current stance on the situation is that neither Newcomb-Hall nor relativity explains the anomalous precession correctly, so the true cause of the precession is unknown. A completely wrong position, but at least stated in an understandable way.

:::Now, a little more on the subject, that might help you to understand my "I recommend that you not get into a battle over relativity, unless you have really done your homework, which you haven't." comment. The comment was indeed brusque and rude. But I've been deeply involved in this stuff for most of my 8 year tenure here. I believe that there are only 3 active people who know their way around the CP relativity articles in depth: Andy, me, and AugustO. (There have been others in the past, like KSorenson and JacobB, but they're long gone.) When I see someone appear to parrot Andy's position, it gets my spider-sense tingling. I am incredulous that someone else could hold the same view. If you do hold the same view, you should try to explain it in your own words.

:::'''Andy does not need you to defend or protect him.''' He has been taking on all comers for years, and doing a good job of it. And '''that''' is what I meant by "doing your homework".

:::Do I hold myself to be above reproach or scrutiny? Of course not. And I object to the implication that I do. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:19, 17 April 2015 (EDT)

== Conservapedia Politics Project ==

Does anyone or any Conservapedians want to launch a [[Conservapedia: Politics Project]] which would be featured on the main page?

The project would focus on creating/expanding Conservapedia's articles on liberal/moderate/conservative leaders/politicians and political organizations. In addition, political movements could be covered as well.

The project page would have three sections in terms of articles that need to be created or expanded: a conservative section, a moderate section and a liberal/leftist section. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:48, 18 May 2015 (EDT)

:I am interested this, but would spend more time building conservative entries than liberal ones!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:50, 18 May 2015 (EDT)

::OK. I created a project page entitled: [[Conservapedia:Encyclopedia of Conservatism]].

::Once the page is ready, an announcement can be made on the main page. And if you want to appear on radio, etc. to promote it, that could be helpful.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:54, 19 May 2015 (EDT)

== to: RobS, do you wish to edit CP again? ==

RobS,

Would you like to be an editor at Conservapedia again? If so, let me know. I would be more than happy to discuss the matter with other Conservapedians.

I know Andy liked your political content that you created at Conservapedia (articles on communism, etc.) and I believe your politics are closer to the right than the leftist politics favored at the current wiki you edit at.

Next, although I was formerly miffed at you messing around with my User page and User talk page, I really don't hold any animosity towards you. Life is too short to hold grudges. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:18, 19 May 2015 (EDT)
:Gentlemen, RobS does not have to "crawl back". He created a lot of excellent content about communism and other political subjects. I should have extended this invitation much earlier.

:I don't think RobS and I would lock horns again either. The User: Conservative account is going to be focused mainly on creating more atheism content and making some main page edits. For the foreseeable future, except for communicating with VargasMilan2 about footnoting articles, I don't plan on communicating with other editors at this wiki due to other projects I am involved in.

:Lastly, I've mellowed. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:23, 23 May 2015 (EDT)
::"RobSmith Created some of Conservapedia's most acclaimed articles, and was a tireless vandal fighter and researcher on the Socialist and Communist agendas." - Quote from the [[Conservapedia]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:41, 23 May 2015 (EDT)
:::RobS, last night I watched video series by William S. Lind on cultural Marxism/political correctness in the Western World ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyFCNj52DeA William S. Lind on the Origins of Political Correctness, Part 1] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtAWywfcL7c William S. Lind on the Origins of Political Correctness, Part 2]). It's primary focus was on the Frankfurt School.

:::The need for more of your material at CP is definitely there. Political correctness/Marxism may wane in the West just be a political fad and it would be better if it happened sooner rather than later.

:::RobS, CP's article on [[Cultural Marxism]] is merely 3 paragraphs long. If only CP had an expert on Marxism to expand it. "RobSmith Created some of Conservapedia's most acclaimed articles, and was a tireless vandal fighter and researcher on the Socialist and Communist agendas." - Quote from the [[Conservapedia]] article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:32, 24 May 2015 (EDT)
Another thing I wanted to mention. Subsequent to Obama coming to power and after some additional exposure to conservative thought though conservatives such as [[David Horowitz]] and others, I began to appreciate your work more as far as leftist infiltration into the [[Western World]] and the world at large. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:42, 24 May 2015 (EDT)

:Come on, Cons! I never thought the day would come when '''''I''''' reprimand '''''you''''' (or anyone else) for engaging in (what's the phrase the admins use?) "talk, talk, talk" instead of making substantive edits. But that's what you are doing! Why don't you just lift RobS's block and be done with it? He can make his own decision about what he wants to do. And he's well aware of what's going on—even if he isn't watching this, the folks over at ritionalwaki are watching it and discussing it, and he is part of the discussion.
:So, avoid a 90/10 block. Create more articles. There doesn't seem to be an article on "atheism and maple syrup" yet. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:27, 25 May 2015 (EDT)
::I forget about the block. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:22, 25 May 2015 (EDT)
SamHB, the editors of the User: Conservative account have an article writing plan that it is implementing as evidenced by the recently published [[Atheism and intolerance]] article. See: [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project|Conservapedia Atheism Project]].

Also, I couldn't find any website called "Ritionalwaki". Is there a Wikipedia article on the website or does it fail to meet Wikipedia's notability standards? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:10, 25 May 2015 (EDT)
=== To: RobS/OscarO ===

Thanks for creating the new Obama content.

I unblocked RobSmith and I can request that Andy give OscarO picture upload rights.

Second, work with me. Create more content and I will work on getting RobSmith Admin rights in order to edit the main page. The same goes for the picture upload rights for OscarO.

In the meantime, I will be working on some matters that will increase the odds that RobSmith will have admin rights in 2016 or sooner.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:23, 27 May 2015 (EDT)
::I featured the article: [[Riots during the Obama Administration]] on the main page. If you haven't done so already, I would add Soros related content to Ferguson section. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:50, 27 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I wrote some message to you at: [[User talk:OscarO]]. 19:12, 27 May 2015 (EDT)

===New entry===
How come my new entry, [[Qutbism]], doesn't show up on Recent Changes? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 28 May 2015 (EDT)
:It looks like it was merely a lag or something else happened. Anyways, there doesn't seem to be a problem with this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:13, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
::I saw it there yesterday (my time). Yes ...there t'is...at 04.43 just before Andy's four edits on Maths and the Bible. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:38, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I've never had this happen, and assumed it was just a case of Rob not refreshing his browser. After any edit, I always go to a new tab and select a fresh copy (it's on my toolbar) of "recent changes". And it always shows up. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:12, 29 May 2015 (EDT)

== The American Redoubt ==

[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] has edited Conservapedia two months ago for the last time. Will he be back? What happens to the plethora of red links in the meantime? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:38, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
:Last I heard, he was tackling a project and intended to return. I would give him some more months to return. I have no way of contacting him at this point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:37, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
::Perhaps you could post his latest communication to you, with email addresses and personal information redacted of course. Then we could all get an idea of just what his intentions are, and the site wouldn't have to stay in a state of redlinks and other undesirable stuff, due to the threat that this absentee might return. If we improve the site, and he doesn't like what we've done, he can come back and argue his case. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:21, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
:::TAR said in February that after he finished a project, he would return to Conservapedia. He also said that it was hard to say when he would finish that project. I am not at liberty to say anything about the project. And since I have no way of contacting TAR, I have no way of finding out when TAR wishes to return to Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 30 May 2015 (EDT)
::::It would have been nice if you could have given us some authentic-looking, albeit redacted, communication.
::::So this person is on some kind of secret mission, and is holding Conservapedia hostage with all those ridiculous links, and other formatting foolishness, while he's on that mission? No thanks. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:39, 30 May 2015 (EDT)
:::::[Comment vaped by Cons, 01:34, 30 May 2015]
::::Your reply above, that you vaped, is about what I had expected, though I didn't predict the "icewater in Hell" comment. By the way, Andy prefers that you capitalize "Hell". [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 02:20, 30 May 2015 (EDT)
I now have a way to contact TAR. I found some contact information. I will contact TAR this week (perhaps as early as tomorrow). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:00, 1 June 2015 (EDT)
:I left a message with TAR. I will try back later in the day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:59, 1 June 2015 (EDT)
::I got in contact with TAR and he is going to start editing Conservapedia again probably sometime in September of 2015.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:18, 1 June 2015 (EDT)
:::It's good to know that, like Clark Kent's uncanny and mysterious ability to contact Superman, you have a secret way to contact TAR. It certainly improves everyone's image of him as a normal person, the kind of person that Conservapedia's editors want to collaborate with. By the way, will he come back early from his secret project, a project which you are "not at liberty to say anything about", if ISIS rejects him? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:08, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
::::Ladies and gentlemen, behold this architechtonic example of...Science...at its fullest. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:44, 8 June 2015 (EDT)

== Request for (temporary) Night Editing Priviledges ==

In the coming weeks, starting on 12 June and ending 02 July, my working schedule will be such that I will only be able to sign on to Conservapedia from 9 pm-9 am. I want to continue editing the articles in the Astronomy section, as well as beginning a category and creating articles for orbital mechanics and orbit types. If required, I can make agreements to ensure good faith since I haven't been a member for very long.

[[User:IHop|IHop]] 15:31, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

== Template:Cquote listed in Speedy deletion candidates category?? ==

I don't know what it's doing there (the template hasn't been edited since 2012, so it doesn't and shouldn't have the category invoked by the typical double-bracket code), but if it gets deleted it will mess up a lot of pages. See [[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates]]. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 20:00, 10 June 2015 (EDT)
:I don't know how to fix this. I would leave a message on Andy's talk page about this matter.

:Also, if you want, you could leave a message on the talk pages of active CP admins to insure the template is not deleted. I say this because the quote template is protected and only admins can delete protected pages. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:29, 10 June 2015 (EDT)

::Okay, I left the messages. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:17, 10 June 2015 (EDT)
:::With a suggestion from AugustO, I fixed the problem. Problem solved. See: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Template:Cquote_problem [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:58, 11 June 2015 (EDT)

== Anonymous threats against me ==

Cons has just warned me on my [[User talk:SamHB#regarding content creation|talk page]] that he has received email communications from someone threatening to block my account because I have not been creating enough content, and I need to create substantially more. Aside from the fact that blocking an account is probably not a good way to get more content creation, I believe that I am one of the more active contributors at present. By my count, since late March I made contributions to nearly 90 ''different'' non-talk non-Community-Portal pages.

Can anyone shed some light on this? If you want to contact me privately, I'm at sam4557@gmail.com.

On a subject that may or may not be related, I see a comment a little higher on this page, characterizing an edit I made as an "architechtonic example of...Science...at its fullest". It had absolutely nothing to do with science. I was simply ridiculing TAR's apparent wish to be treated as a superhero with a secret identity. Also, [[Talk:Parrot#No_Credit_Where_Credit_is_Not_Due]] has a complaint that "SamHB embraces the pseudoscience that leavens science too tightly to be trusted". Anyone who believes that I embrace pseudoscience, or that I "leaven science too tightly to be trusted" (huh?) is urged to explain this belief in detail.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 02:16, 12 June 2015 (EDT)

== How to Archive? ==

I'd like to archive (part of) my user page and talk page, and I'd like to do it the "right way", preserving edit timestamps and such. Is it possible to do that? I can't find anything in any of the help pages explaining this. Can someone help me? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:08, 21 June 2015 (EDT)
:I'd help you but now I gotta do nine mainspace edits just for thinkling about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:32, 28 June 2015 (EDT)
::Thanks, but I've looked around, and it seems that the kind of accurate archiving, preserving edit histories, isn't done here at CP. Maybe the mediawiki extension isn't installed. So I'm just going to do it the brute-force way. For talk pages, edits have time stamps anyway, and for my user page, well, it's my castle. :-) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:36, 28 June 2015 (EDT)

== What's next, SCOTUS? ==
I wake up this morning to learn that something too disgusting to even allude to is now legal in fifty states. Thanks, Supreme Court! So what's next? According to [http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/ Andrew Sullivan's victory gloat], "the pursuit of happiness promised in the Declaration of Independence has no meaning if it does not include the right to marry the person you love." In other words, married pedophile couples. Gayopia is just around the corner! Either that, or the Lord will strike back with a [[AIDS | dreadful disease of some kind]]. Of course, the Romans [http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1367/gay_marriagenothing_new_under_the_sun.aspx were there first]. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 18:13, 28 June 2015 (EDT)

== Block of Burke39 ==

I see that [[User:Burke39]]'s recent 2-month block has just expired. Apparently it was for something he wrote about ephebophilia, or pedophilia, or thelarche, or something; I don't know; I haven't looked at the edits. In any case, after the block expired, he made trivial changes to his signature on earlier edits, and was immediately blocked again. The new block reason said "still obsessed with aberant sex entries. See: 'Talk:Pedophilia'" He may or may not be obsessed, but he did not make any nontrivial edits.

The idea that, after being released from incarceration, one can be incarcerated again for the same offense, is the way the justice system of the Communist Soviet Union worked. It suggests that Burke39 is simply going to be blocked for a week, every week. This doesn't seem right.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 16:37, 12 July 2015 (EDT)
:Being on the left, I am sure you know how the Communist Soviet Union worked. I am also sure you understand that leftist agitators often made unreasonable demands/accusations which you are doing now.
::As playful ad-hominems go, I'd give that about a 6. I'd give it a 7, but the Soviet Union dissolved over 25 years ago. You can do better. I'd give you a nice zinger in reply, but I can't think of one just now. Sorry. Leftist agitators? Nice. Unreasonable demands? Well, I don't think Conservapedia should be emulating the Soviet justice system. In fact, we have this concept in the United States justice system commonly called "double jeopardy". It's generally frowned upon; in fact, in our legal system, it's forbidden. Being on the left, I am sure you know how that concept works.

:Burke39 was told to lay off the sexual aberrancy topics. VargasMilan and I don't have a lot of confidence in his edits in these topic areas. There are lot of topics outside of sexual aberrancy where he can create articles. How about he create a [[Clock]] entry or a [[Model train]] entry or a [[The Trouble with Atheism]] entry? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:57, 12 July 2015 (EDT)
::But getting back to the topic at hand, writing about clocks sounds fascinating. I'm surprised (seriously!) that CP doesn't have an article on this topic. I'm going to contact him and see if he's enthusiastic about writing such an article. Not sure about atheism and clocks, though. We will leave that to you, OK?
::But you will have to unblock him, right?
::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 11:00, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

:His block will expire at 13:23 on Sunday. I've been in extensive email conversation with him. He says that he doesn't really know anything interesting or useful to say about clocks or model trains. I agree with him; articles should be written by people are are at enthusiastic about the topic. (By the way, where did you come up with those two topics? He doesn't remember ever expressing an interest in them.)

:What he wants to write about are topics related to Freemasonry, Judaism, and antisemitism. From our email exchanges, I think he will do very well in these areas.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:56, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

==Trump==
[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421045/donald-trump-fraud?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral This article] does a good job of taking Trump apart. The man is a fake, through and through. He supported an immigration amnesty in 2012, abortion in 1999, and was a "good friend" of Hillary as recently as 2008. Boasting about how rich you are rarely goes over well. Too many people find Trump's personality grating for him to be a plausible candidate in the general election.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 23:41, 13 July 2015 (EDT)

:Too many people find Hillary an acceptable candidate. The GOP needs more Trumps do to its spineless modern day leaders. Plus, he seems to have a receptive following at the moment. I for one like when non-politicians take on the political elites. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:37, 14 July 2015 (EDT)
::I think it'll all fall apart in the debates. All he has is nonsense talking points. Is Huckbee running? I always found him pretty sharp. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] 00:40, 14 July 2015 (EDT)
:Trump can be a liberal or a conservative as the mood strikes him; It's just acting. His general election poll numbers are far worse than those of any other major candidate. He is already very well known, so that's not likely to change. In short, a vote for Trump is effectively a vote for Hillary. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 09:54, 14 July 2015 (EDT)

::Nobody can defeat the Clinton Machine (2008). Reagan has no shot at winning. (1980). Your opinion is duly noted but evidence to the contrary exists.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:39, 14 July 2015 (EDT)
:::Ah yes, I see a casino/strip club owner, four-time bankruptee, and WWE Hall of Fame inductee riding to our nation's rescue, together with both his ex-wives. When Hillary's opposition researchers are through with him, they'll realize he is clean as a whistle. But seriously, Trump's negatives are off the charts, and most Republican primary voters responded they would '''never''' vote for him. "He has a well-deserved and, I would say, an impressive 59 percent," as Krauthammer put it.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/05/your-next-president-donald-trump-basically-tweets-like-a-12-year-old/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:25, 14 July 2015 (EDT)
:::: We get it, you don't like Trump. You forgot to mention Trump is a birther. Krauthammer worked for Mondale, not exactly a trusted conservative source. Trump was immediately dismissed when he entered the race. Trump was trashed by the left and right media for three solid weeks. Would you have predicted 1st place when he entered? Now there is still 18 months before the election. I wouldn't worry so much about one candidate. Instead of the conservative circle firing squad, focus on tearing down the woman who voted for the Iraq war, then turned against, supported traditional marriage, then turned against, supported border enforcement and turned against, supported the Confederate flag and turned against.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:46, 14 July 2015 (EDT)

==Obama and appeasement==
With the nuclear deal with Iran, there's a lot of talk of Obama and appeasement. But this analogy makes sense only if you assume the deal will fail. Chamberlain believed that Sudetenland was Hitler's "last territorial demand in Europe" and that Munich brought "peace in our time." He had worthy objectives. One could wish him well and hope for a positive outcome. But a successful Iranian nuclear deal would make the U.S. Iran's ally against Israel. Getting the U.S. to switch sides in the global struggle between democracy and totalitarianism is the point. Chamberlain expected Hitler to keep his end of the bargain, but Obama seems little concerned as to whether or not the Iranians follow any of the agreed restrictions on their nuclear program. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 11:47, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

:This deal is all about Obama, Obama's legacy, his giant ego. Does it have to work? Nah, just like Obamacare doesn't work. It matters not, only that he gets the credit. He was angered by Major Garrett's question on the release of American hostages. How dare he insult his great achievement. He is diligently working on their release from Iranian prison as he goes to vacation at Martha's Vineyard. In Obama we trust. Errr, not so much.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:00, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

::In a way, it's better for Obama if a Republican wins in 2016. If the deal collapses on the Hilebeast's watch, he could be blamed. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 12:14, 16 July 2015 (EDT)
:::Hillary is about as inspiring as wet toast. She is even worse than Romney on the inspiring scale. I am not sure she can win, but if she does, her administration will no doubt be corrupt and I doubt she would be an inspiring leader.

:::With someone like Barack Obama winning two terms, with so many candidates running and with Hillary's scandals deepening in their unseemly revelations, it is extremely hard to predict who will be the next president of the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:05, 16 July 2015 (EDT)
::::I'll predict: Scott Walker. He's way ahead in Iowa.[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html] The only other plausible candidates are Jeb Bush and Hillary -- and we need to be optimistic. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:31, 16 July 2015 (EDT)
::::::I'll throw my hat in the prediction ring! I'd say for the Republican ticket it'll be Bush/Rubio (that would really pull the Hispanic vote, which the Republicans desperately need). The big Dem strategy for the future is flip Texas imho, but I don't see a way to do that this time. So probably Clinton/Webb since he's really no threat to her, and that might help them in Virginia and maybe with the military crowd. I seriously doubt the RNC will let Trump run, and if he runs independent the Republicans are sunk. I think this is actually pretty likely too. So I'm guessing a three party ticket featuring Trump/Whoever (I really thought it would be Fiorina to cement the business platform, and that way they wouldn't be left out of the "diversity race," but they've been having words lately so I don't know...), Bush/Rubio (no questions about Florida this time), and Clinton/Webb (maybe O'Malley if Jimbo gets too feisty at the debates). That almost certainly means another Clinton presidency. I guess everybody gets two turns in America...unsigned edit by [[User:RNozickFan]]
:::::::If Romney had won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. If he'd gotten just 4 percent more of the white vote, he would have won. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:42, 20 August 2015 (EDT)
::::::::That's a good point. I wonder if that spread still makes sense if you only take battleground states into account. In any case I think the GOP is chasing the Hispanic vote as more of a long-term investment. The current population spread in this country has a relatively limited shelf-life.
:::::::::See [http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/09/10/two-out-of-three-hispanics-oppose-immigration-increase/ "Two out of three Hispanics oppose immigration increase"] from yesterday at Breitbart. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 05:24, 11 September 2015 (EDT)
:::::I wonder how much Trump is willing to spend to advance his campaign. It could be Walker's Koch brothers funding vs. Trump's campaign dollars. Hillary and Jeb Bush can probably raise a lot of money too. Perhaps, to a lessor degree, Cruz and Rubio will be able to generate campaign cash (but they are young and can raise name awareness for next time).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:50, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
I just thought. A lot of Trump's money is tied up in commercial real estate and businesses. So there is the liquidity issue. So Trump could potentially try to raise money for his campaign. I wonder how easy it is for a billionaire to raise money for a presidential campaign? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:58, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
:You could be right. I read that he has 302 million in liquid wealth, and I think he's spent close to 2 million. So he could conceivably go awhile, and he's said he's willing to spend up to a billion (which would obviously mean liquidating some assets). I think he really would too.

:Yes, there are doubts about how much Trump would really spend on a political campaign. The very rich can also be very frugal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:35, 20 August 2015 (EDT)
::Definitely so. Most millionaires live in what we might think of as "middle class" neighborhoods. Nice houses, nice cars, etc. but not extravagant by any stretch. I've seen Trumps house, cars, and jet and I'm not convinced that fits him. Although this is definitely more of a business type decision so he could be really prudent with his funds.

==Hillary's poll numbers collapse==
As you can [http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/hillarys-poll-numbers-in-free-fall.php see here]. Of course, as long as she is unopposed she can still win the nomination. Is it Biden time? '''P.S.''' I loved this comment: "The 31 percent who say they think she is honest are lying." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 09:45, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

==Trump is right==
Ann Coulter weights in with [http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-07-22.html#read_more a magnificent article] on rape, immigration, and media denialism. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 20:22, 27 July 2015 (EDT)

==Obama's latest outrage==

If comparing the Republican Congressional Caucus to Iranian mobs chanting “death to America” isn’t Obama’s scummiest move yet, it’s got be in the top ten.[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/unreal-how-utterly-offensive-barack-obama-compares-republican-caucus-to-iranian-hardliners-video/] First of all, the “point” he was making about the Iranian government is moronic. No, Mr. President, totalitarian governments do not have hardline and moderate factions. They have dictators, and the dictator makes the decisions. Orwell explained how this works in ''1984''. The mobs are doing their “two minutes hate.” They are not an expression of factional rivalry. The regime needs enemies to survive, which is why these deals never work. Obama knows nothing about how the Iranian government works and cares less. Making the Republican/Iranian hardliner comparison is something he has been jonesing to do for months. Yes, nuclear war and the lives of millions are in the balance. But at least we have a chief executive who understands the need to focus on what’s important: Firing cheap shots at the Republicans. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 09:04, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

==The Jefferson-Jackson Dinners==
The Democrats are dropping the Jefferson-Jackson dinners they’ve held since 1945, to be replaced by dinners honoring Truman and "Leadership Blue."[http://article.wn.com/view/2015/07/24/out_jeffersonjackson_dinners_in_harry_truman_and_8216leaders_s/] These dinners are closely connected the ideology of President Roosevelt. When FDR was elected in 1932, the Democrats didn’t have much in the way of a discernable ideology. One of our finest conservative presidents, Grover Cleveland, was a Democrat. In fact, the party had run a conservative for president as recently as 1924. Al Smith's liberal campaign in 1928 had ended in disaster; FDR was not anxious to follow his example. The New Deal originated as a set of ''ad hoc'' emergency measures. When they seemed to work, FDR came up with the ideology of “liberalism” to justify them. Writers were commissioned to explain the new ideology to the American people. In fact, America had always been a liberal nation, or so these writers claimed. Why even Jefferson and Jackson were liberals! This is the origin of the Jefferson-Jackson iconography and the rationale for these dinners. This argument is strictly political, not a serious historical point of view. Jefferson’s signature policy was minimal federal government. Jackson was a gold bug who's administration focused much energy on opposing paper money. (Roosevelt took us off the gold standard.) Modern historians consider Jackson to be the founder of the Democratic Party, not Jefferson. Nowadays, Jackson gets a lot of criticism for his treatment of Indians and for his economic policies. [http://www.thepublicprofessor.com/worst-president-ever/ This blog] makes a good case that he was our worst president ever.

Ending these dinners is a symbolic burial for FDR-style liberalism. Obama embodies the 1960s radicalism of the New Left. Would FDR, Truman, or JFK even recognize the Church of Gay Marriage and Abortion as their party? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 07:02, 16 August 2015 (EDT)

:After Thomas Jefferson got elected, on March 4, 1805, he proposed amending the Constitution to allow the federal government to place any surplus revenue it collected in an annual fund to "be applied ''in time of peace'' to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State." He repeated this proposal on December 2, 1806. Jefferson's proposals as President did not bear out his earlier stated philosophy of minimal government. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 07:48, 16 August 2015 (EDT)
::I think you are misinterpreting this proposal. If no action was taken, any surplus would have been deposited into the Bank of the United States and made available for loans. Jefferson was still opposed to the bank at this time. [http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/38.html Here] is some context for the quote. It's all boasting about how he made the federal government smaller, less intrusive, and sounder financially. Of course, it's true that Jefferson was a man of many contradictions. After the federal government defaulted in November 1814 (a major event in American history that Obama claims never happened), Jefferson turned around on a lot of things. In fact, he basically adopted the Federalist agenda that he had spend so many years condemning. As President Madison (1809-1817) and other top [[Republicans (Jeffersonian) | Republicans]] were his followers, Jefferson ran the country for quite some time after he officially retired in 1809. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 14:23, 16 August 2015 (EDT)
::''[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/08/potentially-game-changing-oil-reserves-discovered-in-israel/ National Review]'' has an article on this subject. Pull quote: "Don’t find yourself in the position, ten years from now, of having to say, 'First they came for Andrew Jackson, and I did not speak out, because I didn’t like him.'" [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:55, 10 October 2015 (EDT)

== Is this a satire site? ==

''The unsigned edits to this section were made by [[User:RNozickFan]]''

No offense meant, at all, but I would like to know before posting. Of course, if it is, a truly skilled satirist would never let on! Just checking in with the community!

:This is a serious, informative site. I look forward to your substantive edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:12, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

::What a civil and encouraging response from the big man! Thank you sir. However, upon further review of the site, I get the impression that this represents a conservative Christian viewpoint, whereas my own conservativism is a bit more secular libertarian. So perhaps my edits would not be appreciated here. In any case, I appreciate the civility and further encourage your free speech!

:::Liberals edit this site too. I'd like to learn from your edits and I'm sure others would also. The truth results from the marketplace of ideas, which is what Conservapedia welcomes. Please try some edits and the talk pages are open for any discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:42, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
::::Ah yes! The marketplace of ideas! This was effectively Thomas More's argument for free speech (a good 300 years before the framing of the Constitution! What insight!), and I think you and I might be able to agree on this point. However, this only works if that marketplace remains unregulated! As some users have regulatory power (banning, blocking, etc) the marketplace flows according to those hands that exert force. Additionally, I've combed through the talk pages and seen many instances of users being accused of covert liberalism, sabotage, and a host of unflattering phrases. Again, this is all allowed in the marketplace of ideas but is not reflective of a site that welcomes dissent (the most important kind of free speech!). Perhaps I could test the waters a bit, but I'll be quick to refer to this very conversation if that marketplace starts to feel the touch of the not-quite-invisible hand!

:::::The goal is the truth, and edits in furtherance of that goal are respected. Some liberals don't really want to say or hear the truth, so there are minimal rules to keep the marketplace from being thrown into chaos or overrun by bullies. But our rules permit robust intellectual editing and discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:02, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

::::::Well isn't the value of truth that it rings out through the nonsense? Isn't the marketplace supposed to handle that? I would certainly change "liberals" to "people" in that statement, just to catch everybody who deserves it. Sorry to be such a contrarian! As a professional philosopher (more an academic really, but that isn't very romantic) I often catch a debate when only a conversation was thrown.

:::::::This is a lot of edits without a single substantive one. How about doing a substantive edit and discussing that, rather than merely debating in the abstract?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:09, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
::::::::A rather strict definition of "substantive." Isn't all pursuit of the truth substantive? Are we not educating each other through discussion? As I said, I'll consider the kinds of contributions you're talking about, and continue to look out for this "marketplace of ideas" so well-regarded here.

== Alleged Parody ==

Andy, I have rarely visited this site recently and after an exhaustive look at recent changes[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:RecentChanges|RecentChanges], I am surprised that you and the other admins have missed so much...

Although I strongly disagree with much of the ideology of this encyclopaedia, I believe in free speech and freedom of religion for those who feel the need for it. In fact, I'm impressed that you personally granted me so much privileges after I professed my own views. I think you deserve a conduit for your particular brand of conservative Christianity - unfettered, uncensored and most importantly '''honest'''.

Andy, to be blunt, there's a lot of parody on your site and it's increasing. In some cases it's downright embarrassing. I don't think you should trust many of the users that have become active in the last couple of years - especially those you have promoted to have special rights. Take a ''careful'' look at their edits.

I'm quite happy to remain a member of this community - in spite of the harassment I've encountered from users such as 'conservative' [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative]]] - it's no big deal. In fact, I'm quite fond of him/her/them.

Be vigilant. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] ([[User talk:EJamesW|talk]]) 18:39, 23 August 2015 (EDT)

:This site is open to the public. Allowing [[free speech]] means allowing people to say what they want. Often that results in [[best of the public]], but sometimes it does not. If you have a specific edit in mind, then I'd be happy to look at it. But this site is not going to change its openness and I'm not going to worry about what others say.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:49, 23 August 2015 (EDT)

EJamesW, you repeatedly badgered User: Conservative concerning motives and made one or more snide comments about the content produced by the account (for example, you wrote: "I can't see any of of articles being taken seriously outside the extremist/fundamentalist christian community"[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:EJamesW] ), but you admitted that the content by the User: Conservative account on atheism is detailed, well-cited and you can't find any errors in it (See: [[Essay: A British atheist on Conservapedia's atheism articles]]). Instead of claiming harassment, perhaps you should consider not harassing!

By the way, don't think that User:Conservativedom did not notice that you went into your intellectual bunny hole when confronted about this matter. It was definitely noticed! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:54, 23 August 2015 (EDT)

:Cons, give it a rest. We're trying to have an adult conversation here. If you really must continue your "have you ever once shown that an iota of the material posted on atheism by the User: Conservative account is an [sic] error?" nonsense, please go back to EJW's talk page. I'm sure he will see it and deal with it appropriately. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:50, 24 August 2015 (EDT)

::EJW, I share your concern, but I have a somewhat different take on the subject. It isn't so much a matter of direct parody (though there is a good bit of that), as material that brings ridicule and disrepute upon Conservapedia.
::*There's a lot of ignorant editing, ''with no one qualified to check the edits''. Several months ago I [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Subject_Matter_Experts|issued a plea]] for identifiable "subject matter experts" who could check things. It got nowhere. Now ignorant editing can be expected on an open wiki, and I support the openness. But it can be corrected by knowledgeable people. My attempts to do this are often thwarted by sysops who would rather throw their weight around, because they have the power to do so, than engage in constructive dialog. Some sysops even seem to enjoy stalking, hounding, and bullying me for no discernible reason. On some occasions I have put templates on articles that needed attention (either deleting or rewriting) and had them simply removed.
::*There's a huge amount of incredibly silly editing, that can't help but bring the site into disrepute among all intelligent people. I refer, of course, to the flying kitty / black cat / atheism and lollipops / 20XX is going to be the worst year for XYZ / is XYZ smarter than a bear / operation flying fortress material. No one is going to take seriously any web site that has this stuff. It is a much worse problem than the occasional vandal.
::*There's also material that I disagree with, but I accept that such material is going to exist on this site. So, for example, I immediately stop reading any evolution-related matter as soon as I see a biblical reference. It offends me to see Christianity invoked in the name of scientific ignorance. But that's just me.
::*There's also the subject that I am perhaps most closely associated with—relativity. It doesn't bother me in the least. I like having all the world's relativity denial in one place.

::It sounds as though you find all this to be frustrating. I do too. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:43, 23 August 2015 (EDT)

:::[[Best of the public]] means allowing the public to speak freely, and over time the wheat separates from the chaff. It's not a difficult concept and [[liberals]] should embrace it more than they do. Pejorative (and silly) terms such as "relativity denial" are no substitute for intellectual debate. I could just as easily call some people "[[Bible]] deniers," especially when they cling to anti-Bible theories despite a mountain of counterexamples against the atheistic theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:14, 24 August 2015 (EDT)

::::I admit that "relativity denial" is a loaded phrase. But I'm not using it or anything else as a substitute for intellectual debate. I'm quite enjoying our intellectual debates on relativity and E=mc^2. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:50, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
:::::Einstein spent many years working on a "Grand Unified Theory" to replace relativity -- he was the greatest "relativity denier" of them all. Now there are quantum computers that operate on the basis of "ghostly action at a distance." This is a phenomenon that is not possible under relativity, and it is also something Einstein himself argued was a fallacy. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

== Malicious and destructive edits and blocks ==

:::''If this is deleted, it will be sent to Andy by email. So he will see it no matter what.''

Andy recently wrote on my talk page, in response to my going on "sabbatical" for the length of EJamesW's block,

:Sam, this is devastating news about your Sabbatical! Will you be able to make an exception if more evidence is published contrary to the Theory of Relativity? I hope so.

:More seriously, many of your edits are appreciated. And thanks for you patience, too.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2015 (EDT)

Since then there have been a number of incidents of malicious and destructive behavior by a "sysop", that is, what is described in the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] as an "assistant".

To quote from the Guidelines:
::The block function has been devolved to select users who have shown an ability to be trusted. Many of the current Administrators started as one of these Assistants and this status can be considered a way to evaluate users for promotion. '''As "emergency Sysops", the authority of these users is limited to warning users of policy violations and blocking for blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response.'''

This incidents have been:
*A block of me (rescinded shortly thereafter) for 44 days, for "trolling". I assume the choice of the number 44 was in honor of Presidant Obama.
*The block of SaulJ, for 5 months, for "trolling". His actual crime seems to have been making edits to the main talk page that sysops found annoying. Remember, ''If you replied to something, it can't have been "last-wordism" or "talk-talk-talk" in violation of 90/10.''
*The block of MarkLilly, for 2 years, for "Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages".
After blocking MarkLilly, this person reverted many or all of his edits. ''This was absolutely destructive. If this isn't trolling, I don't know what is.'' MarkLilly had made a number of improvements to articles on science. Reverting them was destructive to the content of Conservapedia. It was vandalism plain and simple.

Considering only the scientific edits (the field with which I am most familiar):
*[[Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis]]—created. It's basically a stub, but it's better than nothing.
*[[Boson]]—Added the discovery of the Higgs at the LHC in 2012, and noted that the "Z" weak boson is often written with a superscript zero. Reverted, with comment "Mass deletion of troll". It really is written that way, and the Higgs really was dicovered.
*[[Gluon]]—Added information about spin and color charge. Reverted, with comment "Mass deletion of troll". These particles really do have spin and color charge.
*[[Pauli exclusion principle]]—Added information about fermion wave function asymmetry. Reverted, with comment "Mass deletion of troll". Their wave functions really are antisymmetric.
*[[Hormone]]—Added information about Thymulin. Reverted, with comment "Mass deletion of troll".
*[[Large Hadron Collider]]—Added information about Higgs discovery. Reverted, with comment "Mass reversion of troll". The Higgs really was discovered, at the LHC.
*[[Automated Teller Machine]]—created. It's basically a stub, but it's better than nothing. Marked for deletion with comment "stub originated by troll".
*[[Schizophrenia]]—Added information about treatment. Reverted, with comment "Mass reversion of troll".
*[[Muon]]—Added information about discoverer. Reverted, with comment "Mass reversion of troll". Muons really were discovered by Carl Anderson.
*[[Navier-Stokes equations]]—Added information about incompressible flow. Reverted, with comment "Mass reversion of troll"
I know a fair amount about some of the above topics, and the edits were correct.

This person has been "stalking" me for quite some time now. Details on request, but I'm sure you know all about it. Lately his stalking has spilled over onto Ritionalwaki, where he created an account and made further accusations against me. He's been blocked, of course.

If Andy cares about scientific topics, and about my contributions to same, he needs to stop "assistants" from making ridiculous judgments about "trolling" and issuing ridiculous blocks. I can't contribute to scientific articles (relativity or otherwise) in the presence of this kind of behavior.

Let me repeat from the Guidelines:
::The block function has been devolved to select users who have shown an ability to be trusted. Many of the current Administrators started as one of these Assistants and this status can be considered a way to evaluate users for promotion. '''As "emergency Sysops", the authority of these users is limited to warning users of policy violations and blocking for blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response.'''

Note that these "assistants" are being "evaluated for promotion", that is, the status is probationary. I submit that the evaluation period should be considered ended for this person, and he should be considered to have failed.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:48, 17 September 2015 (EDT)

:I never read that section of the Guidelines because I didn't realize I ''was'' an Administrator. But surely you have better things to do on your Sabbatical than shaming the productive? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 04:54, 17 September 2015 (EDT)

==Federal spending under control??==
Due to some accounting gimmicks, why yes it seems like it is. Because some spending was delayed until there's a vote on the federal debt ceiling in the near future, the U.S. will seem to have only accrued $340 billion in debt, while the GDP is expected to grow (over last year) by roughly $700 billion this fiscal year (which ends September 30th). And Obama proposed a $500 billion deficit ''next'' year, so the annual debt could be less than annual growth again next year too.

Now the kicker response to this fact is going to be, "But from the amount of debt Obama and Congress accrued during the first six years of his administration, at this rate it will take ''n'' more years of the same to reduce the debt-to-GDP proportion to what it was at the beginning." I know now what this number is roughly (based on August figures). It might be a good exercise to go to [[National debt of the United States]] and learn what that number is yourself, in case you happen to hear someone say on September 30 or afterwards that federal spending is back under control or "not as bad as it seems". [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 07:14, 20 September 2015 (EDT)

== Nixon responsible for sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks during the 1968 campaign? ==

This is a recent accusation by a reporter from the mainstream media named Ray Locker. But given the mainstream media's track record with strange theories, I, for one, remain skeptical. His book comes out in October. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:33, 26 September 2015 (EDT)
:The South Vietnamese people saw the Paris talks as a sell out. Pulling out was hugely popular, a way to sock it to bloodthirsty commies and overbearing Americans at the same time. Rhee had done the same thing to Ike in Korea. I find it hard to believe that a peace treaty was a serious possibility in 1968. The North Vietnamese were not prepared to recognize the legitimacy of Thieu's government until much later. In any case, I assume the war itself would have continued, treaty or no treaty. Johnson was hoping that he could stage a stunt that would help Humphrey win the election. If Nixon sent someone to explain this all to Thieu, I fail to see what the objection might be. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:02, 27 September 2015 (EDT)
:I looked this up in ''Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War'', a standard library reference. It says Chennault recommended that Thieu "object to the last-minute halt of the bombing of North Vietnam and stall on the Paris peace talk." Johnson knew all about it because he had Ambassador Bui Diem's phone bugged. This was just a few days before the 1968 election, so I think it is safe to assume that the supposed breakthrough in the peace talks was so much pre-election politiking by Johnson. Nothing about the current accusations is new. As Ann Coulter says, "liberal lies never die." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:59, 17 October 2015 (EDT)

==Vatican coup?==
How is it possible that two conservative popes could be followed by a liberal? [http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/the-mystery-of-pope-francis-was-there-a-vatican-coup.php This post] doesn't have the answer, but it does give you some context. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:30, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
:The Vatican felt they needed to shore up South/Latin America where evangelicalism/pentecostalism is growing fast in many countries. A European Catholic would be a bad choice since Catholicism is on the decline there. So that leaves Asia or Latin/South America or Africa or North America (which is influenced by Latin/South America due to immigration). Ultimately, fear of loss in Latin/South America was stronger than hope of gain in Africa.

:Lastly, although there are some more conservative (free market) economies in Latin/South America, most of the countries tilt to the left. And African countries are very often conservative on social issues. In addition, Europe tends to tilt the left and the European cardinals have a lot of votes. Hence, Catholicism wound up with a liberal pope. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:23, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
::If somebody thought a liberal pope would help the Catholic Church with American liberals, they need to think again[http://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/the_cool_pope_honeymoon_is_over_meeting_with_kim_davis_could_be_a_tipping_point_for_american_progressives/] Climate change, climate shmange. What do liberals care about the fate of the Earth? They want gay marriage, gay marriage, and more gay marriage! Colbert told Cruz that Reagan couldn't be nominated by today's Republicans. Let me tell you something, Colbert. The godly gay marriage hating Obama of 2008 couldn't be nominated by today's Democrats.[http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/so_is_barack_obama_a_muslim_or_what.html] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:21, 2 October 2015 (EDT)

== Food for thought ==

Any GOP candidate for president who wants to increase immigration—i.e., all of them except Trump—ought to be required to first pass this simple test: Be successfully elected governor of California on a platform of tax cuts and social conservatism. ''Ann Coulter'', Sept. 30. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:12, 1 October 2015 (EDT)

:Coulter is not giving as much credit to Trump since she said that, saying now that Cruz and Carson have come around to Trump's resolute approach to immigration, but she is apparently still tolerating Trump's often less than conservative positions for now as his supporter out of gratitude for him catalyzing the resolve of so many Republicans. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 12:40, 9 October 2015 (EDT)

== More evidence of Obama's treason ==

Chamberlain was a dupe who had no idea Hitler was about to occupy Prague. Even as Obama was reassuring Congress that Russia would help enforce the Iran deal, he almost certainly knew Putin was planning a game-changing offensive in Syria.[http://nypost.com/2015/10/03/syria-is-obamas-watergate/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:18, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

== Hello! New User Here! ==

Hi, I'm Charles Trenton. I'm new to Conservapedia, and I just joined. Where could I find the rules and guides to Conservapedia? Thanks!
--[[User:CharlesTrenton|CharlesTrenton]] ([[User talk:CharlesTrenton|talk]]) 18:34, 6 October 2015 (EDT)
{{Useful links}}

== Oil under the Golan Heights? ==

This could be huge.[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/165503#.VhnPVI2hMQ0][http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/08/potentially-game-changing-oil-reserves-discovered-in-israel/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 23:00, 10 October 2015 (EDT)

== The left is taking a political beating. If only atheists didn't so closely ally themselves with the left!!!! ==

The New Statesman reported in 2015:

"Across 39 countries in Europe that we analysed parties of the right are in government in 26 of them. Add in the Anglosphere – Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States – and right-wing parties control the legislature in 30 of the 43 countries. This is four more than before the crash....

In the UK research shows that the “millennial generation” has moved to the right of its parents in its attitudes to the economy and the state and its confidence in the welfare state."[http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/observations/2015/10/why-are-right-wing-parties-thriving-across-europe]

If only atheists didn't so closely ally themselves with the left!!!! See: [[Secular left]]

And the trends don't look good for atheism in the 21st century. See: [[Desecularization]]

2015 is the WORST year in the history of atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:20, 11 October 2015 (EDT)

== We've gotta get this picture ==

Shirtless, horseriding Putin vs bicycle ridding Obama: [http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2015/09/01-007d-620x506.jpg]
:Putin agrees with Western conservatives are some issues (homosexuality, etc.), but he is an autocrat (a popular one in Russia) who disagrees with much of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights and political freedom principles in other Western democracies. He also lies and he previously worked for the KGB.

:Obama is a wimp and the contrast with Putin helps show this, but I am not a big fan of promoting Putin.

:I think Putin is gaining too much traction at this point due to Obama dragging down the strength of the USA (economy, poor foreign relations in many cases, his scandals, lack of working with the Republicans where he could do that, needless stoking of racial division despite his previous claims he would help promote racial harmony, etc.).

:And with the price of oil at this time, Putin should be politically losing strength in much of the world, but he seems to be gaining strength in the Middle East, Asia, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:43, 11 October 2015 (EDT)

== Colin Powell "trolls Republicans" ==

If you were seriously worried about global warming, income inequality, gun control, or whatever the liberal cause du jour is, wouldn't you want Republican cooperation on these issues? What kind of person thinks that the highest praise he can bestow on a political figure is that he "trolls Republicans"? A Salon editor, that's who.[http://www.salon.com/2015/10/01/colin_powell_admits_hes_trolling_the_gop_i_continue_to_be_a_republican_because_it_annoys_them/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:09, 11 October 2015 (EDT)

== TheAmericanRedoubt/TAR ==

TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) hasn't made an edit since March 24, 2015. If he hasn't started editing by March 24, 2016, the red links may never be filled in by him. People have good intentions, but sometimes external events intervene or sometimes their priorities change.

I say give him until March 24, 2016 since he did create a lot of content while he was here and the approximate 5 months chunk of time will go by fast.

Also, I don't think category tags are a big deal since about 1% of people ever click on them for a given page. I do realize a category tag battle did ensue during the time of TAR's editing. So if people want to edit some of his category tags in order to make the category tags more hierarchical, I have no problems with that. I think it is the links within the articles that get the bulk of clicks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:29, 21 October 2015 (EDT)

:You wrote:
{{cquote|I got in contact with User:TheAmericanRedoubt and he is going to start editing Conservapedia again probably sometime in September of 2015. |||Conservative 01:22, 2 June 2015 (EDT) }}
:Aren't you in contact any longer? What's the matter with him? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 08:21, 28 October 2015 (EDT)
::Last time I communicated with him he was in the midst of a project and wasn't sure when he would be finished. That was months ago. I may be wrong about this matter, but generally speaking, it seems when people are not active at a wiki for 6 months months or longer, they don't return. My guess is that this may apply to all types of volunteers and not just wiki editors.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:39, 28 October 2015 (EDT)
I think the cell phone number I have for TAR is completely different as there is a completely different greeting. His email address is expired. So I believe I have no way to contact TAR. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:19, 28 October 2015 (EDT)

== Benghazi ==

After all the investigation, the basic questions about Benghazi are still unanswered.[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/22/benghazi-my-questions-for-hillary-clinton.html] Why was the ambassador at this notoriously insecure facility on the anniversary on 9/11, when an anniversary attack was widely expected? The attack went on for seven hours, and the White House was warned the attack was imminent a hour in advance. So much time to respond, but no military response. The attack used heavy weapons, so it was immediately obvious that it was planned by a terrorist group in advance.

Who came up with the "spontaneous reaction to a video" story? ''Was it the same person or persons who decided to stick to that explanation and have UN ambassador Susan Rice repeat the same lie on national television and six times in the president’s speech at the United Nations–even, most chillingly of all, have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeat it to Tyrone Woods’ parents over the coffin of their dead son at Andrews Air Force Base, saying she would “make sure the person who made the film is arrested.”''[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/13/three-key-questions-on-benghazi-scandal.html] Judging from the "clock boy" story, Obama likes nothing better than a good Islamist hoax. Someone appearently concocted the video story well in advance. Was the administration so attached to this story that they sacrificed an ambassador so they could have the opportunity to use it? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:25, 24 October 2015 (EDT)
:It seems that Hillary reversed herself at the recent hearing and testified that she never blamed the attack on the notorious "Innocence of Muslims" video.[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/hillary-clinton/11951682/Hillary-Clintons-big-Benghazi-lie.html] Good grief! How does this woman keep up with her own lies? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:13, 25 October 2015 (EDT)
::Are you sure? Why would she deny blaming the attack on the video when she is recorded doing so at a public event? I read that not only did she blame the video, but that the origin of that story was traced back to Hillary Clinton. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 07:54, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
:::“I said ''some'' have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks." ([http://featuredyoutube.com/clinton-claims-she-didnt-blame-benghazi-attack-on-a-youtube-video/ video] and [http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/hillarys_worst_crime_was_against_the_filmmaker.html write up]) This is such a Clintonian answer, a gem of the genre. Some people said some things, and those things may or may not have been partially true. But as for Hillary, she was just commenting on the remarkable things these other people were saying and doing. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 16:59, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
::::I read she was the only reason the video was publicized as associated with the attack in the first place, so it would follow if ''some'' justified the attack after the publicization, it would be of necessity caused by her. Nobody would "ascribe" that "motive" to ''any'' attacker if not for her actions. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 17:24, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
:::::According to her memoirs, she came up with the idea all by her little old self, using her womanly "common sense": “[The video] was unquestionably inciting the region and triggering protests all over, so it would have been strange not to consider, as days of protests unfolded, that it might have had the same effect here, too. That's just common sense."[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/11/fact-check-what-hillary-left-out-benghazi-chapter/] Why do we need the NSA when we have Hillary's common sense? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:11, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
:::::Lest anyone think that Benghazi lies are a victimless crime: Nakoula, the guy who uploaded the video, was indeed sent back to prison, just as Hillary promised.[http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/hillarys_worst_crime_was_against_the_filmmaker.html] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:08, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

== Hillary and the FBI ==

James Comey, the director of the FBI for the last two years, is a Republican and quite the straight shooter, according [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/us/politics/jamess-b-comey-fbi-director-says-focus-on-brutality-brings-less-police-enforcement.html?_r=1 this article]. Assuming he continues helm the bureau, it's not likely the FBI will cut Hillary any slack as far as the email investigation goes. Comey disagrees with Obama on incarceration, so there is some question as to whether he can stay in the administration. All the same, I'd say its time for Hillary to be lawyering up rather than preparing to move into the West Wing. Biden's announcement that he is not running sounded almost like he was running. Perhaps he was planning to announce, but Obama asked him to hold off at the last minute. We may not have heard the last of him. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:13, 1 November 2015 (EST)
:While we're on HillaryWatch, get a load of the cover of this new book. It's hysterical: ''[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSrg_p_UwAAp8OS.jpg My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency]''. At this point, a few careless emails are all that stands in the way of the rise to power of Muslim Brotherhood agent Huma Abedin. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 18:33, 1 November 2015 (EST)
::You seem to be following the Muslim Brotherhood. Did you see [http://www.teapartycrusaders.com/obama/ted-cruz-just-made-an-enormous-move-against-the-muslim-brotherhood-that-could-impact-obama/ this] coming (currently a link on main page right)? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:44, 7 November 2015 (EST)
:::That's a great move on Cruz's part. There have certainly been plenty of twists in this race. A few days ago, we were wondering whether Trump or Bush would be the better (or less awful) nominee. Now they are both toast and Cruz is the man to beat. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:53, 7 November 2015 (EST)

== Secular humanism ==

Conservapedia's article calls secular humanism a form of philosophical skepticism. Strangely, the most prominent secular humanists I see appear in the media and on the internet would be better described as "confidence anarchists" (see [[Confidence game]]) and hardly philosophical at all. Take the crudest stereotype you can imagine of the black spherical bomb-wielding anarchist of the early 1900s, dress them up in modern apparel with the untruth as their new weapon of sabotage and watch them betray every "human" institution that makes civilized life possible in the course of their labored effort to force others to taste the gall that welled up in them after the just consequences of their failed sinful grab at importance was visited upon their own persons. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 14:35, 5 November 2015 (EST)
:Vargasmillan, my guess is that you mainly see representatives of the [[New Atheism]] school of atheists in the media or atheists who launch legal fights about church-state issues.

:About the only time the secular humanists get press is when it comes to atheist churches stories. The father of secular humanism was the academic Paul Kurtz and often academics don't seek press attention. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:06, 5 November 2015 (EST)

::Virtually the only intended "progress" I see that is championed by today's "progressive" elites is in the direction set down by secular "humanism" and actually rooted in the motivations and pursued by the methods I described. Don't tell me left wing politics in the U.S. and other developed countries isn't led by (often disguised) secular humanists. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 16:22, 5 November 2015 (EST)

== Paris massacre tweets ==

*ISIS attacks Paris hours after @BarackObama claims he has "contained" them, just like he "defeated" al Qaeda and "ended the war" in Iraq. — [[Liz Cheney]]
*Reminder: FBI and DHS say they have no way to vet for terrorism and ISIS has said they will send "refugee" fighters (President Obama @POTUS We're also increasing the number of Syrian and other refugees we admit to the U.S. to 100,000 per year for the next two years. [September 28]) — Katie Pavlich
*Moronic and suicidal. FBI/DHS don't have a vetting system, ISIS already declared they'll send "refugee" fighters (Rolling Stone @RollingStone After the attacks in Paris, we shouldn't close our doors to refugees fleeing extremism – we should open them.) — Katie Pavlich
*No, the ISIS terrorist who claimed refugee status to get to Paris didn't "slip in," he walked right in and got a free ride without vetting — Katie Pavlich
*President Obama, Please tell us, if ISIS is now contained, what's it look like when they're on the loose? — Dennis Michael Lynch
*Obama watched ISIS grow, Armed Them, Champions Gun Control and Refugee Invasion. It's Planned. #WakeUpAmerica — Phil
*This is coming here. Simply a matter of time. And we are completely bereft of leadership. #tcot — James Woods
*The moment when Salon finally passed The Onion. Only difference is The Onion knows it's a parody site (Salon: Do the Paris attacks mean it's time to accept more refugees in Europe?) — James Woods
*We are living the horror. The centre of France was struck by an exceptional barbarity. It was an escalation of Islamist terrorism and the sixth time this year that Islamists have attacked our country." — Marine le Pen, Front National leader
*Will the blithering idiot who said, just before the Paris attacks, that ISIS is "contained," at least admit that he is a blithering idiot? — [[Dinesh D'Souza]]
*New video shows French jets departing for #ISIS strongholds — CNN
*In one week ISIS took down a passenger plane, and hit Paris. "Contained." "JV" — John Nolte
*French police who died storming #Bataclan tonight cut from same cloth as NYPD & FDNY who headed to burning towers on 9/11. God rest them. — Toby Harnden
*Turkey foiled Istanbul terror plot on same day as Paris attacks — Agence France-Presse
*Devout Muslims CHEER Paris Slaughter on Social Media: Muslim Islamic State supporters on social media cheered... — [[Pamela Geller]]
*Paris Suicide Bombers WERE RESCUED OFF Sinking Migrant Boat: They were rescued and their response? To kill [their saviors in the cause of Allah. That’s jihad.] — [[Pamela Geller]]
*WSJ EXCLUSIVE: Suicide bomber at Paris soccer stadium had a ticket, was turned away by security before detonating.
*Obama: "An attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share." No, it's an attack on non-Islamic humanity and Non-Islamic values. — [[Ben Shapiro]]
*The Middle Eastern refugee situation and the rise of ISIS can be laid at Hillary's feet more than any Western politician other than Obama. — [[Ben Shapiro]]
*@HillaryClinton: ‘We Should Increase the Number of Refugees’ #DemDebate — National Review
*When will President Obama issue the words RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM? He can't say it, and unless he will, the problem will not be solved! — [[Donald Trump]]
*Iraq warned US-led coalition countries of imminent assault before Paris attacks. — AP Newsbreak
*We are told NOT 2 judge ALL Muslims by actions of a few lunatics.& encouraged 2judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of few loons! #DemDebate — Janie Johnson
* #PARIS: #Terrorists shot people in #wheelchairs in back of theater — Drudge Report
*Obama moves to 'increase and accelerate' admission of Syrian refugees... #Paris — [[Matt Drudge]]
*FBI Has 1,000 Active ISIS Probes Inside USA... #Paris — [[Matt Drudge]]
*Muslims on track to exceed Jewish population in USA... #Paris — [[Matt Drudge]]
*The attacks in France are despicable. The world must unite to condemn & end all acts of terrorism. Our prayers remain with France. — [[Greg Abbott|Gov. Greg Abbott]] of Texas
*First time a state of emergency declared in France since Algerian War. — Michael C. Moynihan
*We Need Zero Tolerance For #OpenBorders Zero Tolerance For Unvetted #Muslim Refugees — Marti Fox
*"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society" I'm not gonna lay down and die for your tolerance. (Mark Ruffalo @MarkRuffalo Don't allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome. #ParisAttacks) — Steph
*Has America finally and fully awakened to the consequence of accepting 100s of thousands of refugees? #ParisAttacks #PrayForParis — @ChristiChat
*Israel stands with France in war against terrorism. I send condolences to the families of the murdered & wish the injured a speedy recovery. — [[Benjamin Netanyahu]]
*October 11, 2015 @realDonaldTrump warns Syrian refugees could be ISIS 'Trojan horse' in USA & elsewhere. #Trump2016 — Daniel Scavino, Jr.
*These Islamic radicals know who their enemies are, and have for decades. It is we—or at least some of our leaders—who have forgotten who is under attack. — Former U.S. Representative to the U. N. [[John Bolton]]
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 05:59, 16 November 2015 (EST)
*It's not just the big attacks that make the international news. There are smaller incidents all the time. France has been under siege since the Charlie Hebdo attack in January. If the best he can do is twenty bombs on an ISIS training camp, Hollande may want to pull out the prayer rugs and start figuring out which direction Mecca is. The latest ISIS video says Washington is next.[http://pamelageller.com/2015/11/watch-isis-threatens-washington-d-c-attack-in-new-video.html/] Obama has released five more Gitmo terrorists since the Paris attacks. If anything, the Hildabeast is even more pro-Muslim. So France can't expect any help from the U.S. If you think of Charles Martel at Poitiers or Napoleon in Egypt, this is a sad end to a long and honorable crusading tradition. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:58, 16 November 2015 (EST)
::Agreed Peter. Until ground forces are sent in to flush them out, they remain alive to plot again. Air power alone stopped Serbia. That was a fluke, yet that is the strategy for ISIS.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] ([[User talk:Jpatt|talk]]) 20:29, 16 November 2015 (EST)
:::If [http://www.therebel.media/ezra_levant_in_paris_the_saddest_thing_i_ve_seen_so_far this] or [http://www.steynonline.com/7298/imagine-there-no-imagination this] are any indication, France has no stomach for a fight. We can only hope sheer inertia can keep the country going until the U.S once again has a president willing fight for Western Civilization. In the meantime, [http://www.meforum.org/5630/what-france-can-learn-from-israel#print this article] has some good advice for the French. With Belgium riddled with ISIS safe havens, the dream of a Europe with open borders will have to wait. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:04, 17 November 2015 (EST)
::::At his press conference, Obama made it official that U.S. policy is not to defeat ISIS or even to retaliate for the massacre in Paris. Instead, we'll "stay the course" and "contain" them, whatever that means.[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/11/16/walid_phares_explains_obama_s_strategy] It was apparently too much even for the White House press corp, normally a base constituency for Obama. They had to ask the question three times before they could accept that this was Obama's for-real answer. Retaliating wouldn't even require U.S. boots on the ground since the Jordanian army is willing to do the dirty work. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:51, 17 November 2015 (EST)

== While you were enjoying the holidays... ==

The ink was hardly dry on the final estimates of the U.S. economic statistics for Fiscal Year 2015 ending September 30, when we are given to learn the [[National debt of the United States|United States federal debt]]/GDP ratio jumped 4% from 101.8% to 105.7% in the three short months afterwards (Oct. 1 to Dec. 31). The Greek Debt Crisis of 2010 was precipitated when Greek debt reached 115% of GDP.

This increase in the ratio was due to the elimination of the debt ceiling and an increase in debt of about $800 billion (which is a higher rate of new debt in proportion to GDP in three months than for the entire fiscal year 2005 or 2006 at the height of the Iraq War) and a large slowdown in GDP growth just recently being indicated by a large stock market correction.

In those three months, whatever the results of any tax increases put into law for current spending, the U.S. Government has committed itself to ''four percent of the size of today's entire U.S. economy'' over and above that amount.

If you are preparing a budget with a competitor for resources, you would probably be willing to haggle over spending on various items in the range of one-half to one percent. If there were a built-in increase of four percent on your competitor's side, the haggling would become something of a farce. If you successfully argue for a one percent advantage, your competitor can loudly complain of his cut (while netting three percent) and win sympathy, because the four percent, through sleight of hand, isn't part of the competitive process and happened "at some other time".

The taxpayer arguing for lower taxes is like you in the example: he or she might get a publicized one percent of GDP tax cut out of the budget while four percent of GDP over the budget has already been spent. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 19:01, 8 January 2016 (EST)

== Trump and his protesters ==

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/10/the-silently-protesting-muslim-woman-at-the-trump-rally-wasn-t-alone.html This article] takes a look at a group of professional protesters that go to Trump rallies to try to shut them down. Apparently, Trump said something or other about Muslims that made these people upset. In other words, the protests are an attempt to impose religious censorship. Or at least this article, obviously written by a sympathetic journalist, doesn't argue that they are about anything more noble than that. The protesters have the nerve to compare themselves to Rosa Parks. Uh, excuse me, but wasn't Parks protesting segregation rather than free speech? There are many Muslim countries in the world where criticism of Islam is banned. If your delicate ears cannot withstand such criticism, may I suggest moving to one of them? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:06, 11 January 2016 (EST)
*I see that the protester scum are being hailed by John Kasich[http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/kasich-trump-muslim-protester/2016/01/09/id/708858/] as well by the Huma-affiliated CAIR.[http://bsccomment.com/2016/01/11/cair-urges-trump-to-apologise-to-muslim-protester-ejected.html] Kasich is a literal sellout. He was a conservative governor of Ohio, but then he took the money of Clinton pal Ron Burkle to run as a liberal Republican.[http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-ron-burkle-clintons-20160107-story.html] In other words, he is this year’s Jon Huntsman. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:49, 12 January 2016 (EST)

==Trump as a nominee==
Nate Silver crunches the numbers and finds that [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/ Donald Trump Is Really Unpopular With General Election Voters]. Trump's net favorability is -25 percent, easily the worst in American politics. That compares to -8 for Hillary, -7 for Cruz, and +3 for Sanders. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:39, 18 January 2016 (EST)

:That's only because the Republican nominating voters are split between Trump and not-Trump. Once Trump becomes the nominee, the rest of the Republicans will climb onto the Trump bandwagon and give him a favorable rating. After that, Trump will run ads in the general election that will help erase Hillary's five-point lead and with his loyal band of election-workers hopefully march on to victory. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:00, 19 January 2016 (EST)
::[http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/articles/2016-01-14/donald-trump-donated-to-democrats-until-2008?int=a01109 ''U.S. News'' has a chart of Trump's political donations]. Charlie Rangel is the No. 1 recipient, Hillary No. 2, and McCain No. 3. Most of this is about getting support from people can help him with his development projects. But I see nothing in this chart that suggests Trump is a conservative. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 02:13, 19 January 2016 (EST)
:::Ann Coulter said she personally begged three Presidential candidates to take up the issue of immigration. While Trump called her unsolicited and asked for an advance copy of her immigration book. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 02:59, 19 January 2016 (EST)

== Donald Trump as the next president of the United States ==

I realize that Wall Street and the Democratic Party favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders and there is a lot of corruption in the Obama administration, but Hillary may be indicted in about 60 days according to a former federal prosecutor.[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/07/former-federal-prosecutor-predicts-hillary-clinton-may-be-indicted-in-next-60-days-heres-why/] If justice proves to be ultimately impartial, then Hillary could be indicted and convicted just like General Petraeus was over his email security breeches.

It does appear as if the FBI will have a large body of evidence against Hillary in relation to her email scandal and possibly the corruption related to the Clinton Foundation. I don't know if Obama wants to jeopardize how historians view his presidency by letting Hillary off the hook.

I don't think that Sanders is electable as I don't think he could withstand a concerted opposition to his candidacy. Both Hillary and Sanders have essentially been playing softball in respect to each others candidacies.

The Republicans could waltz into the White House in the upcoming election. Donald Trump might be the next president of the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:14, 19 January 2016 (EST)
:It looks like the Democrats have may have to choose between Bernie as a nominee or Hillary making a videotaped acceptance speech from her cell. There has been a series of articles published recently that argue that blacks are in Hillary's corner no matter what.[http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2016/01/17/yes-hillary-clinton-is-still-the-inevitable-democratic-nominee] That would imply that she could lose both Iowa and New Hampshire and then stage a comeback in South Carolina and other southern states. What did Hillary ever do for black people anyway? Back in the 1960s, blacks were crazy for Robert Kennedy -- who knows why?

:Black enthusiasm powered the Bill Clinton and Obama victories -- and it's not there for Bernie. To extend the Vietnam-era analogy, he is today's McGovern, an idol of white liberals that other demographics just don't get. Another reason Bernie won't do nearly as well as current polling suggests is that he has literally nothing to say about terrorism, currently the No. 1 concern of general election voters. When he was asked about San Bernardino, he quickly changed the subject to income inequality. Of course, he could turn this around with a little tough talk, as both Bill Clinton and Obama did. But a big part of Bernie's appeal thus far has been that he is seen as too "principled" for that sort of thing. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:10, 19 January 2016 (EST)

::In September SurveyUSA took a poll and found head to head against Hillary, Trump would receive 25% of the black vote. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 22:33, 19 January 2016 (EST)

== A Trump-Cruz race? ==

The campaign buzz for the last couple of days has been that the Great Winnowing is finally in progress, and that the Republican field will soon be narrowed to Trump vs Cruz. This is of course inevitable and predictable, but also seems a little early given that no one has actually caste any votes yet. [https://soopermexican.com/2016/01/14/wsj-poll-shows-trump-losing-to-ted-cruz-as-candidates-drop-out/ This poll] shows Cruz beating Trump by 8 points in a two-man race. Of course, it is possible Trump will bring people to the polls who don't ordinarily vote. Faced with the choice of Cruz or Trump, the establishment is going with Trump.[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/gop-establishment-leaning-toward-trump-over-cruz.html] It seems that they consistently prefer the candidate who is less threatening to the Democrats. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:20, 19 January 2016 (EST)

:Trump's immigration law enforcement and border security efforts would prevent other states from turning into California, so the Democrats shouldn't feel too copacetic about that. And Cruz may not even ''be'' in the race, which will encourage Rubio, Carson and Bush to neither drop out nor endorse Cruz. The spread between Cruz and Trump should depend a lot on endorsements, as Andy predicted, and Palin's endorsement of Trump today certainly didn't help Cruz. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:29, 20 January 2016 (EST)
::I meant that Cruz is more threatening to the Democrats because he is more electable, for the reasons Nate Silver outlined in the article I linked to above. Over at ''National Review'', they have "[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429952/ted-cruz-donald-trump-gop-establishment-prefers-trump What’s Driving the Establishment’s Preference for Trump over Cruz?]" They don't really answer the question though. Jeb Bush was the establishment's favorite until recently. As far as Democrats and independents go, the Bush name is poison. So whatever motivates the establishment to back a particular candidate, it's not electability. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 02:09, 20 January 2016 (EST)
:::A lot of Republicans will acquiesce if Trump becomes the nominee. And Trump and the RNC have barely begun to challenge Hillary. ''Nobody's'' challenged Sanders. And if Trump articulates his vision well in the debates his numbers are bound to improve. Plus the swing voters who don't consume conservative media will be hearing the arguments against Hillary for the first time, and there are a lot of negatives that can be said about her. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 06:12, 20 January 2016 (EST)
::::There were other articles about the "establishment" backing Trump, but Rush Limbaugh suggested today it could be reverse psychology, in that the voters are supposed to be angry at the "establishment", and its association with Trump will cause him to lose votes. If so, Limbaugh predicts they won't be able to maintain their support and will have to abandon Trump at some point. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:08, 21 January 2016 (EST)
*As far as endorsements go, Trump is in last place.[http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/] If endorsements mattered, the nomination would be Bush vs. Rubio. And neither of them can compare to the monster number of endorsements Hillary has. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:31, 23 January 2016 (EST)

== Cruz on the campaign trail ==

On the campaign trail in New Hampshire, ''The Washington Post'' is "terrified" of what an awesome vote-getting machine Cruz is: "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-makes-ted-cruz-truly-dangerous/2016/01/19/5f20dbee-bed8-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b What makes Ted Cruz truly dangerous]." Sample zinger:
*“For the record, Tom Brady was framed,” he says, to inevitable cheers about the Patriots quarterback. “I’m not willing to pander on much” — laughter — “but on that, Tom Brady was framed, and I have it on good authority that Hillary Clinton was responsible.” More cheers. “Why else do you think she destroyed her emails?” [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 04:37, 21 January 2016 (EST)

== TAR ==

He tried (and partly succeeded) in converting Conservapedia into a link - farm. Sysops catered to his wishes and even rewrote commandments, just to please him. Warnings were ignored, critics got banned or intimidated,

So, it must be allowed to say: I told you so.

... and we can always expect him back the moment James Wesley Rawles publishes his next novel.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:23, 22 January 2016 (EST)
:I have my doubts that TAR's purpose in editing Conservapedia was to create a link farm to the James Wesley Rawles website. How many links to the James Wesley Rawles website did TAR create?

:TARs main purpose for editing Conservapedia appears to have been to expand the survivalism/gun/gun rights and Ayurvedic medicine entries. A compromise was reached that he did not contribute Ayurvedic medicine material.

:Next, I did tell TAR not to create non-relevant internal links in the "See also" sections and for the category tags. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:32, 22 January 2016 (EST)

::Link-farm may be an out-dated phrase - but an article like [[Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse]] was certainly written for search engines.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:34, 22 January 2016 (EST)
::''Next, I did tell TAR not to create non-relevant internal links in the "See also" sections and for the category tags.'' Oh, sorry, I do apologize. How could I have forgotten to mention your courageous acts! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:43, 22 January 2016 (EST)
:::Why do you think that the page [[Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse]] was certainly written for search engines? What criteria are you using?

:::The evidence suggests that TAR knew little to nothing about search engines (or internet marketing) and didn't appear to write for them nor care about search engine traffic. I doubt someone who knew about search engine traffic and/or internet marketing would create pages with a lot of red links in them. AlanE is right about pages with a lot of red links being visually unattractive. Faced with pages with a lot of visually unappealing red links on them, many people will bail out of those page more quickly. Do search engines rank pages that users bail out of more quickly more highly? If so, why?

:::The page [[Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse]] has a lot of red links in it and therefore it does not appear to be a slick marketing page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:58, 22 January 2016 (EST)
::::I removed the excessive red linking on the page [[Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:45, 22 January 2016 (EST)
:::::AugustO, you don't mean critics got banned or intimidated; you mean critics targeted TAR and in their eagerness to stop him tripped over themselves, became harsher to compensate for that, in doing so crossed the line into abuse and earned warnings or blocks. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 20:12, 22 January 2016 (EST)
AugustO, no Conservapedia commandments were rewritten due to TAR.

Next, a single SYSOP account temporarily abridged a portion of the Conservapedia Manual of Style page to avoid excessive/petty squabbling about "category tags" (sometimes subcategorization can be overdone and be counterproductive as there are too many levels of subcategorization).

And as a result of the "category tag" war, the section of the Manuel of Style dealing with category tags was improved (a helpful diagram was added and a warning to not add petty/trolling category tags was added). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:23, 22 January 2016 (EST)

::The Conservapedia article [[Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse]] ranks #13 at Google USA for the term "Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse". Much higher than I expected given the number of unattractive red links on the page. The book was published by Penguin Books (a major publisher) so perhaps it sold a decent amount of copies.

::Now that I removed all the ugly red links, maybe web visitors will stay on the page longer and it will climb into the Google top 10 search results for the term "Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse". AugustO, of course you know what this may mean. More TAR like editors may soon be editing Conservapedia! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:13, 22 January 2016 (EST)

:::A little off-topic, but "Liberators - A Novel of the Coming Global Collapse" is now #11 for me, anyway. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 12:06, 8 February 2016 (EST)

== Another Trump video ==

[https://youtu.be/rcUCLwWCihE This video] lets Trump makes the case against Trump. Here are clips of him identifying himself as Democrat, as well as "pro-choice" on partial birth abortion. He also calls for the impeachment of George Bush and praises Hillary. All Cruz has to do is run this thing in Iowa and he's got the nomination clinched. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:32, 22 January 2016 (EST)

:Water under the bridge. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 22:59, 22 January 2016 (EST)
::Here's what Trump thinks of you: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and I wouldn't lose any voters."[https://vine.co/v/iiBTWtmM7dW] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:54, 24 January 2016 (EST)
::Trump let the mask slip again, this time in Pella, Iowa: "When I'm president, I'm a different person. I can be the most politically correct person you've ever seen."[http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/25/trump-when-im-president-im-a-different-person/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 03:50, 27 January 2016 (EST)
:::First you use a processed video edit to misquote Trump, joining hundreds of media hacks in doing so; then you quote Trump in order to misinterpret what he's saying. You're really making a terrific case for Cruz. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 05:25, 27 January 2016 (EST)
::::My interpretation is that, "The most politically correct person you've ever seen" is inside Trump screaming to get out. We will see a lot more of him when and if Trump clinches the nomination. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 04:40, 29 January 2016 (EST)
:::::Yeah, right. This is Trump's idea of political correctness: "I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct. Instead I will only call her a lightweight reporter!" (January 27, 6:44 am EST, 3 hours after your post). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 05:04, 29 January 2016 (EST)
::::::He is learning to sound more presidential all the time. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:18, 29 January 2016 (EST)
:::::Coulter: "I assume he's using Kelly as a cat's paw for an attack against the entire Rupert Murdoch enterprise, which is implacably pro-open borders, pro-amnesty and, consequently, anti-Trump." Trump was responding to a post he retweeted where someone called Kelly a bimbo and showed pictures of Kelly making come-hither looks to the camera in a glossy magazine she posed in, apparently while a journalist. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 06:44, 29 January 2016 (EST)

== Hillary's feminism ==

I was skeptical of Trump's strategy of treating Bill's affairs as "fair game." But it seems to be working.[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/01/21/how-hillary-clinton-lost-her-feminist-base-and-her-credibility.html] It is biologically unnatural to expect a woman to show sisterhood to her romantic rivals. It certainly wasn't something we expected back in the 1990s. But modern feminism has apparently conditioned young women to think otherwise. In 2008, it always hurt Hillary when Bill showed up. But that wasn't because of feminism. It was because parents took one look at Bill and thought, "OMG! If Hillary is elected, Bill will be back in the White House. Then the kiddies will be asking us about all the disgusting things he was in the news for!" [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 08:29, 24 January 2016 (EST)

== How the establishment can stage a comeback ==

To the establishment, the choice between Cruz and Trump is like choosing between death by shooting and death by poisoning.[http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/01/24/lindsey-graham-choice-between-cruz-trump-like-opting-for-shooting-or-poison/] As for Marco Rubio, he is not much better.[http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-arent-republican-leaders-rallying-behind-marco-rubio/] So how can establishment-favorite Bush stage a comeback? Here is an idea for an ad: "I come from a humble upbringing. I was raised the son of a president. We had it tough back then. In those days they only had the 20-car motorcade, not the 40-car one they've got today..."[http://www.steynonline.com/7418/the-stupid-party-gets-stupider] Jeb could go on to compare Bush 41's vacations to Obama's, etc. It would be hysterical. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:50, 24 January 2016 (EST)

== What happens if Hillary is indicted? ==

Answer: She can keep running for president. The Dems won't mind a bit! The trail is being blazed by Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Democratic and indicted attorney general. In the latest poll, Kane is ahead of her nearest primary challenger 31-18.[http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/27/kathleen-kane-poll-democrats-pennsylvania/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:21, 27 January 2016 (EST)
:While Obama decides whether or not to indict Hillary, Hillary talks about what a "great" Supreme Court justice he would be.[http://www.inquisitr.com/2743941/obama-supreme-court/] Hey, that doesn't sound corrupt at all, does it? The only previous president appointed to the Supreme Court was Taft in 1921. That was not by Taft's immediate successor but eight years after he left office. Taft had been a solicitor general and an appeals court judge before becoming president. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 15:10, 28 January 2016 (EST)
::Here's a great tweet from David Frum: "Sanders closing Iowa argument: “Imagine a better world!” Clinton closing argument: “We’re highly confident no indictments are forthcoming." I take it Obama responded favorably to Hillary's Supreme Court trial balloon. All the leaks are presumably from someone in the FBI who isn't happy with this decision. Wouldn't it be great if a Republican gets sworn in and Hillary has to flee to Russia like Snowden? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:16, 31 January 2016 (EST)

== Image copyright? ==

I've made several screenshots and gotten them uploaded to CP, and did not claim copyright on them. This might be more legally difficult with a screenshot, since it is of another organization's (possibly copyrighted) software, but at least with actual photos, would it be helpful or at least not harmful if I claim copyright and offer free use only to CP? After all, any marketing specialist would tell you that your business or website needs things which are exlusive to it self. If everything is uploaded for Public Domain, we loose exclusivity of those files.
I know, CP is not primarily worried about such things, but I'm just wondering. Thanks!--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 17:54, 5 February 2016 (EST)

== Missing white voters ==

Sean Trende's "[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106.html The Case of the Missing White Voters]" has gotten a lot of attention in pundit America recently. IMO, what is says is a lot less original than what people seem to think it says. The post-election commentary in 2012 often noted that Obama was the beneficiary of a "high black turnout." "Missing white votes" is just the flip side of this, the same phenomenon viewed from the other end of the telescope. Republicans often do 2-3 percentage points better in the election than pre-election opinion polls suggest. In 2012, the polls were right on the nose. This is presumably related to that black turnout -- and to the staggering amount of money Obama spent to achieve it. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 05:01, 8 February 2016 (EST)

== Price of gold going up. Will User:TheAmericanRedoubt's content see a spike in popularity? Vindication for Gerald Celente soon? ==

The [https://www.bullionvault.com/gold-price-chart.do price of gold is going up].

Many other commodities are falling in price which is an indication of a global economic slowdown. There is a debt bubble that has grown to $220 trillion worldwide.

The price of gold going up even in a U.S. election year when the U.S government often tries to pump things up. There is a migrant crisis in Europe and China is seeing economic stability. The price of gold tells me that people don't feel confident that politicians are going to save the day.

Will [[Gerald Celente]] finally be vindicated?[http://usawatchdog.com/war-economic-calamity-coming-2016-predictions-gerald-celente/] Is another Great Depression which is worse than the first one, coming soon? Will many wars break out fairly soon afterwards? Will [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]]'s content see a spike in popularity?

As far as the US/global economy, I don't believe the politicians will be able to kick the can down the road past 2040, but we will see.[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/06/prediction-collapse-by-2040.html] In the meantime, remember the 4 Gs: God, gold, guns and a get away plan! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:47, 13 February 2016 (EST)

== The "spam filter" ==

I have successfully created the page [[Rest mass]], and attempted to redirect [[Invariant mass]] and [[Relativistic mass]] to same. Unfortunately, the spam filter thinks I'm talking about asses, the jawbones of which, as we know, are sturdy and dangerous. So I had to make do with links to "Rest massiveness", hardly a good situation. Could someone please straighten this out?

Oops. I see part of the problem. I created it by doing a search for the term in quotes, the way I often do, and it created the page in quotes. I can't create it normally. Could someone please do as Samson did in Judges 15:16 and slay a thousand such clauses from the spam filter? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:53, 21 February 2016 (EST)

== Time passed template? ==

I see we have an "age" template, to display the years which have passed since a certain date, but do we have any kind of template which shows months, weeks, and days?--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 13:43, 9 March 2016 (EST)
I don't think so. Many of these articles have not been edited since 2009. There is a danger if you construct a sentence in terms of time passed, it will become badly out-of-date. It is better to say, "As of August 2009, X was Y." or "In September 2010, Z happened." Do not say, "Four years ago, A happened." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 13:49, 9 March 2016 (EST)

I know, but although I hate to keep comparing CP to WP, WP does it in a helpful way. They say "In September 2010 (X ago) Y was Z." That way, the actual date is prominent but the user doesn't need to count off the days/months/years if they want to know exactly how long ago. It''s not hard, but it's one of those convenient things WP has that we do not. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 14:08, 9 March 2016 (EST)

You can use {{tl|age}} on CP: <nowiki> On September 11, 2001 ({{age|2001|9|11}} years ago) the twin towers fell.</nowiki> gives: On September 11, 2001 ({{age|2001|9|11}} years ago) the twin towers fell. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:56, 9 March 2016 (EST)
:A better technical question is: Does CP support LUA templates? If so, I could write some templates for you that would knock your socks off. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:03, 10 March 2016 (EST)

::I have used age sometimes, but that only looks good if it's been at least two years already. Good thought though, thanks. As for LUA, I'm afraid I don't even know what that stands for. In any case, though, I suspect no one is watching the template approval request page anymore. I could be wrong, but I submitted one a while ago and have still gotten nothing. Mayby there's a problem with it, but I'd think someone would say so if that were the case.--[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 00:21, 10 March 2016 (EST)

== A Grand Unified Theory of 2016 ==

As you won’t be surprised to learn, I have a Grand Unified Theory regarding the 2016 race. Briefly, Obama wants a third term, either directly or through Biden. Sometime last summer, he ordered the media to jack up coverage of Trump. Not so long ago, the airwaves were considered a public trust and the networks followed the "equal time" principle. That rule prevented anything like the lopsided coverage we see this year. If Trump is nominated, as looks increasingly likely, the Republicans will have selected the the weakest contender in the field. According to this theory, Hillary will be indicted sometime between the end of the primaries and the opening of the Democratic National Convention. With the help of the supers, Biden will be nominated in place of Hillary. Obama will have overturned the constitution and achieved a coup. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:15, 12 March 2016 (EST)

== praise for conservapedia's carefully crafted vision of conservative reality ==

Thank you Conservapedia for hastening the day when I don't have to be bothered anymore by facts that haven't been vetted by those who, like me, recognize that everyone who doesn't think like a proper white Christian is an idiot! I'd like to see more courageous articles, like why ALL science not filtered through religious lenses is suspect.... why blacks and Mexicans truly are inferior, as evidenced by those races pitiful levels of global success, and more...

I ''especially'' love the "atheistic science" entry - making fun of mainstream science for supporting unproven theories in one section, while lambasting it for not supporting action-at-a-distance (even though it does since that has been proven). Way to make them look like idiots, and who cares what the facts say since God doesn't use a microscope!

The intellectual rigor of this site is an exemplar of and credit to modern conservative thought. I give it five Trumps.

Black hole

2016-03-25T18:49:42Z

MaxwellDE:

[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an [[accretion disk]] around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.]]
'''Black holes''' are theoretical entities which cannot be directly observed and may not even exist. Suggested by the debatable [[theory of relativity]] (see [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]), black holes are postulated to be collapsed objects, usually [[stars]], which have supposedly become so [[dense]] that within a certain radius their [[escape velocity]] exceeds the [[speed of light]]. Thus, they absorb all matter and energy within that radius. Light and matter can enter, but nothing can ever escape. '''''Black holes are a [[sacred cow]] of [[atheistic science]]'''''.

Black holes are increasingly promoted by [[liberal]] publications, such as the science page of the ''[[New York Times]]'', glossy magazines, and the movies the ''Event Horizon'' (1997), ''The Black Hole'' (TV, 2006), and ''Interstellar'' (2014). As with the related theoretical concept of a "[[wormhole]]",<ref>The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?pagewanted=print]</ref> it is impossible to prove that no black hole exists anywhere, and thus they fail the [[falsifiability]] requirement of science.

Because of quantum-mechanical phenomena involving Hawking Radiation, discussed later in the article, black holes must emit radiation and thus are a logical contradiction at the microscopic level.

Like electrons, protons, and neutrons, black holes have never been directly observed, but, as in the case of subatomic particles, evidence for their existence has mounted steadily through experiments over the past fifty years. Even believers in black holes should admit that there are far fewer than predicted by theory. They will cite evidence of observations of radiation from accretion disks, motion of stars near the center of the galaxy, and "gravitational lensing", having all the properties that relativity predicts, around places where there are no visible objects. Like positrons, their existence was predicted (in both cases based on relativity) before there was any actual evidence of their existence.

Black holes are assumed to come into existence from extremely large stars that collapse into a state of high density when they run out of fusion fuel. An object becomes a black hole when it lies entirely inside the Schwarzschild radius (see below) determined by its mass. For most objects, the Schwarzschild radius is very tiny compared with its size (for Earth it is about 1 centimeter), so the object does not lie inside that radius.

Black holes are conceptually associated with "[[wormhole]]s",<ref>The prediction of the existence of wormholes, and its naming in 1957, predates the prediction and naming (1967) of a black hole.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html?pagewanted=print]</ref> which never caught on with the public, perhaps due to its poor terminology.

==History of the idea==
The theoretical model of what we now call a black hole has evolved considerably over the centuries. The [[corpuscular theory of light]] held that light was made up of invisibly small particles, and that these particles moved along ballistic trajectories, like tiny bullets. In this framework, it was believed possible that a distant star could be so massive that light emitted from its surface would be dragged back down again. This theory was first advanced by John Michell, who wrote in 1783, "If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun in the proportion of five hundred to one, and by supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its [mass] with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it, by its own proper gravity."<ref name="r1">http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200911/physicshistory.cfm</ref>

Suggesting the same possibility independently, Pierre-Simon Laplace wrote in 1796, "It is therefore possible that the greatest luminous bodies in the universe are on this account invisible."<ref name="r1" />

As the corpuscular theory gave way to the [[wave theory of light]] in the early 1800s, the idea of "dark" or "invisible" stars fell from favor. At that time, it was believed that light was a wave which had no mass and therefore was unaffected by gravity.

Research into the [[photoelectric effect]], however, reignited interest in the light-as-particles view, ultimately resulting in the modern notion of [[wave-particle duality]]. Under this theory, light could be affected by gravity, so the question of whether light could be emitted from extraordinarily massive bodies was once again open.

===General Relativity===
As it happened, the question became unavoidable shortly after the publication in 1915 of Einstein's [[general theory of relativity]]. [[Schwarzschild]] solved the Einstein field equations in a way that describes the geometry of spacetime outside a spherically symmetric, uncharged, non-rotating distribution of mass. Well away from the center of this distribution of mass, the Schwarzschild solution closely matches the Newtonian model of a gravitational field; only close to the mass, where the curvature of spacetime is large, do significant differences between the two models appear. But if the diameter of the mass distribution is taken to be arbitrarily small, then the region of spacetime immediately surrounding the mass appears to take on extremely curious properties, properties so curious that many questioned whether they had any physical interpretation at all. Therefore, Schwarzschild showed that black holes were possible under the theory of [[general relativity]].

[[File:Cygnusx1.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Jet-powered nebula formed from the accretion disk of the binary star Cygnus-X1]]
However, neither Schwarzschild himself nor [[Albert Einstein]], who developed the theory of relativity, believed that black holes actually existed<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>. Einstein even tried to re-work general relativity to render these [[Singularity|singularities]] impossible. However, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking proved the first of many Singularity Theorems, which states that singularities must form if certain conditions are present. This demonstrated that, rather than mathematical oddities, singularities are a fairly generic consequence of realistic solutions to relativity: any mass with radius less than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Since then, support for black holes among the scientific community has grown.

==Nature of a Black Hole==
===Mathematics===

There are several solutions of the Einstein field equations that are used to model black holes. The simplest of these is the Schwarzchild metric. From this metric, one can calculate the Schwarzschild radius, which defines the boundary (event horizon) of the black hole, to be
:<math>r_s=\frac{2GM}{c^2}</math>,
where
* rs is the Schwarzschild radius;
* G is the gravitational constant;
* M is the mass of the gravitating object;
* c is the speed of light in vacuum.

If the black hole has a nonzero electric charge, it is modeled by the Reissner-Nordström metric. Astronomical objects are generally electrically neutral, since otherwise they would attracted charged particles of opposite sign and quickly become neutral. Therefore the Reissner-Nordström metric is largely of theoretical interest.

A far more realistic situation occurs when the black hole is spinning (i.e. has nonzero angular momentum). Then the Schwarzschild solution is insufficient (as it was for the charged case), and instead one turns to the Kerr metric. Since astrophysical black holes are generically believed to have angular momentum, this is the solution that best describes them. Among the more interesting consequences of the Kerr metric is the phenomenon of frame dragging, in which the rotating black hole literally pulls nearby spacetime along with it.

If one wishes to consider a black hole that is both charged and spinning, one employs the Kerr-Newman metric, which combines the Reissner-Nordström and Kerr metrics. Since the no-hair theorem states that (non-quantum) black holes are unique up to mass, charge, and angular momentum, the Kerr-Newman metric is sufficient to describe any classical black hole.

===Time and Distance===
Within a certain distance from an arbitrarily small distribution of mass — a distance now known as the [[Schwarzschild radius]] — the curvature of spacetime becomes so great that no paths leading away from the mass exist. That is to say, a test particle released inside the Schwarzschild radius will inevitably move in toward the mass, not because the force of gravity is great as in the Newtonian approximation, but because spacetime is curved to such an extent that ''no other directions exist.'' A particle within the Schwarzschild radius can no more move further from the central mass than it can go backwards in time. In fact, from the frame of reference of an infalling observer beyond the Schwarzschild radius, all directions that once pointed away from the central mass now point backwards in time. Once inside the Schwarzschild radius, further motion toward the central mass is as inevitable as further motion through time is for any other observer.

For some time after the publication of the Schwarzschild solution, the validity of these results was hotly debated. In the solution's original coordinate frame, some terms in the equations ''diverged,'' or became infinite, at the Schwarzschild radius, leading physicists to wonder whether the results of the equations in that region had any valid physical interpretation. One proposed interpretation was that at the Schwarzschild radius, all time for the infalling observer would stop. This led to the use of the term "frozen stars;" it wasn't believed frozen stars were cold, but rather that they were literally frozen in time.

Later refinement of the Schwarzschild solution demonstrated that the apparent infinities were merely an artifact of the coordinate frame chosen, and that an infalling observer in fact can pass beyond the Schwarzchild radius. In fact, the equations predicted he would notice no effects when doing so. But any attempt on the part of that infalling observer to communicate with the outside universe, say by sending a radio message, would be doomed to failure, as the radio waves would traverse geodesics through the severely curved spacetime and end up bent toward the central mass. From this, we can say that nothing that occurs within the Schwarzschild radius can ever affect events outside the Schwarzschild radius. This gives the Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating black hole its other name: the [[event horizon]].

===Inside the Event Horizon===
What actually exists inside the event horizon of a black hole is a question physics is unable to answer. Some postulate that within the event horizon exists a point of zero (or nearly zero) volume but infinite energy density, a point sometimes referred to as a ''gravitational singularity,'' after the notion of a mathematical singularity (a term referring to a point in an equation at which one would have to solve by dividing by zero, a feat presently impossible in mathematics) in a field equation. Others suspect that infinite energy density is a physical impossibility, and that a black hole contains actual finitely-dense matter compressed into a [[degenerate matter|degenerate]] form, such as quark-degenerate matter. Since all black holes are surrounded by an event horizon which prevents any information or messages from leaving, all these theories are non-[[falsifiable]]; we can never be sure what the interior structure of a black hole is like.

===Properties of Black Holes===

Black holes described with classical mechanics only have three intrinsic properties by which one differs from another: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. Mass describes the amount of matter inside the event horizon. Angular momentum refers to whether the black hole is stationary or rotating around an axis. While the singularity of a non-rotating black hole may be an infinitely small point, the singularity of a rotating black hole would be in the shape of an infinitely thin ring. Quantum mechanics, which postulates that information loss cannot occur in a black hole, suggests properties beyond the three suggested by classical physics. Using this description, information must also be emitted by black holes. This radiation, referred to as Hawking Radiation, is thermal radiation that has currently only been described mathematically.

Although radiation from inside the event horizon has not yet been observed, there is much phenomenon that occurs outside the horizon due to the black hole. Matter entering a spinning black hole is first swirled around by the black hole’s gravity, causing it to heat up and emit x-rays, which can be used to detect the black hole. In the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies, some of the matter does not fall into the black hole. Instead it is blasted into space in twin jets of hot gas perpendicular to the accretion disc, in a phenomenon known as an Active Galactic Nucleus.

==Origins of Black Holes==
[[Image:Hs-2005-02-e-web.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[red supergiant]] star V838 Monocerotis, an example of one type of star which may become a black hole.]]
Stellar-mass black holes are said to form when stars more than ten times the mass of the Sun run out of fuel and die. The process of death occurs when stars that have fused the products of their own fusion into larger and larger elements, up to iron. The star then tries to fuse the iron core that forms as a result, but this does not produce enough energy to hold the outer layers of the star apart against the pull of gravity. When this happens, the iron core at the center of the star implodes in a supernova, and the outer layers of the star are blasted into space in one of the most energetic events in the universe—one star going out in a supernova can give off as much light as an entire galaxy. Not all supernovae result in black holes, but if the mass of the core is large enough, about 1.5-3.0 times the mass of the Sun (this value is termed the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, and its value is not yet known to great precision), the leftover gravity of the shrinking core stalls the outward rush of the initial blast, and crushes the core into a point of infinite density: a black hole.

Extremely small black holes, with masses of around 1015 grams, have been theorized to have formed in the early universe. Any sufficiently small primordial black hole would be expected to evaporate within the lifetime of the universe, but the rate of evaporation is not currently known with any certainty.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, objects with the characteristics of supermassive black holes, millions or billions of times more massive than the sun, have been detected at the centers of many [[galaxies]], including our own [[Milky Way]]. In our galaxy, the hypothesized supermassive black hole is in the constellation Sagittarius, and is known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A star"). Based on the extraordinary angular velocity of stars near the galactic center, Sagittarius A* is believed to be on the order of two to three million solar masses. It is unknown how supermassive black holes form, though several models have been proposed. One hypothesis simply begins with a black hole of stellar mass which grows over the lifetime of the galaxy that surrounds it. Another proposal describes supermassive black holes as a natural, in fact nearly unavoidable, consequence of galactic formation. To date, no one theory of supermassive black hole formation is favored over all others.

Physicists trying to understand the theory of black hole formation have once again hit a dead end.<ref>http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/new-research-mathematically-proves-quantum-effects-stop-formation-black-holes/</ref>

==Methods of Observation==

Since black holes are literally invisible by traditional means of observation and so cannot be directly observed, their nature is determined from phenomena outside of the Schwarzschild radius. Scientists have located and observed objects theorized to be black holes through indirect means, such as the effect of their gravitational pull on nearby stars. Stars that are near black holes, e.g. by being part of a binary star system that contains one, show wobbles in their orbits similar to the tidal effects of the moon on Earth’s oceans. Wobble effects, however, cannot be used to conclusively prove the existence of a black hole. <ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/english.htm</ref><ref>''Black Holes'' by Heather Cooper and Nigel Henbest (book)</ref> Scientists have also observed stellar objects which have density consistent with black holes<ref>http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/lesson/whatisit/history.html</ref>.

While matter and energy, even light, may not escape a black hole, Stephen Hawking has shown that when described by quantum mechanics, they should emit [[Hawking radiation]], which absent of an influx of mass-energy would lead to the evaporation of the black hole in a burst of gamma rays. Scientists are currently working to pick up one of these bursts, or the radiation itself, with any of several land- and space-based telescopes. However, the matter falling into black holes as well as the [[cosmic microwave background]] obscures the radiation and makes detection extremely difficult.

==Speculative Future Exploration==

Scientists have speculated that if a rotating black hole is large enough, a person could pass through the center of the ring-shaped singularity and possibly enter a wormhole. However, it would have to be a very large hole, for if it were not, the hypothetical astronaut would never survive to reach the event horizon due to tidal forces.

Matter coming close to the event horizon of a small black hole undergoes a process called spaghettification, a term coined by Stephen Hawking in his book ''A Brief History of Time'' to describe extraordinarily strong tidal forces. Because the mass at the center of the black hole is so dense, the gravitational pull on the near end of an object is much greater than the pull on the object’s far end. This causes the object to be stretched out in a way resembling a piece of spaghetti, and generally torn in two.

==White Holes==
Because the [[Quantitative Introduction to General Relativity|general relativity equations]] are symmetric with respect to time, one can take a negative square root instead of positive to yield an equation describing a hypothetical object which expels, rather than attracts, matter and energy.<ref>http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q10</ref> As this is the exact opposite of a black hole, it is called a '''white hole'''.

However, there is no evidence white holes actually exist. If they generate new matter and energy, this would violate the [[Law of the conservation of mass]]. Therefore, some scientists have proposed that matter falling into black holes goes through a [[wormhole]] to emerge at a white hole. While such wormholes are allowed by general relativity, they would be extremely unstable<ref>http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html</ref>, and there is no evidence that they exist.

Scientists, who have been extremely eager to promote the idea of black hole existence, have shown a strong aversion to the white hole theory, even though, like a white hole, a black hole has never been observed directly. This may reflect an anti-creation bias on the part of scientists who are uncomfortable with the idea that matter and energy can be created outside of what scientific theories dictate should happen.

Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] used a white hole in his model of the universe during [[Creation week]] to allow millions of years to pass in outer space while only three days passed on Earth.

==In Popular Culture==

Black holes have been a device in science fiction ever since their discovery. Many sci-fi books, movies, and television shows use black holes as a method of travel (see the Potential Future Exploration section above) or as a threat to a space-going vessel. In at least one season of the show ''Star Trek: the Next Generation'' by Gene Roddenberry, artificially created miniature black holes are used as power sources for spaceships and natural ones as incubators for the young of an alien race. Neither of these uses has much of a basis in reality, of course.

Contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. In other words, a one-solar-mass black hole is no better than any other one-solar-mass object (such as, for example, the Sun) at "sucking in" distant objects. However, a one-solar-mass black hole has the same amount of matter as any other one-solar-mass object but compressed into a much smaller space, making it impossible to move fast enough to leave a black hole once there. If a spaceship could land on a black hole, it would never be able to take off again.

The term "black hole" is also used as a metaphor for a place that it is hard to get out of, generally containing a high concentration of something unpleasant. Ex: "The inner city is a black hole of crime and drug use." The "Black Hole of Calcutta" long predates the celestial use of the term; it was a horrible underground prison in [[Calcutta]], India.

{{Relativity}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html Black Holes]
*[http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html Black Holes (Frequently Asked Questions)]

[[category: physics]]
[[Category:Relativity]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]