Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

File:Bookbio.jpg

2018-12-27T14:13:01Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/images/politics/graphics/bookbio.jpg

[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]

File:Barack-Hussein-Obama-mit-Louis-Farrakhan-528x524.jpg

2018-12-27T14:12:41Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

http://juedischerundschau.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Barack-Hussein-Obama-mit-Louis-Farrakhan-528x524.jpg

[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]

Template:Nb Cramer

2018-12-27T14:10:59Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

{{Navbox
|name=Nb Cramer
|basestyle=font-size: 95%; background-color:Blue;
|title=[[Jim Cramer| Articles relating to Jim Cramer ]]

|liststyle=font-size: 85%; background-color:WhiteSmoke;
|list1=[[Jim Cramer]] • [[Mad Money]] • [[Mad Money Videos|Videos]] • [[Wall Street]] • [[New York Stock Exchange]] • [[Dow Jones Industrial Average]] • [[Nasdaq]] • [[Stock market]] • [[Bull market]] • [[Bear market]] • [[Bond|Bonds]] • [[Mutual fund|Investments]] • [[Day trading]] • [[Financial Crisis of 2008]] • [[Robert L. Gibbs|White House dispute]] • [[Main Street]] • [[Rush Limbaugh]] • [[Market|Market Economics]] • [[CNBC]] • [[Larry Kudlow]] • [[Erin Burnett|Stop Trading! with Jim Cramer]] • [[Free market|Free market economy]] • [[The Daily Show]] • [[Economics|The study of opportunities]] • [[Theory of value|Valuing stocks]] • [[Shareholder]] • [[Corporation|Corporate Players]] • [[Free Enterprise|Business Commerce]] • [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] • [[Milton Friedman|School of Economics]] • [[Adam Smith|History of capitalism]] • [[Capitalism]] • [[Capital|Capital and risk]] 
}}<includeonly>[[Category:Stock Market]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Navigation box|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{TemplateDoc|pages=Pages similar in topic to [[Jim Cramer]]|purpose=Bottom navigation box|cat=Stock Market}}
{{Parms|
}}
</noinclude>

Template:Nb Cramer

2018-12-27T14:09:33Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

{{Navbox
|name=Nb Cramer
|basestyle=font-size: 95%; background-color:Blue;
|title=[[Jim Cramer| Articles relating to Jim Cramer ]]

|liststyle=font-size: 85%; background-color:WhiteSmoke;
|list1=[[Jim Cramer]] • [[Mad Money]] • [[Mad Money Videos|Videos]] • [[Wall Street]] • [[New York Stock Exchange]] • [[Dow Jones Industrial Average]] • [[Nasdaq]] • [[Stock market]] • [[Bull market]] • [[Bear market]] • [[Bond|Bonds]] • [[Mutual fund|Investments]] • [[Day trading]] • [[Financial Crisis of 2008]] • [[Robert L. Gibbs|White House dispute]] • [[Main Street]] • [[Rush Limbaugh]] • [[Market|Market Economics]] • [[CNBC]] • [[Larry Kudlow]] • [[Erin Burnett|Stop Trading! with Jim Cramer]] • [[Free market|Free market economy]] • [[The Daily Show]] • [[Economics|The study of opportunities]] • [[Theory of value|Valuing stocks]] • [[Shareholder]] • [[Corporation|Corporate Players]] • [[Free Enterprise|Business Commerce]] • [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] • [[Milton Friedman|School of Economics]] • [[Adam Smith|History of capitalism]] • [[Capitalism]] • [[Capital|Capital and risk]] 
}}<includeonly>[[Category:Stock market]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Navigation box|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{TemplateDoc|pages=Pages similar in topic to [[Jim Cramer]]|purpose=Bottom navigation box|cat=Stock market}}
{{Parms|
}}
</noinclude>

User:SamHB/Surjection

2018-12-27T14:06:17Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

{{Template:Math-m}}

Note: This article has wikilinks into my sandbox.
These need to be changed if it is moved to the main article space.

A '''surjection''' or '''surjective function''' is a mapping (or [[User:SamHB/Function|function]]) between two [[set]]s, that is "onto". This means that the function "hits" every point in the range. That is, no point in the range isn't mapped to.

In other words, a surjection from set A to set B is a mapping such that every element in B has some element in A mapped to it. For example, one surjection between the sets {X, Y, Z} and {1, 2}, maps: X to 1, Y to 2, and Z also to 2. If we were use this map instead: X to 1, Y to 1, and Z to 1, it would fail to be "onto" because nothing maps to 2.

For further information, see [[User:SamHB/Bijection|bijection]]

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Set Theory]]

User:SamHB/Mathematical paradoxes

2018-12-27T14:06:00Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

{{Template:Math-e}}
{{Template:Math-m}}
{{Template:Math-h}}
{{Template:Math-a}}

Mathematical paradoxes are statements that run counter to one's intuition, sometimes in simple, playful ways, and sometimes in extremely esoteric and profound ways. It should perhaps come as no surprise that a field with as rich a history as mathematics should have many of them. They range from very simple, everyday common-sense issues, to advanced ones at the frontiers of mathematics. That is why this article has so many "expertise level" boxes above.

==Simple everyday paradoxes==
Perhaps the most well-known paradox is this:
{{cquote|The statement below is true.}}
{{cquote|The statement above is false.}}
These are sometimes written on two sides of a card ("The statement on the other side is true." / "The statement on the other side is false.") so that one can watch a person turn the card over and over.

The lesson of this one is clear: The fact that a sentence makes a statement doesn't mean that statement is true. (Of course, that's a good thing to be aware of in general.)

This paradox relates to several others, that are actually quite profound, such as the Gödel Incompleteness Theorem. This is because it goes to the heart of what it means for a sentence to "mean" something.

==Numeric interpretation paradox==
Consider the number described by the phrase
{{cquote|The square root of thirty-six}}
Phrases can denote numbers clearly and unambiguously, can't they?
Now consider this one
{{cquote|The smallest natural number that can not be described by a phrase shorter than one hundred letters}}
The number of phrases shorter than 100 letters is finite. In fact, it can't exceed 27100. (The 27 allows for the placement of spaces between words.) So the set of integers that can be described by such phrases must be finite. (It's actually much less than 27100—"Elementary, my dear Watson" does not denote a number.) But there are an infinite number of [[natural numbers]] (positive integers) so it's not hard to see that there must be a first number not in that set. But that number, whatever it is, has been correctly described by the phrase quoted above, which is shorter than 100 letters!

The lessons of this one are
*Arithmetic, even simple integer arithmetic, can be tricky.
*What it means for a phrase to "denote" a number is not well defined.
Once again, what it means for something to "mean" something can be very slippery.

==Paradoxes of set theory==
Mathematicians' attempts to formalize the subject in a really careful way have led to [[set theory]], which can be an extremely advanced subject. But even a simple everyday notion of set theory leads to this paradox:
{{cquote|The town barber shaves every man in the town who does not shave himself.}}
So does the barber shave himself, or not?

The lesson of this is that what it means for something to be in a set is tricky, and what it means for a sentence to make a statement about set membership is tricky. Once again, "meaning" (also known as "[[semantics]]") comes into question.

A much more advanced paradox along these lines, perhaps the best known of all paradoxes, is the '''Russell paradox''' (Bertrand Russell, 1872-1970). When one formalizes mathematics in an incredibly careful way, as Russell, Whitehead and others did in the 1930's, everything is a set. Yes, every mathematical object is a set. And, for any yes/no question you could ask about things, those things for which the answer is "yes" comprise a set, as do those for which the answer is "no".

If one is given free rein to do anything at all in set theory, a set could contain itself. (Though most sets don't.) The Russell paradox concerns
*The set of all sets which do not contain themselves.
Obviously, there's a problem with this. Does this set contain itself, or not?
The lessons are
*Set theory is really very complicated.
*We can't allow set theorists free rein to do just anything.
Mathematicians have created the [[Zermelo-Fraenkel|Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms]] to formalize set theory so that these problems won't arise.

==Paradoxes of logic==
Mathematicians of the 1930's attempted to formalize logic itself very rigorously, that is, what it means to "prove" a "theorem". Given how hard it is to ascribe "meaning" to "meaning", it isn't surprising that an amazing problem arose: the [[Godel's_Incompleteness_Theorems|Gödel Incompleteness Theorem]].

First, mathematicians had to establish in a very rigorous and profound way what it means for a proposition to be "true" or "false", and what it means for something to be a "valid proof" of such a thing. Once that was done, the "Holy Grail" of logic came into view: Can we say that, for every proposition whose truth or falsity is well defined, that either
*It is true, and there is a proof that it is true.
or
*It is false, and there is a proof that it is false. ?
The search for this "Holy Grail" is not new. In the 1600's, [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]] expressed a desire to be able to answer any question (mathematical or otherwise!) by logical analysis, deduction, and calculation.

It was not to be. The Gödel Incompleteness Theorem says that it is not possible to formulate laws of logic such that, for any well-formed statement, there is either a proof that it is true or a proof that it is false.

This theorem is related to a theorem of computer science: Even under an extreme formulation of what a computer can do, it is not possible for a computer program to examine another computer program and say with certainty whether that other program will go on forever. This is known as the "halting problem".

==Paradoxes of analysis and measure theory==
When one has studied advanced analysis (that is, calculus), topology, and, especially, measure theory, one can see many paradoxical things. Some of these involve the Cantor set and Cantor function. The Cantor set (briefly defined as those real numbers between 0 and 1 whose representation in base 3 contains only 0's and 2's) is an uncountable set of measure zero. While not paradoxical in itself, it is a rather unexpected result. The Cantor function is a function is a function such that f(0) = 0, f(1) = 1, f is continuous everywhere, and f is differentiable, with derivative zero, "almost everywhere", that is, except on a set of measure zero. This would violate the Mean Value Theorem if that theorem actually applied.

The lesson here is that one's intuition about what things should look like can be very misleading at advanced levels.

Measure theory provides some interesting paradoxes. By the time one has studied advanced calculus and topology, one has seen many very strange sets. Measure theory attempts to assign a "geometrical size" to sets. Of course, we want the measure of a simple set to match our intuition—in one dimension the interval [-4, 5] should have a measure of 9. In two dimensions, the set of all points with <math>x^2 + y^2 \le 1</math> is the unit circle and has measure <math>\pi</math>, and so on. We want the measure of the union of non-overlapping sets to be the sum of those sets' measures, and so on. Lebesgue measure (rhymes with vague; and the s is silent) is the accepted theory of measure. It is compatible with common intuition for sets that fall under common intuition. But '''not all sets are Lebesgue-measurable'''.

In addition to the seemingly paradoxical existence of non-Lebesgue-measurable sets, there are some more serious paradoxes. Perhaps the most famous is the '''Banach-Tarski paradox'''. This says that a sphere in 3 dimensions can be divided into a finite number of subsets which, '''without changing their shapes or sizes''', can be reassembled into two spheres, each identical to the original one. This of course violates everything we thought we knew about what "measure" is supposed to mean. The way the paradox gets away with this trick is that '''the sets are not measurable'''.

The lesson here is that, when dealing with complicated sets such as may arise in advanced analysis, geometrical intuition can fail badly. And that non-measurable sets (a price one must pay for advanced analysis and topology) are particularly suspect.

==The axiom of choice==
The [[axiom of choice]] (AC) is fairly easy to state at a simple level, but actually very advanced to understand properly. At a superficial level, there doesn't seem to be anything harmful about it (making '''a''' choice isn't controversial—proofs say things like "let x be a number < y" all the time, and handling infinities of such things shouldn't be harmful, should it?) In fact the vast majority of mathematical theorems don't require this choice in its infinite form.

Mathematicians have been concerned about it for some time, wondering whether it can be proved from the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) set theory. In 1962 it was shown to be independent of ZF, and the axiom system of ZF with the additional assumption of the axiom of choice is called ZFC.

Many mathematicians generally prefer proofs that do not require AC, on the grounds that such proofs are more "clean". But others are not concerned about this, and find that the greater elegance and generality that it provides in statements and proofs of theorems is worth it. For example, with AC, we have the extremely simple theorem "every vector space has a basis". Without AC, the theorem has various messy qualifications on it. Now does this mean that there are vector spaces that "shouldn't" have bases, and that AC was wrong in giving them bases? In practice, it doesn't matter. No use of AC leads to results that are "wrong" in practice.

The axiom of choice is used in the construction of non-Lebesgue-measurable sets, such as the ones in the Banach-Tarski paradox. Does this mean that AC makes the paradox happen? No. The paradox doesn't actually "happen" in any constructive sense. You can't actually carve up a sphere in the required way in practice, with or without AC. Even without AC, Lebesgue meaure theory allows for the existence, on an abstract level, of non-measurable sets, and hence it potentiates the Banach-Tarski paradox. It just doesn't say how to produce those sets. AC says how to produce them, but in a totally abstract way.

The lesson here is that what you can't see can be extremely mystifying.

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Set Theory]]

User:SamHB/Injection (mathematics)

2018-12-27T14:05:39Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

{{Template:Math-m}}

Note: This article has wikilinks into my sandbox.
These need to be changed if it is moved to the main article space.

An '''injection''' or '''injective function''' is a mapping (or [[User:SamHB/Function|function]]) between two [[set]]s, that is "one-to-one". This means that it never maps two different points in the domain to the same point in the range.

In other words, an injection from set A to set B is a mapping such that every element in A is mapped to a distinct element in B. For example, one injection from the set {X, Y, Z} to the set {1, 2, 3, 4}, maps: X to 1, Y to 2, and Z to 3. If we were use this map instead: X to 1, Y to 2, and Z also to 2, it would fail to be one-to-one because Y and Z both map to the same result.

For further information, see [[User:SamHB/Bijection|bijection]]

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Set Theory]]

User:SamHB/Countable

2018-12-27T14:05:17Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

{{Template:Math-m}}

Note: This article has wikilinks into my sandbox.
These need to be changed if it is moved to the main article space.

A [[set]] X is '''countable''' if and only if there is a [[User:SamHB/Bijection|bijection]] or "one-to-one correspondence" from X to the [[Natural Numbers|natural numbers]] or a subset of the natural numbers. Countable sets include all finite sets, and many infinite ones, such as the [[integer]]s and, surprisingly, the [[rational number]]s, but not the [[real numbers]].

The question of whether a set is countable relates to the more general topic of '''[[cardinality]]''', which is the description of the "size" of a set. For finite sets, the cardinality is straightforward—the cardinality of the days of the week is 7. But for infinite sets there are some surprises:

*Sets that are "obviously bigger" than others may in fact have the same cardinality in the strict mathematical sense. The famous case of this is the one-to-one correspondence between the integers and the even integers, given by mapping every integer x to the even integer 2x. This is a one-to-one correspondence, so the two sets have the same cardinality, and are therefore the "same size".
*Sets that seem radically different can have the same cardinality. The famous case of this is the rational numbers. They are countable, that is, they have the same cardinality as the integers, even though the integers seem the be "sparse" and the rationals are "dense". (In fact, there is a strict mathematical definition of what it means to be "[[User:SamHB/Dense_subset|dense]]", and it means precisely this.) The one-to-one correspondence between the natural numbers and the rationals is a little hard to visualize, but many things in mathematics are that way. The correspondence will be given below.
*Sets that might seem to be the same size can have different cardinality. The famous case of this is the real numbers. It may seem counterintuitive that the reals are such an enormously bigger kind of infinity than the integers and the rationals, but it's true. The proof that the real numbers are not countable is the celebrated "[[Diagonalization|Cantor diagonalization theorem]]".

==Making a list==

Countable sets are extremely important and "well behaved" in advanced mathematics, so that proving something is countable is a very useful thing. The usual way of doing this is to find a way to "enumerate" them. That is, show that the set has a "first" element according to some ordering, and then a "second" element, and so on. This is the way one shows, for example, that the set of rational numbers is countable.
*First, all the rational numbers (that is, fractions of integers) are reduced to lowest terms in the usual way, so that there are no common divisors in the numerator and denominator.
*Next, all fractions for which the sum of the numerator and denominator is 1 are listed. 0/1, that is, the rational number zero, is the only such number.
*Next, all fractions for which the sum of the numerator and denominator is 2 are listed. 1/1, that is, the rational number one, is the only such number.
*Continue in this way, with the fractions 1/2 and 2/1, then 1/3, and 3/1 (2/2 isn't reduced), then 1/4, 2/3, 3/2, and 4/1, and so on.

By doing this, one has created a one-to-one correspondence between the integers and the rationals, and has also created a "natural order" for the rationals. This ordering has nothing to do with the usual order—the one that tells us the 3.7 is less than 3.8.

When the elements of a countable set have been put into a list like this, the set is said to be "well-ordered". This means that any subset (even infinite subsets) has a first item in the ordering. The "well-order" on the rationals is completely counterintuitive—it has nothing to do with the usual ordering. There is no least element of the open interval (0, 1) in the usual sense, but there is in the well-order.

==Sets that aren't countable==

One might think that the construction given above could be applied, one way or another, to just about any set. But in fact the real numbers are [[uncountable]]. It is proved, in Cantor's diagonalization theorem, that no such countable list can be made. The proof works like this:
*Suppose that the real numbers between zero and one have been listed, with a first one, a second one, and so on. Write out the (infinite) decimal expansion of the numbers in the list.
*Now make a new number by giving a decimal expansion for it: Set its first digit to some digit other than the first digit of the first number on the list. Set its second digit to some digit other than the second digit of the second number on the list. Continue this way through the entire (countably infinite) list.
*The number so constructed can't be on the original list, because it differs from every number on the list. It differs from the 574th number in its 574th digit, for example.
*Therefore, there was a real number not in the original enumeration, so the original enumeration did not encompass all the real numbers.
This proof gets its name from the fact that the digits were concocted along the "diagonal" of the (infinitely long and infinitely wide) list.

==The hierarchy of cardinalities==

The diagonalization proof shows that some infinities are "bigger" than others. The cardinality of countable sets is the smallest infinite cardinality. The diagonalization proof can be used to show that, for any set of any cardinality, the set of all subsets of the given set has a higher cardinality.

These cardinalities are usually denoted by the Hebrew letter aleph, <math>\aleph</math>, with a subscript. The cardinality of countable sets is denoted <math>\aleph_0</math>, usually pronounced "aleph-naught" or "aleph-null". Each cardinality distinctly bigger than the preceding one (Cantor's proof shows that these always exist) is given the next higher number.

Is the cardinality of the real numbers the smallest cardinality strictly bigger than <math>\aleph_0</math>? The "[[continuum hypothesis]]" asserts that this is so. The continuum hypothesis can't be proved or disproved by the simple axioms of [[set theory]]. Like the [[axiom of choice]], the continuum hypothesis is on the frontiers of mathematical logic.

The axiom of choice is equivalent to the "well-ordering axiom", which asserts that ''any'' set has a well-order. This is an extremely advanced topic.

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Set Theory]]

User:SamHB/Bijection

2018-12-27T14:04:52Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

{{Template:Math-m}}

Note: This article has wikilinks into my sandbox.
These need to be changed if it is moved to the main article space.

A '''bijection''' or '''bijective function''' is a mapping (or [[User:SamHB/Function|function]]) between two [[set]]s, that is "one-to-one" and "onto". A function that is "one-to-one", more formally known as an [[User:SamHB/Injection (mathematics)|injection]] or an injective function, never maps two different points in the domain to the same point in the range. A function that is "onto", more formally known as a [[User:SamHB/Surjection|surjection]] or a surjective function, "hits" every point in the range. That is, no point in the range isn't mapped to.

In other words, a bijection from set A to set B is a mapping such that every element in A is mapped to a distinct element in B, and every element in B has a distinct element in A mapped to it. For example, one bijection between the sets {X, Y, Z} and {1, 2, 3}, maps: X to 1, Y to 2, and Z to 3. If we were use this map instead: X to 1, Y to 2, and Z also to 2, it would fail to be one-to-one because Y and Z both map to the same result, and it would fail to be onto because nothing maps to 3.

A bijection is also known as a "one-to-one correspondence". It specifies a precise correspondence between the points of the domain set and the points of the range set. As such, it can be inverted—there is another map (also a bijection) going in the other direction, that returns from a range point to its domain point.

The property of two sets being in a one-to-one correspondence is very interesting to mathematicians. Such sets are said to have the same '''[[cardinality]]'''. This means, roughly, that they have the same "size", but there are some subtle aspects to cardinality. If the sets are finite, then they truly have the same number of elements. But correspondences between [[infinite]] sets have some subtle aspects, some of which might seem counterintuitive.

For example, there is a bijection between the integers and the even integers—it maps every integer x to the even integer 2x. Notice that this satisfies the definition of bijection. This means that the integers have the same cardinality as the even integers, even though the former set is "obviously bigger" than the latter. This leads to the idea, which must be interpreted with a mathematical grain of salt, that "infinity times two is infinity".

Does this mean that all infinite sets have the same cardinality, that is, can be placed into one-to-one correspondence with each other? No. Having the same cardinality as the integers is a very important property, and such sets are called "[[User:SamHB/countable|countable]]". But there are "uncountable" sets that can't be placed into one-to-one correspondence with the integers. The [[real numbers]] are the best-known example of such. The proof that the real numbers are not countable is the celebrated "[[Diagonalization|Cantor diagonalization theorem]]".

[[Category:Mathematics]]
[[Category:Set Theory]]

File:1848gain.jpg

2018-12-27T14:03:06Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

map of US war gains 1848

from Smith, "War with Mexico" (1919) 2:241[https://books.google.com/books?id=0VNOyhWAyMAC&printsec=toc&dq=Smith,+Justin+Harvey.+The+War+with+Mexico&as_brr=1#PPA241,M1]

not copyright--pre 1923

[[Category:Image]]
[[Category:United States maps]]

File:1845map.jpg

2018-12-27T14:02:49Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

1845 map of US and mexico

not copyright
[[Category:Image]]
[[Category:Public domain images]]
[[Category:United States maps]]

File:1840 map.gif

2018-12-27T14:02:29Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

fair use for educational purposes
From the Smithsonian
http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/borders/map1a.html

[[Category:Image]]
[[Category:United States maps]]

File:1812map.jpg

2018-12-27T14:02:13Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

map of war of 1812
not copyright
[[Category:Image]]
[[Category:Public domain images]]
[[Category:United States maps]]

File:1781USA.jpg

2018-12-27T14:01:41Z

Michaeldsuarez: typo.

American Revolution: military map 1781

fair use for commentary and parody
[[Category:Image]]
[[Category:United States maps]]

File:1800-40FRONTIER.JPG

2018-12-27T14:01:11Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

Map of US frontier settlement, 1800-1840 based on US census
[[Category:Image]]
[[Category:United States maps]]

File:1781USA.jpg

2018-12-27T14:00:53Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

Amrerican Revolution: military map 1781

fair use for commentary and parody
[[Category:Image]]
[[Category:United States maps]]

File:1742map.jpg

2018-12-27T14:00:19Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

American colonial settlements 1742

fair use for commentary or parody
[[Category:Image]]
[[Category:United States maps]]

File:13colonies1775.jpg

2018-12-27T13:59:29Z

Michaeldsuarez: Moving to an existing category.

Map of the 13 Colonies. (from 1775).

[[Public domain]]

Source:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/maps/13colonies/enlargement.html
[[Category:Image]]
[[Category:Public domain images]]
[[Category:United States maps]]

User:Michaeldsuarez

2018-12-27T13:55:50Z

Michaeldsuarez: Out of date.

Bashir Assad

2018-12-27T13:49:29Z

Michaeldsuarez: Double redirect.

#REDIRECT [[Bashar al-Assad]]

Rightpedia

2018-12-27T13:44:57Z

Michaeldsuarez: Dead for a month; time to use the past tense.

'''Rightpedia''' (en.rightpedia.info) was a misnamed [[neo-Nazi|national socialist]] wiki created by ex-[[Metapedia]] admins. The website contained [[anti-Semitic]], racist and [[holocaust denial]] material. By its name, it appeared to be another [[false flag]] cyber operation to [[defamation|defame]] the Right by ignoring the fact that the [[Nazi Party]], and [[Nazism]] itself, are on the [[far-Left]] of the political spectrum alongside other [[totalitarian]] ideologies like [[Communism]], and that racism and anti-Semitism are particularly [[leftist]] traits.

==History==
Rightpedia was founded in 2015 by the Hungarian neo-Nazi Eleonóra Dubiczki (username Fiala). She was banned for promoting irrational [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] about Jewish people and misusing the website to attack political enemies. She invited several other banned Metapedia users and promoted them as admins including Michael Coombs (username Mikemikev) and A Wyatt Man. On November 6th, 2018 Fiala purchased protection from Cloudflare to hide Rightpedia's host, but there were already public records that the hosting provider for Rightpedia is GoDaddy.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20151026191601/http://www.whoishostingthis.com/?q=en.rightpedia.info "en.rightpedia.info | Who Is Hosting en.rightpedia.info?"] ''WhoIsHostingThis.com''.</ref>

==Content==
Rightpedia contained hundreds of articles which were [[anti-Semitic]], [[racist]] and [[xenophobic]]. For example they described [[black people]] as "uneducated gorillas" and rapists.<ref>[http://archive.fo/yEAU8 Subsaharan Africans]. Rightpedia. archive.is.</ref><ref>[http://archive.is/ikMIn Black subcultures in the United States]. Rightpedia. archive.is.</ref><ref>[http://archive.fo/K2h7w Race and crime]. Rightpedia. archive.is.</ref> They described [[Jewish]] people with smear terms such as "disloyal", "greedy", "ugly" and "perverted".<ref>[http://archive.is/HescL Jews]. Rightpedia. archive.is.</ref> Dubiczki has written articles on Rightpedia which denied the [[Holocaust]] happened and glorified the actions of the Nazi Party.<ref>[http://archive.is/RqjCQ Auschwitz detention centre]. Rightpedia. archive.is.</ref><ref>[http://archive.is/rwc60 Jewish casualties during World War II]. Rightpedia. archive.is.</ref><ref>[http://archive.is/2E54S National Socialist German Workers' Party]. Rightpedia. archive.is.</ref>

==On Conservapedia==
Rightpedia trashed [[Conservapedia]]. They attacked this site for accepting the six million figure for the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, for rejecting [[Darwinism]] and the [[theory of evolution]] (both of which are embraced enthusiastically by the Left), supporting [[Creationism|biblical creation]], and for criticizing the socialist policies of [[Adolf Hitler]].<ref>[http://archive.is/b6ROF Conservapedia]. Rightpedia. archive.is.</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Hate Groups]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

User talk:Abd

2012-08-02T21:14:21Z

Michaeldsuarez: /* RE: Email addresses? */ Adding.

{{Welcome|Abd|sig=--[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 20:25, 1 August 2012 (EDT)}}

*Hi, Michael, thanks for the welcome. I did read the guide. {{Unsigned|Abd}}
**You're welcome. It's nice seeing you again. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:49, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

== RE: Email addresses? ==

The Email function appears to be disabled. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 13:52, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
:There are many things that are strange about this website. I'm here partially because strange things amuse me. Conservapedia is a curiosity that I've chosen to explore. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 17:11, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Abd

2012-08-02T21:11:32Z

Michaeldsuarez: /* RE: Email addresses? */ Comment.

{{Welcome|Abd|sig=--[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 20:25, 1 August 2012 (EDT)}}

*Hi, Michael, thanks for the welcome. I did read the guide. {{Unsigned|Abd}}
**You're welcome. It's nice seeing you again. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 22:49, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

== RE: Email addresses? ==

The Email function appears to be disabled. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 13:52, 2 August 2012 (EDT)
:There are many things that are strange about this website. I'm here partially because strange things amuse me. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 17:11, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Abd

2012-08-02T17:52:53Z

Michaeldsuarez: /* RE: Email addresses? */ new section

User talk:Abd

2012-08-02T02:49:12Z

Michaeldsuarez: Comment.

User talk:Abd

2012-08-02T00:25:25Z

Michaeldsuarez: typo.

{{Welcome|Abd|sig=--[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 20:25, 1 August 2012 (EDT)}}

User talk:Abd

2012-08-02T00:25:04Z

Michaeldsuarez: Welcome.

{{Welcome|Michaeldsuarez|sig=--[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 20:25, 1 August 2012 (EDT)}}

User talk:TerryH

2012-08-01T18:02:57Z

Michaeldsuarez: /* Interesting news */ Comment.

[[File:Usa new year 2010.jpg|240px]]
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:22, 31 December 2009 (EST)
----

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

In response to Terry's statements concerning Jesus and how he might live today I feel it is quite simple. The best teachers lead through example and Jesus was sent here to, 'teach', to show us the way to God, so what better way to get there? The most practical of lessons are learned an enacted through specific actions, therefore to follow Christian doctrine and to live the life of a true Christian is to walk, talk, and act as Jesus did. So if we are to attempt to live as Jesus did we are by definition living the life of an extreme liberal. So if you want to get closer to God and be promised eternal salvation you should watch your step and begin as they say to, 'Walk the Walk and Talk the Talk'. copyright 2010, ©baltimoremd

As wordnetweb.princeton.edu/ defines 'liberal',

-broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
-having political or social views favoring reform and progress
-tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
-a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
-big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
-a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
-free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

== 66.212.16.194 ==

I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Reply ==

Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==

I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:Explain what? Do you deny it?
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Schlafly ==
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)
==Help!==
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)

== CreationWiki ==

Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:: For questions such as this, a good site is http://www.tektonics.org. You can search for keywords (as you can on many sites), or you can look up particular verses. With a quick look I found [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/guess2much.html this] page that touches on your question. I also found another page that pointed to a different site with [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html this article], which I haven't read, but I think might be quite useful to you. With a better search, you might be able to find more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Headline text ==
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hai ==

Terry,

Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!

In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.

Also, consider archiving those two pages.

You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.

By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.

Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.

Regards,
-Hojimachong

== CreationWiki ==

Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the <code>include</code> directives with <code>include_once</code> directives. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
==[[Io]]==
Wow, Terry, amazing job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Comment ==

In my short time here I've noticed two blocks, one with an accompanying IP block. I understand that IP blocks are good site policy for persistent vandals, but absent a showing that the targeted vandal is in fact a persistent, repeat offender, is there any reason to block permanently, other than to suppress dissent? Isn't it conceivable that you just blocked a public computer, or a public WiFi net, meaning now legitimate users can't visit? Seems to me like a poor compromise between security and freedom.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 14:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Hmmm, I appreciate your reasons, although I continue to think they're overbroad. I guess we disagree, but you're free to run your own site (into the ground...?). Further, I did not appreciate the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhoenixWright&diff=397970&oldid=397934 threatening tone, here.] In fact, I think it's counterproductive. I was not aware that wikis were autocracies. My experience at (dare I say it? - Wikipedia) was different. I see you're different from them, though, in many significant ways, this not the least. Cheers nonetheless.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)

==The horror...==
Hey, are you online? Could you please block ZebraSofa? I think I'm the only one who noticed his recent vandalism rampage. He seems to have sort of cooled down, but he could just be regrouping on the savannah. Thanks.[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I second to that, look at Recent Page. Someone stop the idiot that living his own shell

Edit- By the way, good job for defense, Jellyfish.
--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 12:33, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I got him. Thanks again Jellyfish. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Oops ==

(blush) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

300.2 million > 3.2 million [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=436643&oldid=436641] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== bamboozled ==

Why don't you think Fox News is a major media organization? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 17:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:The edit isn't about size - it is about liberal bias. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== quick note ==

I replied to your planet suggestion and would be most happy to review the material and provide any input that I think I would be beneficial. I also sent you an important email. I am hoping to get things rolling as soon as possible and would appreciate your input in regards to my proposal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Regarding removal of my articles==

Is there any person I can contact regarding removing my articles? I see you reverted my deletion notices. Regards. [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 10:22, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

#No need to spam the wiki like this. You are heard.
#They are not "your" articles; you donated them without any strings attached.
#I deleted a couple already. Your article on [[Machiavellianism]] was worthless drivel. I can't believe a professor would use such material as course notes.
#If (by some awkward chance) you are really a professor, email me your credentials and we can talk by phone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:They weren't course notes; they were introductory articles. Quite a difference. I have nothing to prove to you, I don't care if you think I am a professor or not (I amn't by they way, I was a lecturer who taught in England and Ireland for many years, and never attained the title of 'professor') and am not going to Email you and am most certainly not going to let a random person on the internet ring me. What aspect of the Machiavelli article didn't you like? Was it above you? [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 11:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Redheads ==

Why does it need to be deleted? Sure, the first article I posted was intended to be sarcastic (not against Conservapedia, but against the cruel views with which Redheads are looked upon in England (a trend that stems from bigotry against the Scots, Irish, and Scandinavians).

This has manifested itself in the following forms:

-The Chapman family in Newcastle was forced to move MULTIPLE TIMES due to taunts directed to both parents and children

-We have been beaten up, and one man was stabbed in an alley

-Skinheads are organizing against us

-A waitress was harassed on multiple occasions

-Some of us (though not me, personally) are brought to indignation upon hearing the word "ginger", which isn't much when compared to things like "Firecrotch"

-Countless men, women, and children have been taunted, often resulting in suicide attempts

-Over here in Texas, I, along with a few people I know, have also been the target of obsceneties

-This issue has gained the attention of the press from Austin to Aberdeen, along with being the focal topic of an episode of Southpark, along with countless British media and recent literature.

(pardon my bad spelling; I'm only 16)

My second post sought to explain this. It did not have any liberal bias- only pro-ginger bias (my own). It does not concern conservatism or liberalism*. Besides, I thought this is the place to be biased... isn't it?

<nowiki>*</nowiki>Liberalism traditionally refers to free-market capitalism and relaxed social restrictions similar to Libertarianism. Only in recent years has it been misconstrued to refer to left-wing politics.

{{unsigned|GLA}}

==== Vaccines ====
Why did you revert my edits? The article that's cited as a source explicitly states that it has not been conclusively proven that Gardasil caused or was even implicated in those deaths. -- Aaronp

==Principal's Resignation?==

Terry,

Thought you might be interested in this story.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/458733.html

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Aggrieved's Talk Page Debate==

Terry, you came to my Talk page and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aggrieved&diff=prev&oldid=474283 demanded] that I "had better: 1) Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them; 2) Retract your last comment and apologize to me; and 3) Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration."

My response:

1) - Multiple citations provided. It is duly noted you never provided a single citation to back up your own false claim; 2) - Not a chance; 3) - No problem. This dialog will be in the record and your willingness to disregard fact, remain uninformed about current affairs, and aggressively police your own mistruths will be duly noted. Martyrdom in the name of truth can be my legacy.

In response to your failure to prove your case, and my success in proving mine, I now demand you:
1. Withdraw your claim on Main:Talk Page that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", publicly.
2. Apologize to me, publicly, for your aggressive tone and ill-informed opinion.

Thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 21:04, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

==Hi==
Just pointing out, you accidentally blocked Leda for a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ALeda month] instead of a day. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:No accident, neighbor. She'd already been blocked a number of times before, so she rated what she got.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:58, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Delete and protect ==

I believe the new policy/custom is to use actual salting instead of using some "deletedpage" placeholder. You should be able to protect non-existent pages (or specify protection during deletion, I don't know for sure). See also [[Special:Protectedtitles]] for a list of what has been salted already. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:12, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

PS: Thanks a lot for the unblock. I'm still struggling with the mail confirmation, so I had to rely on somebody seeing my block. :) --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 17:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==My talk page==

Thanks for sweeping up around my castle when the moat overflowed. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Looks like someone had a friend show up ==

*shrug* Thanks. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Lsit ==

Thanks for the correction. [[User:Memory|Memory]] 15:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives==
Terry, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under your name so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== News suggestions ==

Terry, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the News suggestions. So far, 54 of these suggestions have already been posted to the Main page and moved to the suggestion archives. With your help, we can continue to receive and post positive suggestions from our editors.

Please review the suggestions. If you like one (or more of them), please post the article(s) on [[Template:Mainpageright]] and add a note that you posted their suggestion. If you don't like a suggestion, add a comment and the suggestion will be moved to the suggestions talk page. I will take care of the rest (archiving, updating counts, etc). Thanks for your assistance. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== rhea article ==

Hi, great article. Now the bad news :) I came across this as a Random page search and I noticed the first bit with the picture is spread beyond the normal article edge on the left. It would be a bit neater if it could be sized a fraction narrower. I have no idea on how that would be done. If you disagree thats fine ;-) [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

: The problem was with the template that puts a box of information on the right. Somebody duplicated the size, and that duplicate size was uninterpretable and thus the image came through at its original size, which was ''not'' what I intended. You'll notice that the images are back to the proper size now.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:19, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:: yes thats even better [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:37, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
::: That error was in there since July last year! Obviously the previous version of MediaWiki somehow coped with it, but the latest version is stricter. It would also explain why the info box in the Earth article was so big the other day. And there's another size duplication in the template, which I'll fix now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== A. Schlafly's talk page ==

Could you repair it, too? I couldn't do so. Thanks --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Parolees==

I noticed we had a [[:category:Parolees]] a few weeks ago when I was browsing the [[Conservapedia:Maintenance]] page. Since [[User:Saxplayer]] is now on parole, I thought I'd use that as a chance to revive the formal parole system. Please let me know if you object. If you don't, how long is Saxplayer's parole for? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Slightly amused but no offense meant... ==

I'm sorry for bugging you, if you don't write [[Project:Guard dog|Guard dog]], but this block reason just cracked me up:
::''Blocked for vandalism with assistance of Conservapedia:Guard dog''
Can you tell whoever writes it they probably ought to reword that summary? When I first saw it, before I clicked the link to the page about Guard dog, I thought you were saying that the vandal was using Guard dog to ''vandalize''.

Again, sorry for bugging ''you'', but I saw you using it, and I don't know who develops it.

Thanks, and have a good day!

[[User:Samd|Samd]] 10:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, I wrote that. Now that you point it out, I see your point. I wonder what would be best: A comma after "vandalism"?
: And just to be overly pedantic, why would you think that the vandal was using Guard Dog to ''vandali'''z'''e'' when it actually says "vandali'''s'''m"?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::Because I'm a stupid American? :P I don't know. I've always spelled it like that. Why do I spell my name s-a-m? (pedantics in calculus class - uuggghhhh...) A comma would probably be good. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 11:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::: I won't make any nasty cracks about "stupid American" containing a redundancy. I provided the default text, but TerryH will have to change it on his settings if he wishes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== Don't get it.... ==

''From now on, I'll have to trust you implicitly. DO NOT ABUSE MY TRUST.''

Thanks for your trust? Don't shout at me? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:34, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Please, believe me, a block-notice is enough to get my attention :-)
I was editing [[Philipp Lenard]], when this bizarre ''Hitlermania'' started. I got a little bit annoyed as I'd thought that the guard-dog would act a little bit earlier - and without biting me ;-)
But I fully understand that you had no time to check my contributions to see that I'm a legit editor --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==New wave==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:BlockIP/NicStory this], although I am faintly disappointed that you beat me to it. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Navboxes ==

Terry, I think that the text in the navboxes would look better if it was centered. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Recent Vandalism==
I'm not sure how to undo a page back 2 edits, but in the most recent vandalism spree, ForReal edited [[Talk:Main Page]] twice and [[Talk:Barack Obama]] was edited by ForReal and then another user just after that. When you undid that last edit, it took it back to ForReal's 'contribution'. Could you take care of this, or I can do it if shown how. Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 19:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)

==[[The Simpsons]]==

Should we provide a conservative analysis of the characters on the Simpsons? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Thanks!==

Looks like BrandonF was going to be persistent with his idea of "humor." I was going to revert him again, but you beat me to it. Thanks! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==AddisonDM block==

TerryH, I was given just now a 5 year autoblock by the Guarddog attributed to you, for suspected vandalism. I was actually installing a new template approved by Mr. Schlafly called [[Template:Bible Versions]] on all the Bible pages. I was told this was a good thing to do. Please immediately unblock me, and for proof I am not a vandal, see the 10+ new pages I have added at [[User:AddisonDM]]. 29 December 2008

== Happy New Year, Terry! ==

'''Glory to God in highest heaven,'''
'''Who unto man His Son hath given;'''
'''While angels sing with tender mirth,'''
'''A glad new year to all the earth.''' 
'''~Martin Luther''' 
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:38, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Help ==

Hi, thanks for helping out with that other editor earlier. I was just wondering how/where I can suggest new articles for creation? Many Thanks. --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 22:49, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== [[Subacute myelo-optic neuropathy]] ==

Would you mind taking a look at this and see what the "big dispute" is? Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== please check your email ==

Please check your email [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)

==Vandals==
It seems that there have been a lot of vandals with "bob" in their name. Could you edit the software to autoblock anyone with "bob" in their name for at least the next month? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:47, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== help would be appreciated ==

Any help you could offer as far as this article [[Creation vs. evolution debate]] would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:56, 1 March 2009 (EST)

==Music article talk page==
Hi TerryH! I've left a long, substantial review of the popular vs. classical issue on the [[music]] talk page. I'd appreciate starting a constructive dialogue about this issue in order to strengthen this aspect of the article. Thanks! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Guard Dog ==

The bot is going berserk. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:59, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

==Help needed==
As the editor of many Bible persons, could you weigh in on a problem mentioned here: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RJJensen#Persons_in_the_Bible (the Hoshea to Joshua issue has been fixed) Thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:46, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

== Great start! ==

Your edits to [[Epistle of Jude (Translated)]] are a great start to this week!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Thanks Terry (sorry for the late reply),

I have an interest in ancient Greek, daily access to a large academic library and, like everyone else, the resources of the Internet. You could describe me as an enthusiastic amateur.
Luke has always been my favorite Gospel, containing the best versions of the Parables. I have no particular plans to translate Acts, though I would welcome the opportunity. It would probably be best to regard my edits as first drafts, and I have tried to update the language and convey the intent of the verses.

[[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 18:58, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Great block and revert! ==

Great block and revert, Terry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:30, 15 November 2009 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

and Marry Christmas!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==Must be doing something right==

Do I have the honor of attracting the most user page vandalism? Anyway, thanks for watching out for me, Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:42, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Genesis ==

Congrats on finishing Genesis! It'll be good to add to the ongoing CBP compilation. If you have input or recommendations for the compilation's design and layout, please bring them forward! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:09, 4 January 2010 (EST)

== Ephesians ==

Well done powering through Ephesians! Here I'd planned to come home and translate a chapter, and you've finished the whole letter. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 19:07, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

== Romans 9-16 ==

Sorry for tripping over your work there, I figured I'd work a chapter ahead to avoid edit conflicts with the one you were working on. I'm out of time for today, so feel free to go ahead without me getting in the way, and have a great Easter. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 19:39, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== Wow, inspiring achievement! ==

Wow, Terry, what an inspiring achievement! Now there are only 5 unfinished books. I'll hurry up with the Letter of James!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

:Scratch that - I see you're working on the Epistle of James. I'll work on the Epistle to the Hebrews now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:28, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== a proposal ==

Terry,

Would you be interested in writing the following articles:

*[[Creation vs. evolution]]
*[[Evidence against evolution]]
*[[Conservapedia essay: What is evolution?]]

The reason I ask is that I think it would be a good idea for Conservapedia to launch a [[Conservapedia: Anti-Evolution Project]] down the pike. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:43, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

== Touching base ==

Hi Terry,

Rob encouraged me to stop by and try to mend fences, as it were. I'm sorry for the differences we've had in the past, probably not here, but now that I am back I wanted to get off on the right foot and I hope we don't bump heads... good luck and Godspeed with your works.

Peace, Huw. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:06, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

== Your articles ==

I am rather impressed with the articles you have written. I was reading the one you were working on and thought it was superb. That is a good book, too. Good job!

== What is the difference between global atheism and the Question evolution! campaign? ==

Terry, I have a question for you.

Question: What is the difference between [[global atheism]] and the [[Question evolution campaign]]?

Here is the answer: The Question evolution campaign is growing and [[global atheism]] is '''<big>currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day!</big>'''[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html] :) Please pay special note to the words '''<big>currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day</big>'''. :)

=== Question evolution! campaign community ===

A [[Question evolution! campaign]] online community is forming.[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html] Creation Ministries International's Question evolution! campaign is about to break the sound barrier! Volunteer recruiting is picking up steam! Click [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html HERE] for details.
[[File:Breaking sound barrier.jpg|center|300px]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:03, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Ragnar Danneskjöld ==

I posted on the talk page but thought this might get to you sooner.

There's a messed up wikilink in the 3rd paragraph of the background section. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 18:28, 17 February 2012 (EST)

== Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! ==
[[File:Increasing.JPG|150px|right]]
'''American [[young earth creationism]] increased in the last two years - Gallup survey.''' [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and other efforts of creationists are working!.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html]

It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of [[evolution]]ism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[http://creation.com/creation-timely-tool-for-todays-evangelist][http://creation.com/taking-creation-evangelism-to-the-streets] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Could you please check [[:Category:Speedy_deletion_candidates]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:56, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

== CNAV account ==

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic for Conservapedia talk pages:

I have tried to create a CNAV account with the username GregG. I was told that my password would be sent to the e-mail address I provided on the registration form, which is my e-mail address. I never got that message. I also tried to have a new e-mail sent at least once (yesterday), but still I received nothing. Could you take a look into this? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:51, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
: I just sent a message to the e-mail I have on you. Now so far I haven't gotten any delivery-failure notices. But if you don't get a message within the next three hours, then you must have put in the wrong e-mail address.

== Interesting news ==

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=997411#ArbCom_bans_the_chairman_of_Wikimedia_UK – This news might interest you. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 15:03, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
:http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/08/01/50-shades-wikipedia-uk-head-banned-after-bondage-porn-ties/ – Fox News is now paying attention. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 14:02, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

User talk:TerryH

2012-07-31T19:08:19Z

Michaeldsuarez: /* Interesting news */ Fixing hyperlink.

User talk:TerryH

2012-07-31T19:03:25Z

Michaeldsuarez: /* Interesting news */ new section

[[File:Usa new year 2010.jpg|240px]]
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:22, 31 December 2009 (EST)
----

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

In response to Terry's statements concerning Jesus and how he might live today I feel it is quite simple. The best teachers lead through example and Jesus was sent here to, 'teach', to show us the way to God, so what better way to get there? The most practical of lessons are learned an enacted through specific actions, therefore to follow Christian doctrine and to live the life of a true Christian is to walk, talk, and act as Jesus did. So if we are to attempt to live as Jesus did we are by definition living the life of an extreme liberal. So if you want to get closer to God and be promised eternal salvation you should watch your step and begin as they say to, 'Walk the Walk and Talk the Talk'. copyright 2010, ©baltimoremd

As wordnetweb.princeton.edu/ defines 'liberal',

-broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
-having political or social views favoring reform and progress
-tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
-a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
-big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
-a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
-free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

== 66.212.16.194 ==

I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Reply ==

Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==

I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:Explain what? Do you deny it?
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Schlafly ==
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)
==Help!==
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)

== CreationWiki ==

Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:: For questions such as this, a good site is http://www.tektonics.org. You can search for keywords (as you can on many sites), or you can look up particular verses. With a quick look I found [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/guess2much.html this] page that touches on your question. I also found another page that pointed to a different site with [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html this article], which I haven't read, but I think might be quite useful to you. With a better search, you might be able to find more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Headline text ==
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hai ==

Terry,

Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!

In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.

Also, consider archiving those two pages.

You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.

By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.

Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.

Regards,
-Hojimachong

== CreationWiki ==

Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the <code>include</code> directives with <code>include_once</code> directives. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
==[[Io]]==
Wow, Terry, amazing job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Comment ==

In my short time here I've noticed two blocks, one with an accompanying IP block. I understand that IP blocks are good site policy for persistent vandals, but absent a showing that the targeted vandal is in fact a persistent, repeat offender, is there any reason to block permanently, other than to suppress dissent? Isn't it conceivable that you just blocked a public computer, or a public WiFi net, meaning now legitimate users can't visit? Seems to me like a poor compromise between security and freedom.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 14:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Hmmm, I appreciate your reasons, although I continue to think they're overbroad. I guess we disagree, but you're free to run your own site (into the ground...?). Further, I did not appreciate the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhoenixWright&diff=397970&oldid=397934 threatening tone, here.] In fact, I think it's counterproductive. I was not aware that wikis were autocracies. My experience at (dare I say it? - Wikipedia) was different. I see you're different from them, though, in many significant ways, this not the least. Cheers nonetheless.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)

==The horror...==
Hey, are you online? Could you please block ZebraSofa? I think I'm the only one who noticed his recent vandalism rampage. He seems to have sort of cooled down, but he could just be regrouping on the savannah. Thanks.[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I second to that, look at Recent Page. Someone stop the idiot that living his own shell

Edit- By the way, good job for defense, Jellyfish.
--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 12:33, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I got him. Thanks again Jellyfish. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Oops ==

(blush) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

300.2 million > 3.2 million [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=436643&oldid=436641] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== bamboozled ==

Why don't you think Fox News is a major media organization? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 17:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:The edit isn't about size - it is about liberal bias. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== quick note ==

I replied to your planet suggestion and would be most happy to review the material and provide any input that I think I would be beneficial. I also sent you an important email. I am hoping to get things rolling as soon as possible and would appreciate your input in regards to my proposal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Regarding removal of my articles==

Is there any person I can contact regarding removing my articles? I see you reverted my deletion notices. Regards. [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 10:22, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

#No need to spam the wiki like this. You are heard.
#They are not "your" articles; you donated them without any strings attached.
#I deleted a couple already. Your article on [[Machiavellianism]] was worthless drivel. I can't believe a professor would use such material as course notes.
#If (by some awkward chance) you are really a professor, email me your credentials and we can talk by phone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:They weren't course notes; they were introductory articles. Quite a difference. I have nothing to prove to you, I don't care if you think I am a professor or not (I amn't by they way, I was a lecturer who taught in England and Ireland for many years, and never attained the title of 'professor') and am not going to Email you and am most certainly not going to let a random person on the internet ring me. What aspect of the Machiavelli article didn't you like? Was it above you? [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 11:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Redheads ==

Why does it need to be deleted? Sure, the first article I posted was intended to be sarcastic (not against Conservapedia, but against the cruel views with which Redheads are looked upon in England (a trend that stems from bigotry against the Scots, Irish, and Scandinavians).

This has manifested itself in the following forms:

-The Chapman family in Newcastle was forced to move MULTIPLE TIMES due to taunts directed to both parents and children

-We have been beaten up, and one man was stabbed in an alley

-Skinheads are organizing against us

-A waitress was harassed on multiple occasions

-Some of us (though not me, personally) are brought to indignation upon hearing the word "ginger", which isn't much when compared to things like "Firecrotch"

-Countless men, women, and children have been taunted, often resulting in suicide attempts

-Over here in Texas, I, along with a few people I know, have also been the target of obsceneties

-This issue has gained the attention of the press from Austin to Aberdeen, along with being the focal topic of an episode of Southpark, along with countless British media and recent literature.

(pardon my bad spelling; I'm only 16)

My second post sought to explain this. It did not have any liberal bias- only pro-ginger bias (my own). It does not concern conservatism or liberalism*. Besides, I thought this is the place to be biased... isn't it?

<nowiki>*</nowiki>Liberalism traditionally refers to free-market capitalism and relaxed social restrictions similar to Libertarianism. Only in recent years has it been misconstrued to refer to left-wing politics.

{{unsigned|GLA}}

==== Vaccines ====
Why did you revert my edits? The article that's cited as a source explicitly states that it has not been conclusively proven that Gardasil caused or was even implicated in those deaths. -- Aaronp

==Principal's Resignation?==

Terry,

Thought you might be interested in this story.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/458733.html

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Aggrieved's Talk Page Debate==

Terry, you came to my Talk page and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aggrieved&diff=prev&oldid=474283 demanded] that I "had better: 1) Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them; 2) Retract your last comment and apologize to me; and 3) Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration."

My response:

1) - Multiple citations provided. It is duly noted you never provided a single citation to back up your own false claim; 2) - Not a chance; 3) - No problem. This dialog will be in the record and your willingness to disregard fact, remain uninformed about current affairs, and aggressively police your own mistruths will be duly noted. Martyrdom in the name of truth can be my legacy.

In response to your failure to prove your case, and my success in proving mine, I now demand you:
1. Withdraw your claim on Main:Talk Page that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", publicly.
2. Apologize to me, publicly, for your aggressive tone and ill-informed opinion.

Thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 21:04, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

==Hi==
Just pointing out, you accidentally blocked Leda for a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ALeda month] instead of a day. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:No accident, neighbor. She'd already been blocked a number of times before, so she rated what she got.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:58, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Delete and protect ==

I believe the new policy/custom is to use actual salting instead of using some "deletedpage" placeholder. You should be able to protect non-existent pages (or specify protection during deletion, I don't know for sure). See also [[Special:Protectedtitles]] for a list of what has been salted already. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:12, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

PS: Thanks a lot for the unblock. I'm still struggling with the mail confirmation, so I had to rely on somebody seeing my block. :) --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 17:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==My talk page==

Thanks for sweeping up around my castle when the moat overflowed. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Looks like someone had a friend show up ==

*shrug* Thanks. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Lsit ==

Thanks for the correction. [[User:Memory|Memory]] 15:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives==
Terry, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under your name so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== News suggestions ==

Terry, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the News suggestions. So far, 54 of these suggestions have already been posted to the Main page and moved to the suggestion archives. With your help, we can continue to receive and post positive suggestions from our editors.

Please review the suggestions. If you like one (or more of them), please post the article(s) on [[Template:Mainpageright]] and add a note that you posted their suggestion. If you don't like a suggestion, add a comment and the suggestion will be moved to the suggestions talk page. I will take care of the rest (archiving, updating counts, etc). Thanks for your assistance. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== rhea article ==

Hi, great article. Now the bad news :) I came across this as a Random page search and I noticed the first bit with the picture is spread beyond the normal article edge on the left. It would be a bit neater if it could be sized a fraction narrower. I have no idea on how that would be done. If you disagree thats fine ;-) [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

: The problem was with the template that puts a box of information on the right. Somebody duplicated the size, and that duplicate size was uninterpretable and thus the image came through at its original size, which was ''not'' what I intended. You'll notice that the images are back to the proper size now.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:19, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:: yes thats even better [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:37, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
::: That error was in there since July last year! Obviously the previous version of MediaWiki somehow coped with it, but the latest version is stricter. It would also explain why the info box in the Earth article was so big the other day. And there's another size duplication in the template, which I'll fix now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== A. Schlafly's talk page ==

Could you repair it, too? I couldn't do so. Thanks --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Parolees==

I noticed we had a [[:category:Parolees]] a few weeks ago when I was browsing the [[Conservapedia:Maintenance]] page. Since [[User:Saxplayer]] is now on parole, I thought I'd use that as a chance to revive the formal parole system. Please let me know if you object. If you don't, how long is Saxplayer's parole for? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Slightly amused but no offense meant... ==

I'm sorry for bugging you, if you don't write [[Project:Guard dog|Guard dog]], but this block reason just cracked me up:
::''Blocked for vandalism with assistance of Conservapedia:Guard dog''
Can you tell whoever writes it they probably ought to reword that summary? When I first saw it, before I clicked the link to the page about Guard dog, I thought you were saying that the vandal was using Guard dog to ''vandalize''.

Again, sorry for bugging ''you'', but I saw you using it, and I don't know who develops it.

Thanks, and have a good day!

[[User:Samd|Samd]] 10:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, I wrote that. Now that you point it out, I see your point. I wonder what would be best: A comma after "vandalism"?
: And just to be overly pedantic, why would you think that the vandal was using Guard Dog to ''vandali'''z'''e'' when it actually says "vandali'''s'''m"?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::Because I'm a stupid American? :P I don't know. I've always spelled it like that. Why do I spell my name s-a-m? (pedantics in calculus class - uuggghhhh...) A comma would probably be good. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 11:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::: I won't make any nasty cracks about "stupid American" containing a redundancy. I provided the default text, but TerryH will have to change it on his settings if he wishes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== Don't get it.... ==

''From now on, I'll have to trust you implicitly. DO NOT ABUSE MY TRUST.''

Thanks for your trust? Don't shout at me? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:34, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Please, believe me, a block-notice is enough to get my attention :-)
I was editing [[Philipp Lenard]], when this bizarre ''Hitlermania'' started. I got a little bit annoyed as I'd thought that the guard-dog would act a little bit earlier - and without biting me ;-)
But I fully understand that you had no time to check my contributions to see that I'm a legit editor --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==New wave==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:BlockIP/NicStory this], although I am faintly disappointed that you beat me to it. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Navboxes ==

Terry, I think that the text in the navboxes would look better if it was centered. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Recent Vandalism==
I'm not sure how to undo a page back 2 edits, but in the most recent vandalism spree, ForReal edited [[Talk:Main Page]] twice and [[Talk:Barack Obama]] was edited by ForReal and then another user just after that. When you undid that last edit, it took it back to ForReal's 'contribution'. Could you take care of this, or I can do it if shown how. Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 19:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)

==[[The Simpsons]]==

Should we provide a conservative analysis of the characters on the Simpsons? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Thanks!==

Looks like BrandonF was going to be persistent with his idea of "humor." I was going to revert him again, but you beat me to it. Thanks! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==AddisonDM block==

TerryH, I was given just now a 5 year autoblock by the Guarddog attributed to you, for suspected vandalism. I was actually installing a new template approved by Mr. Schlafly called [[Template:Bible Versions]] on all the Bible pages. I was told this was a good thing to do. Please immediately unblock me, and for proof I am not a vandal, see the 10+ new pages I have added at [[User:AddisonDM]]. 29 December 2008

== Happy New Year, Terry! ==

'''Glory to God in highest heaven,'''
'''Who unto man His Son hath given;'''
'''While angels sing with tender mirth,'''
'''A glad new year to all the earth.''' 
'''~Martin Luther''' 
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:38, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Help ==

Hi, thanks for helping out with that other editor earlier. I was just wondering how/where I can suggest new articles for creation? Many Thanks. --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 22:49, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== [[Subacute myelo-optic neuropathy]] ==

Would you mind taking a look at this and see what the "big dispute" is? Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== please check your email ==

Please check your email [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)

==Vandals==
It seems that there have been a lot of vandals with "bob" in their name. Could you edit the software to autoblock anyone with "bob" in their name for at least the next month? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:47, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== help would be appreciated ==

Any help you could offer as far as this article [[Creation vs. evolution debate]] would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:56, 1 March 2009 (EST)

==Music article talk page==
Hi TerryH! I've left a long, substantial review of the popular vs. classical issue on the [[music]] talk page. I'd appreciate starting a constructive dialogue about this issue in order to strengthen this aspect of the article. Thanks! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Guard Dog ==

The bot is going berserk. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:59, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

==Help needed==
As the editor of many Bible persons, could you weigh in on a problem mentioned here: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RJJensen#Persons_in_the_Bible (the Hoshea to Joshua issue has been fixed) Thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:46, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

== Great start! ==

Your edits to [[Epistle of Jude (Translated)]] are a great start to this week!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Thanks Terry (sorry for the late reply),

I have an interest in ancient Greek, daily access to a large academic library and, like everyone else, the resources of the Internet. You could describe me as an enthusiastic amateur.
Luke has always been my favorite Gospel, containing the best versions of the Parables. I have no particular plans to translate Acts, though I would welcome the opportunity. It would probably be best to regard my edits as first drafts, and I have tried to update the language and convey the intent of the verses.

[[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 18:58, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Great block and revert! ==

Great block and revert, Terry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:30, 15 November 2009 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

and Marry Christmas!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==Must be doing something right==

Do I have the honor of attracting the most user page vandalism? Anyway, thanks for watching out for me, Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:42, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Genesis ==

Congrats on finishing Genesis! It'll be good to add to the ongoing CBP compilation. If you have input or recommendations for the compilation's design and layout, please bring them forward! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:09, 4 January 2010 (EST)

== Ephesians ==

Well done powering through Ephesians! Here I'd planned to come home and translate a chapter, and you've finished the whole letter. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 19:07, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

== Romans 9-16 ==

Sorry for tripping over your work there, I figured I'd work a chapter ahead to avoid edit conflicts with the one you were working on. I'm out of time for today, so feel free to go ahead without me getting in the way, and have a great Easter. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 19:39, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== Wow, inspiring achievement! ==

Wow, Terry, what an inspiring achievement! Now there are only 5 unfinished books. I'll hurry up with the Letter of James!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

:Scratch that - I see you're working on the Epistle of James. I'll work on the Epistle to the Hebrews now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:28, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== a proposal ==

Terry,

Would you be interested in writing the following articles:

*[[Creation vs. evolution]]
*[[Evidence against evolution]]
*[[Conservapedia essay: What is evolution?]]

The reason I ask is that I think it would be a good idea for Conservapedia to launch a [[Conservapedia: Anti-Evolution Project]] down the pike. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:43, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

== Touching base ==

Hi Terry,

Rob encouraged me to stop by and try to mend fences, as it were. I'm sorry for the differences we've had in the past, probably not here, but now that I am back I wanted to get off on the right foot and I hope we don't bump heads... good luck and Godspeed with your works.

Peace, Huw. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:06, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

== Your articles ==

I am rather impressed with the articles you have written. I was reading the one you were working on and thought it was superb. That is a good book, too. Good job!

== What is the difference between global atheism and the Question evolution! campaign? ==

Terry, I have a question for you.

Question: What is the difference between [[global atheism]] and the [[Question evolution campaign]]?

Here is the answer: The Question evolution campaign is growing and [[global atheism]] is '''<big>currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day!</big>'''[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html] :) Please pay special note to the words '''<big>currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day</big>'''. :)

=== Question evolution! campaign community ===

A [[Question evolution! campaign]] online community is forming.[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html] Creation Ministries International's Question evolution! campaign is about to break the sound barrier! Volunteer recruiting is picking up steam! Click [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html HERE] for details.
[[File:Breaking sound barrier.jpg|center|300px]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:03, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Ragnar Danneskjöld ==

I posted on the talk page but thought this might get to you sooner.

There's a messed up wikilink in the 3rd paragraph of the background section. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 18:28, 17 February 2012 (EST)

== Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! ==
[[File:Increasing.JPG|150px|right]]
'''American [[young earth creationism]] increased in the last two years - Gallup survey.''' [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and other efforts of creationists are working!.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html]

It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of [[evolution]]ism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[http://creation.com/creation-timely-tool-for-todays-evangelist][http://creation.com/taking-creation-evangelism-to-the-streets] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Could you please check [[:Category:Speedy_deletion_candidates]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:56, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

== CNAV account ==

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic for Conservapedia talk pages:

I have tried to create a CNAV account with the username GregG. I was told that my password would be sent to the e-mail address I provided on the registration form, which is my e-mail address. I never got that message. I also tried to have a new e-mail sent at least once (yesterday), but still I received nothing. Could you take a look into this? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:51, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
: I just sent a message to the e-mail I have on you. Now so far I haven't gotten any delivery-failure notices. But if you don't get a message within the next three hours, then you must have put in the wrong e-mail address.

== Interesting news ==

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=997409#ArbCom_bans_the_chairman_of_Wikimedia_UK – This news might interest you. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 15:03, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Kitzmiller v. Dover

2012-03-02T01:27:48Z

Michaeldsuarez: Double redirect.

#REDIRECT [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]]

Talk:It Gets Better project

2012-02-26T21:17:12Z

Michaeldsuarez: Double redirect.

#REDIRECT [[Talk:It Gets Better Project]]

Talk:Essay: Will American atheism be cut by 50%?

2012-02-26T21:16:32Z

Michaeldsuarez: Double redirect.

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

Essay: Will American atheism be cut by 50%?

2012-02-26T21:15:57Z

Michaeldsuarez: Double redirect.

#REDIRECT [[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

Linda Mack

2012-02-23T17:34:28Z

Michaeldsuarez: Linking.

'''Linda Mack''' is a Canadian reporter who worked with Pierre Salinger at the London bureau of ABC News, specifically with the investigation of a terrorist bombing of a Boeing 747 over Scotland, which killed 270 people in 1988. Currently, she is a [[Wikipedia]] administrator under the name of '''SlimVirgin''', as it was evidenced by [[Daniel Brandt]] of NameBase.org.

Brandt has written that:
<blockquote style="font-style:italic;">"In the early 1990s, American journalist John K. Cooley worked with Pierre Salinger at the London bureau of ABC News, and was involved with the investigation of Lockerbie. In his email to Brandt, he described how they hired an impressive and energetic Linda Mack, who was eager to investigate the bombing. But after a while it became clear that Linda was trying to push journalists toward the official version of the story that accused Libya. It wasn't long before a special unit of Scotland Yard raided ABC News and seized certain materials. Because only a few people knew about the seized material, Salinger realized that this was the work of Linda Mack, and he locked her out of her office. ABC's efforts to fight the seizure were unsuccessful in court. Daniel Brandt had already announced the identification of SlimVirgin as Linda Mack publicly, and she knew that he was about to ask John Cooley for information. She called Cooley as a former colleague and asked him not to speak to Brandt. But her request was late — an email from Cooley to Brandt had already been sent."<ref>[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/russmag.html Wikipedia-Watch] ([http://www.webcitation.org/5lXiLbpuD Archive])</ref></blockquote>

Salinger, who was based in London, spent a considerable amount of time and energy investigating the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. ''"I know that these two Libyans had nothing to do with it. I know who did it and I know exactly why it was done,"'' Salinger said during his testimony at the Zeist trial, where one of the Libyans was convicted of murdering the 270 victims. <ref>[http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=374006&rel_no=1 Ohmynews]</ref> Salinger later came to believe that Mack was actually working for Britain's [[MI5]] on a mission to investigate the bombing and to infiltrate and monitor the news agency. This discovery comes only months after another Wikipedia admin --the infamous Essjay-- was caught lying about his credentials to the press. <ref>[http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/27/1943254 Wikipedia infiltrated by Intelligence agents?]</ref>

Despite the evidence, Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales told the readers of the board Slashdot.org (who had published the story), the following statement:

<blockquote style="font-style:italic;">"This story is demented and broken on so many levels, it is quite difficult to know where to begin, even. Here we have an excellent Wikipedia administrator who has been victimized by lunatic conspiracy theorists, a private person who has absolutely no relation to the wild stories that this article promulgates. Slashdot.org, you have been trolled."</blockquote>

== As SlimVirgin in Wikipedia ==
Apparently, Mack went to live in Alberta, Canada, under the name of Sara McEwan. She joined Wikipedia on November 2004, and became an administrator in March 2005. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin Her user page]</ref>
As SlimVirgin, Mack became a very efficient editor, with nearly 35,000 articles in her first year. The same SlimVirgin also holds a record of continuous editorial work lasting 26 hours. Some argue that these statistics from Wikipedia's editing records suggests either a supernatural ability, or that SlimVirgin is a convenient smoke screen for an entire team of specialists editing Wikipedia articles on behalf of intelligence services. Precisely, she had focused primarily on articles about Pierre Salinger and the doomed Pan Am 103 flight. SlimVirgin's editorial work progressed so well, and she observed (and abused) the rules so perfectly, that quickly she gained the rank of administrator. This gave her the right to remove "pesky" users from the debate and from editing.

Later on, Mack was voted the most abusive administrator of Wikipedia. She upset so many editors that some of them decided to team up to research her real life identity.

But attempts to track her through Internet technology failed. Once again, Brandt patiently assembled tiny clues about Slim Virgin and posted them on Wikipedia Review and Wikipedia-Watch.org. Eventually, two readers identified her. Slim Virgin was no other than Linda Mack, the young graduate Salinger hired. <ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=11173 Wikipedia Review]</ref> Shortly after her Wikipedia identity was uncovered, many of her edits to articles related to the attack were permanently removed from the database in an attempt to conceal her identity.

== See also ==
*[[Wikipedia]]
*[[Jimbo Wales]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mack, Linda}}

[[Category: Journalists]]
[[Category:Wikis]]

John Seigenthaler, Sr.

2012-02-23T17:33:47Z

Michaeldsuarez: Linking.

'''John Seigenthaler''' is a [[Tennessee]] [[journalist]] who was also an assistant to [[Robert F. Kennedy]] when Kennedy was [[United States Attorney General]]. Seigenthaler helped end segregation in the South. Seigenthaler recently became involved in a high profile controversy after his [[Wikipedia]] entry was edited to include inaccurate information and not repaired for four months.

==Journalism==

Seigenthaler worked as a journalist at the [[The Tennessean]] before going on to help found [[USA Today]].<ref>http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/biography.aspx?name=seigenthaler </ref>

==Segregation==

In 1961, Siegenthaler was sent by the federal government to [[Alabama]] to help ensure safety for the [[Freedom ride|Freedom Riders]]. After the [[Democrat]]ic Governor [[John Patterson]] had failed to order protection for the Freedom Riders, Siegenthaler stood in front of a mob to protect their safety and was beaten unconscious by the mob despite his warnings that he was with the Federal Government.

==Wikipedia==

In May 2005, an unregistered editor added to the article on Siegenthaler in Wikipedia that "For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." This stayed up for four months until Siegenthaler himself saw it and tried to take it down. Siegenthaler published an account of his experience and associated [[Bias in Wikipedia|problems with Wikipedia]] in ''[[USA Today]]''.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm </ref> Siegenthaler then attempted to identify who had made the edit, but was unsuccessful until [[Daniel Brandt]] was able to trace back the IP address to a specific corporation whereupon the perpetrator was identified.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-11-wikipedia-apology_x.htm </ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Seigenthaler, John}}

[[Category:Journalists]]
[[Category:Political Figures]]
[[Category:Wikipedia Critics]]

Political Profiling

2012-02-23T17:32:47Z

Michaeldsuarez: Linking.

'''Political profiling''' is an activity certain "watchdog" organizations engage in on various [[computer]] bulletin boards, chat rooms and wikis. A internet user's postings under either their real life identity of pseudonym may be "profiled" for their ideological convictions based upon editing patterns, interests, subject matter, common references, or declared beliefs. The profile is then pigeon-holed into predetermined character assessments published by the watchdog organizations. Political profiling has been referred to as the rough equivalent of profiling all Black males on the grounds that a certain percentage may commit violent crimes. In the sense that targeting minorities for special surveillance is called “racial profiling,” the so called "watchdog organizations" engage in "political profiling." Some watchdog groups hold law enforcement conferences, seminars, training sessions, and publish manuals on this “profiling” behavior.

==Introduction==

[[Daniel Brandt]], founder of the Wikipedia-Watch website describes watchdog organizations that use political profiling as "private intelligence agencies", and remarks as a private agency, they enjoy
{{Cquote|no oversight, no requirements for probable cause prior to political spying, and no Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act responsibilities to the public. By contrast, the FBI, CIA, and some major police departments in the U.S. are held accountable by various hard-won legal restrictions. <ref>Daniel Brandt, [http://www.namebase.org/news02.html ''Cyberspace Wars: Microprocessing vs. Big Brother''], NameBase NewsLine', No. 2, July-August 1993.</ref>}}

Walter James O'Brien refers to them as "civilian agencies." <ref>[http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/ Walter James O'Brien], [http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf ''Nazism, the Internet and Culture of Violence,] A preliminary survey toward preventing a third world war'', 1999, pgs. 3, 6-9, 12, 14, 61, 63, 68. Written to compete for the Trench Gascoigne Prize offered by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies (http://www.rusi.org); retrieved from http://rjayco.com/ 06/10/07.</ref> And Laird Wilcox uses similar language in discussing their activities,

{{Cquote|Any citizen can obtain their FBI files through the Freedom of Information Act....There is no such mechanism by which a private American citizen can obtain their files compiled by private Watchdog organizations.... You cannot correct errors... they may have obtained information that government agencies cannot legally collect on its own. This... is something that goes on all the time and represents a serious civil liberties issue. <ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Editorial Research Service, 1999, pg. 15. ISBN 0-993592-96-5. </ref>}}

Some watchdog organizations have been criticized for the misuse of journalist shield laws to mask their domestic spying operations. Robert J. Friedman of the ''[[Village Voice]]'' commented:

{{Cquote|Journalists place information in the public domain where they are held accountable for falsehoods, distortions, and libel. And for the most part, journalists don’t share their files with domestic police agencies... many of [the "watchdog" agency] files are not open to public scrutiny, false information collected by ideologically biased researchers cannot be corrected. <ref>Robert J. Friedman, ''The Anti-Defamation League is Spying On You'', The Village Voice, 11 May 1993. </ref>}}

Wilcox observes the watchdog's publications are designed to support the ideological agenda of a like minded group, and not provide “news.” Their publishing activities are only a small part of its program, most of which is fundraising, lobbying, and maintaining enemies lists. <ref>Laird Wilcox, ''The Watchdogs'', 1999, pgs 54-56.</ref> Wilcox, who is cited by the ''Military Law Review'' as one the "foremost expert analysts of right and left-wing extremism" <ref>MAJ Walter M. Hudson, [http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/277C75~1.pdf ''Racial Extremism in the Army''], The Military Law Review, Vol 159 (Mar 99), pg. 7, Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159.</ref>, and has published numerous books and articles on various extreme groups in America since the early 1960s, including ''American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists and Others'' by Prometheus Books, chronicles the excesses of the watchdog industry, and asks, "Who is watching the Watchdogs?"

{{Cquote|The simple fact is there are money and careers to be made....an entrenched industry exists... that has attracted bullying, moralizing fanatics, whose identity and livelihood depend upon growth and expansion...There is a [[humanist]] anti-racism that focuses on reconciliation and healing, that works to bring people together, that functions openly and honestly without the use of dossiers, spies, specious lawsuits, [[disinformation]], and that recognizes the rights of individuals whether they agree with one another or not. This is the anti-racism of good neighbors, of people helping people, of community goodwill, and of the realization that we are all human beings....

On the other hand there is a vindictive and corrupt anti-racism that focuses on paybacks and punishment, that demonizes and degrades its critics, that attempts to carve out special rights for its constituency, that opposes free and open discussion of ideas, that attempts to silence, censor and stifle its opposition through intimidation and harassment, and encourages law enforcement scrutiny of opponents because of their alleged values, opinions and beliefs. This kind of anti-racism is more dangerous than the problem it purports to remedy, and this is the anti-racism that tends to characterize the Watchdog organizations.}}

Wilcox successfully demonstrates many of the watchdog's enemies are actually imagined enemies.

{{Cquote|Watchdog organizations tend to define themselves in terms of their opposition, i.e., the various individuals and organizations they call “extremist,” and depend upon this opposition to justify their existence, their intense hatred of their enemies, and their often questionable fund-raising activities. Moreover, Watchdog groups tend to exaggerate the divisions that exist in American society. In fact, the supposed polar opposites on the [[political spectrum|ideological spectrum]] have far more in common than they do in opposition. ...studies suggest that extremism is overestimated in American politics and that the differences between left and right are partly imagined.}}

The [[Wikipedia]] project has worked in close collaboration with several alleged humanitarian "watchdog" groups. The "Notable Wikipedia Experts" entrusted with this venture [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/033813.html] are immune to all Wikipedia's published policies, ''WP:Attribution'', ''WP:No self promotion'', ''WP:Experts do not hold a place of privilege'', ''WP:Citing self'', ''WP:No personal attacks'', ''WP:Civility'', and ''WP:Wikipedia is not a battleground'' are the most often cited policy violations that go unenforced against these private organizations which are granted license to publicly slander at will. <ref>Chirsi Arabia, [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352 Leftist Lie Factory], ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', October 16, 2003.</ref> [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6799&st=0&p=22830&mode=linear#entry22830]

==Links and Ties==

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The ''fallacy of composition'' consists in reasoning improperly from a property of a member of a group to a property of the group itself.... It occurs in two varieties: First, it falsely extrapolates a quality of one group member to all group members....Second, it is possible to transfer a quality of a member to the group itself. 

The ''fallacy of division'' is the converse of the ''fallacy of composition''. It occurs when somebody reasons falsely from a quality of the group to a quality of a member of group. 

The converse ''fallacy of difference'', on the other hand, renders a special judgment upon a group for a quality which is not special to it. 

The ''fallacy of the perfect analogy'' consists in reasoning from a partial resemblance between two entities to an entire and exact correspondence. <ref>David Hacket Fisher, ''Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought'', New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970, 219-223.</ref></blockquote>
Consider the following account of the “links and ties” of [[U. S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas]] offered by Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates. Berlet notes correctly that Thomas is on the editorial board of the ''Lincoln Review'', a quarterly black conservative publication of the Lincoln Institute. Berlet claims “it is a far right group that has worked in coalition with… fascist and anti-Semitic groups.”

Berlet goes on to “link” Lincoln Institute head J. A. Baker with the Indiana [[Ku Klux Klan]] by virtue that Baker is on the board of the Council for National Policy and another board member is allegedly a former member of the Indiana Ku Klux Klan. Finally, Berlet says, The Lincoln Institute, with which Clarence Thomas has been affiliated in an official policy for close to ten years, was also a member group in the Coalition for Peace Through Strength. As author Russ Bellant discusses, the Coalition includes a number of racist, pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups." <ref>Chip Berlet, “A Few Facts About Clarence Thomas,” published by Rock Out Censorship (1997).</ref>

“Links and ties” is another name for ''argumentum ad hominem'' or [[guilt by association]],
which has both legitimate and illegitimate uses. If someone has been an active member of an ideological organization for many years, or a regular writer for an ideological publication, or routinely and regularly associates with a particular ideological crowd while professing sympathy and solidarity with them, and this has bona fide bearing on a particular issue, then the “link” or “tie” is probably significant.

This kind of analysis is subject to abuse, however. For ideological thinkers, a mere hint of “links and ties” may lead to great intuitive leaps that have no basis in fact.

Marxist or Nazi groups often demand great compliance with doctrine. It is unlikely that [[Chicago Area Friends of Albania]], for example, would let someone become a founding member unless that person had been in substantial agreement with its ideological program. In most cases the existence of “links and ties” or past political associations should be viewed as a statement of where people were at that particular time in their lives.

==Profiled groups==
The following two subsections, "[[Theocratic]]" and [[Wise use]], are taken from ''Understanding the Right Wing'', by Scot Nakagawa <ref>Scot Nakagawa, [http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=8210562338425&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE ''Understanding The Right Wing''], When Democracy Works, n.d.</ref> written about 1999 and lists various groups classified as "right wing" and "proto-fascist". This list and accompanying search engine terms have been expanded in the following years. Nakagawa accredits [[Political Research Associates]] ([[Chip Berlet]], Surina Khan, and [[Jean Hardisty]] [retired], the Coalition for Human Dignity (Jonathan Mozzochi, Steven Gardiner, and Gillian Leichtling), [[People for the American Way]], The Institute for First Amendment Studies, Sara Diamond, and the Western States Center (Tarso Ramos).

All these groups and the person associated with them have been the target of "political profiling", as discussed by Laird Wilcox. Dr. Dobson and Paul Weyrich, among several others, have been viciously smeared in Wikipedia, in violation of Wikipedia's own policies on Neutral Point of View {NPOV}, WP:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT), WP:Attribution, and a host of other policies. Wikipedia claims immunity under Sec. 230 of the Internet Decency Act of 1998 which exempts a hosting facility from liability for content.

==="'''Theocratic'''"===

*[[Concerned Women for America]] (CWA)
*[[Christian Coalition]]
*[[Focus on the Family]] ([[Dr. James Dobson]])
*[[American Family Association]] (AFA)
*[[Traditional Values Coalition]]
*[[Free Congress Foundation]] ([[Paul Weyrich]]) [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7075&view=findpost&p=23788]

==='''Wise use'''===

*Alliance for America
*Evergreen Foundation
*Sea Lion Defense Fund
*Environmental Conservation Organization
*[[People for the West]]
*[[National Wetlands Coalition]]

==="'''Hate groups'''"===

The organizations listed below were taken from the Southern Poverty Law Center's ''Intelligence Report'' <ref>Chip Berlet, [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=50 ''Into the Mainstream], SPLC ''Intelligence Report'', Summer 2003</ref> written by Berlet. Berlet classifies these groups as "[[hate groups]]", and some of the defamatory smears have made their way into Wikipedia, despite numerous violations of Wikipedia's stated policies.

*The American Cause
*[[American Enterprise Institute]] (AEI)
*American Immigration Control Foundation
*[[The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation]]
*Castle Rock Foundation
*Center for American Unity
*[[Center for the Study of Popular Culture]] ([[David Horowitz]])
*Federation for American Immigration Reform
*Free Congress Foundation (Paul Weyrich)
*Institute for the Study of Man
*[[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] (LvMI) [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6796&st=0&p=22861&mode=linear#entry22861]
*New Century Foundation
*[[John M. Olin Foundation]]
*[[Pioneer Fund]] [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106#14]
*Rockford Institute
*[[Scaife Foundations]]
*U.S. Inc.

==Various profiles==
The profiling process of these watchdog organizations begins with identifying certain organizations, both high profile and marginal, determine their ideological content measured against the ideological views and prejudices of the watchdogs themselves, then link them in some way to extremism through an outrageous guilt by association smear. Numerous examples abound over the past 10 years, and Wikipedia has increasing become the seat of their operations. Examples include,

*Daniel Brandt was the victim of a much publicized ongoing defamation based upon his split with an anti-Trotskyite cabal on the extreme left more than 15 years ago;
*Dr. James Dobson is linked to racism and the Ku Klux Klan [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council#Racism_allegations] through a convoluted series of accusations [[Dominionism#The_.22Christer.22_controversy|intended to undermine the so-called "Christian Right]]" (which is interchangeable with "Christian Fascism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fascism#Christianity_in_the_United_States] in Wikipedia);
*Senator Thad Cochrane is slandered with invective aimed at another person;
*Paul Weyrich is linked to "Christian Fascism" which is defined as a Protestant movement, despite his being a devout Catholic, because of Weyrich's organizational work for the Republican party beginning in the late 1970s; [http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/5/134631/4277]
*David Horowitz is slandered as operating a "hate group" because of opposition to reparations; [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106#7]
*The Ludwig von Mises Institute is profiled as "neo-confederate", allegedly advocating segregartion, slavery, and lynchings because an author dared criticize Abraham Lincoln for passing an [[income tax]] during the [[Civil War]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#Historical_views]

==Wise use movement targeted==

A particularly shocking and dangerous example of [[guilt-by-association]] targeting and profiling occurred when two New Mexico grandmothers found themselves suspected of being [[terrorist]]s after appearing on a radio talk show where they criticized the federal government and the United Nations. Kay Stone and Jean Vallance were investigated by New Mexico Department of Public Safety (State Police) after appearing on KINN radio in Alamagordo in June, 1998.

State police Lt. Bill Bowers called the station and spoke with talk show host Mike Shinaberry, who was asked about the couple and Maude Rathgeber, the Otereo [[Republican party]] chairwomen, who had also been on the show in the past. According to Shinaberry:

{{Cquote|It bothered me that anyone would be the subject of an investigation simply because they got on the radio and said what they believed... None of them ever came close to espousing violence. <ref>Scott Parks, ''NM Women Worry They’re On Secret List ‘Radicals’'', Dallas Morning News, 13 September 1998.</ref>}}

According to ''The Dallas Morning News'', which covered the story from the beginning:

{{Cquote|Maj. Michael Francis, another state police officer...said the inquiries into Ms. Stone and Ms. Vallance sprang from the activities of a Domestic Terrorism Task Force, comprising local, state and federal agents. }}

The two women were also investigated by the military officials at a nearby Air Force Base:

{{Cquote|Six days later, on June 17, Mrs. Vallance said she received a phone call from Special Agent Amanda Finerty, from the office of special investigations [OSI] at Holloman Air Force Base.

Mrs. Vallance, a retired nurse who is married to a civilian employee at Holloman, said Agent Finerty asked about her religious affiliation and whether anyone was “planning something” against German pilots [stationed at the base].}}

All of this came about by the issuance of a manual entitled ''The Extreme Right: An Overview'' containing in large part material from a [[leftist]] "Watchdog" organization to law enforcement agencies. <ref>Laird Wilcox, ''The Watchdogs'', 1999, pg. 69.</ref> According to news sources:

{{Cquote|The 73-page document included profiles of fringe groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, as well as skinheads and extremists who believe each race should have its own land in the United States. Lumped into the manual’s description of terrorists, racists and other pariahs is an excerpt on the so-called “[[wise use]]” movement, which advocates more local control over federally owned lands. }}

Shinaberry was spurred to investigate this manual. Speaking again with Lt. Bill Bowers he was told “that the federal government had asked state police to create a -- he used the term intelligence database’ -- to make lists of people who might be radicals.” He also noted that the manual suggests an anti-government continuum of groups that apparently run from the most peaceful to those with a reputation for violence, with no distinction made between them. As it happened the contents of the manual were leaked to the public after the police inquiries into the two women.

Ranchers and loggers erupted in anger at the manual’s juxtaposition of the [[wise use]] movement with Nazi and Klan groups....Local government officials, concerned about the impact of federal policies on rural economies, also objected to the manual.

{{Cquote|They labeled us as dissidents when all we went to do is participate in decisions about how federal lands are used,” said Adam Polley, a Catron County official in western New Mexico. }}

[[Darren White]], the Governor’s cabinet secretary for the state police, apologized for the manual and issued a written apology dated 9 July 1998:

{{Cquote|I recognize that across New Mexico thousands of farmers, ranchers, miners, loggers and others are committed to preserving a way of life free from unnecessary regulation,” he wrote. “I believe free speech and the spoken word sustain our freedom. }}

The "Watchdog" organization manual and others like it continue to be circulated among law enforcement officials nationwide, even though its effect is to target ordinary American citizens on the basis of the values, opinions and beliefs. <ref>Laird Wilcox, ''The Watchdogs'', pg. 70. </ref> The Wise use movement was the target of political profiling and placed on the this leftist Watchdog list because if frequently takes positions contrary to the [[Sierra Club]] and the [[Wilderness Society]]. <ref>[http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=ef ATTAC Report].</ref>

==See also==
*[[The Bell Curve]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:political Terms]]

Jimmy Wales

2012-02-23T17:32:05Z

Michaeldsuarez: Linking.

[[Image:Jimmy_wales_1.jpg‎|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales]]
'''Jimmy Wales''' is the co-founder of the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|politically left]] online encyclopedia [[Wikipedia]] and self-described [[libertarian]]. Jimmy Wales claims to be an [[Objectivism|objectivist]] who follows the philosophy of [[atheist]] [[Ayn Rand]]. His favorite book is Rand's ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]''.<ref>[http://qanda.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1042 Interview with Jimmy Wales conducted by Brian Lamb], C-SPAN Transcript, September 25, 2005.</ref> Wales told an interviewer in ''Reason'' magazine, "One can't understand my ideas about Wikipedia without understanding [[Hayek]]...Wales is fleshing out and bringing to life Hayek's insights about the power of decentralized knowledge gathering, the surprising strength of communities bound only by reputation, and the fluidity of self-governance." <ref>[http://reason.com/news/show/119689.html Wikipedia and Beyond],
Jimmy Wales' sprawling vision, Katherine Mangu-Ward, ''Reasononline.com'', June 2007.</ref> These ideas that Wales claims to follow were put forward in Hayek's essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society". However there is thin evidence for his being a true follower of Hayek politically given the radical [[leftist]] agenda of Wales close confidants in control of Wikipedia.<ref name="Left_in_Control_of_Wikipedia">{{cite news
|first=Jim
|last=Davis
|title=Left in Control of Wikipedia
|url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/13/212015.shtml?s=lh
|work=
|publisher=[[NewsMax]]
|date=May 14, 2007
|accessdate=2007-10-04}}</ref> Wales describes himself as a [[communitarianism|communitarian]] (someone who could be said to be "radical center", meaning they agree with the left on issues relating to the economy, such as the need for environmental protection and public education, but not on cultural issues, but instead generally agree with the right or conservatives on cultural issues, such as support for character education and faith-based programs).<ref name="Left_in_Control_of_Wikipedia"/> The revisions have since been deleted by liberal Wikipedia administrators wishing to protect Jimbo's public image.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=238013334&oldid=366216764</ref> Editors trying to make this point in Wikipedia are routinely [[politically profiled|profiled]], stalked, harassed, slandered, and banned. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref>

Jimmy Wales became a millionaire by trading commodity options; before funding Wikipedia, he funded Bomis Inc. in 1996, which contained pornographic material.<ref>http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69880</ref> Besides funding the non-profit Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales also funded the for-profit [[Wikia]], a company that provides wiki services for businesses and organizations.

Wales was caught editing his own profile on Wikipedia in a bit of a scandal in an effort to downplay [[Larry Sanger]]'s role in the company and distance himself from his Bomis past.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,69880,00.html ''Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio''] Wired. Accessed 17 March 2008</ref>

==Controversy==

In early October 2005, former [[Robert F. Kennedy]] aide and retired journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]] contacted Wales about false and libelous information in his Wikipedia biographical entry. [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_Wikipedia_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay]] got the call to deal with the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> On December 1, 2005 Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine, the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry regarding [[Daniel Brandt]],
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all... I find it hard to take him very seriously ...<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}Brandt was the victim of malicious<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=60&p=22336&mode=linear#entry22336</ref> and vile slanders placed within his Wikipedia biographical entry<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=55132392</ref> by prominent Wikipedia contributors, in violation of numerous published Wikipedia policies.<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia#Impugning_critics Wikipedia#Impugning critics], Conservapedia.com</ref> Four days later in a joint appearance with Seigenthaler on [[CNN]] Wales said,
{{Cquote|we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns.<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>}}
Essjay was entrusted with oversight responsibilities in the wake of the Seigenthaler scandal and wrote to a professor to persuade her to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a "reliable source,"
{{Cquote|It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before.}}

The derogatory smears against Brandt, self-cited to a certifiably "extremist source" which "should never be used" remained in Brandt's biography for one and half years, with Jimbo Wales and the WikiMedia Foundations full knowledge.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://blog.jimmywales.com/ Jimmy Wales' Blog] (this blog was last updated Feb. 16, 2007)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Wales, Jimmy}}

[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Business People]]

Google

2012-02-23T17:31:09Z

Michaeldsuarez: Linking.

[[File:Google.png|right|250px]]
'''Google''' is a company whose primary business is [[Internet]]-based services, including an extremely popular [[search engine]]. Google is associated with [[liberal]] causes and has been criticized for catering to communist [[China]] in censoring information from the people as requested by dictators:<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm</ref>

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

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

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

In addition, although claiming to generally avoid getting involved in matters outside their field, Google officially supports the [[liberal]] and social [[libertarian]] cause of so-called "[[same sex marriage]]."<ref>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html , Our position on California's No on 8 campaign</ref> On June 21, 2009, Google displayed a special multicolored line for searches on the word "gay". More troubling, Google recently announced plans to compensate employees to cover taxes paid on their domestic partner's health benefits, but only offers its 'generosity' to gay couples. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/01/google-raises-eyebrows-new-gay-employee-benefit/</ref>. Google is also big promoter of [[Charles Darwin]] and atheistic science, even to the point of giving special recognition to the anniversary of Darwin's birthday ("Darwin Day").

Major competitors of Google include [[Yahoo!]] and Microsoft's [[Bing]].

== Corporate Information ==

The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. He has announced that he is stepping down as CEO in 2011. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref>

Google also owns [[YouTube]], the homemade [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] is suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

After much debate about their corporate Code of Conduct, Google's founders settled on the all-encompassing "Don't be evil", saying,"It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards". <ref>[http://investor.google.com/conduct.html Google Code of Conduct]</ref> This Code of Conduct has generated much criticism, saying they have missed that mark badly.

==History==
[[Image:Google2.gif|thumb|right|300px| Google's logo on [[Earth Day]], April 22, 2007.]]

===Founding===

Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref>

===Growth===

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

===Competition===
[[Microsoft]] has been aggressively competing with Google for a larger share of the search market. Their latest effort, [[Bing]].com, is a "next generation" search service which has generated praise for its user interface and criticism for its speed and performance in comparison to Google and Yahoo.

==Secular Progressive Culture==

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

Google often honors Russia with their logo of Sputnik and for composer Igor Stravinsky. However, they did not honor [[United States]] Flag Day, June 14. (Their competitor [[Bing]] prominently displayed [[Old Glory]].)

=== Google versus Conservatives ===

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

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

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

* Without any prior explanation or notice, Google had been terminating its News relationships with conservative e-zines and web journals. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/5477 Is Google Purging Conservative News Sites? NewsBusters, May 22, 2006]</ref>

* Google attempted to minimize global awareness of the [[ClimateGate]] emails and the truth about the [[anthropogenic global warming theory]], whence the term "[[Climategate#Googlegate|Googlegate]]" gained recognition across the [[Web]]. Non-coincidentally, [[Al Gore]] is on the Google advisory board.

* Curiously, leading up to [[Restoring Honor 8-28|Restoring Honor 8-28-10]] -- on Google Maps -- the [[Lincoln Memorial]] was being misplaced in favor of the [http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=204373&page=1&zoomIdx=1 Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial], which is a good half a mile south of the more famous memorial.<ref>Sarah Jacobsson Purewal. [http://www.pcworld.com/article/204373/google_maps_misplaces_lincoln_memorial.html Google Maps Misplaces Lincoln Memorial], ''PC World'', Aug 28, 2010.</ref> This may have been an ongoing, known problem or bug in Google Maps that hadn't been fixed yet; or, Google is censoring search results; or, Google is playing with searches for political power and gain.

=== Google versus Anti- Obama Blogs ===

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

=== Google sensitive to Islam ===

In 2010, it was noted that Google's suggestive searches for the world's various religions would bring up many negative results for [[Christianity]], Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. Typing a search for "Christianity is..." the results would be "Christianity is a lie," or "Judaism is..." would be "Judaism is a cult." Google removed negative search suggestions when typing "Islam is..." <ref>[http://thenextweb.com/2010/01/05/google-blocking-negative-search-recommendations-islam/ Google Blocking Negative Search Recommendations On Islam – Why?, The Next Web, May 1, 2010]</ref>, however it seems that Google has reverted this, as the current first suggestion when typing "islam is..." is "Islam is evil".

== Google bombing ==

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

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

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

== Controversy ==

=== Tax Dodging ===

A report by Bloomberg News has Google setting up offshore banks accounts to avoid paying taxes on foreign profits. More than $3.9 billion dollars have made it to [[Bermuda]] bank accounts over the last several years. Google has cut its effective tax rate abroad to just 2.4%. The practice is common and [[George Soros]] has been known to place his billions of dollars in Cayman Island banks. This costs the U.S. government more than $60 billion dollars in revenue. <ref>[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/After-news-of-Google-tax-dodges-Obama-raises-money-with-Google-execs-105513473.html#ixzz13LE2lg1F After news of Google tax dodges, Obama raises money with Google execs, Washington Examiner, October 22, 2010]</ref>

=== Privacy Concerns===

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

=== Hypocrisy on Net neutrality ===

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

=== Relationship with the Obama Administration ===

Consumer Watchdog crafted a 32-page report detailing how Google has inappropriately benefited from its close ties to the Obama Administration. [[NASA]]'s Moffett Airfield has been turned into a taxpayer-subsidized private airport for Google executives used for corporate junkets. NASA's Moffett Airfield is a short distance from Google's world headquarters. The report details, ''"A growing fleet of jets and helicopters stand ready to ferry the company's top executives near or far, for business or pleasure, for vacations or schmoozing, including at least three wintertime trips to the [[Caribbean]] and a trip by Google chief executive Eric Schmidt to the Cannes Film Festival."'' <ref>[http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1983792/consumer_watchdog_sends_issas_oversight_committee_google_report_showing_inappropriate/index.html Consumer Watchdog Sends Issa's Oversight Committee Google Report Showing Inappropriate Relationship with Obama Administration, RedOrbit.com, January 24, 2011]</ref>

==International Agitation==

Google's Map service is responsible for escalating tensions between foreign nations by radically misleading versions of current borders.

Google has been labeled "professionally irresponsible" for disseminated [[Cambodia]] territory, which is embroiled in a bitter diplomatic row with Thailand over the demarcation of the frontier. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/05/cambodia-google-idUSSGE61406G20100205 Cambodia blasts Google map of disputed Thai border, Reuters, February 5, 2010]</ref>

[[Costa Rica]] took offense to Google Maps version showing that a specific area of encampment was on Nicaraguan soil. The dispute that had ensued over Google's version of the Nicaragua-Costa Rica border has became rather serious. So much so that the secretary general of the [[Organization of American States]] had to intervene. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20021977-71.html Envoy to solve latest Google Maps border dispute? CNET, November 5, 2010</ref> <ref>[http://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/google-maps-blamed-for-border-dispute/ GOOGLE MAPS BLAMED for BORDER DISPUTE, Spectre Footnotes, November 11, 2010]</ref>

Google Maps was busy fixing another error in its map program of a port city that reignited border tensions between [[Germany]] and The Netherlands. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/21/google-maps-slipup-sparks-diplomatic-crisis/ Google Maps Blunder Reignites Centuries Old Border Dispute, Fox News, February 21, 2011]</ref>

===Egyptian Uprising===

Google executive Wael Ghonim helped with protesting [[Egypt]]'s rule of [[Hosni Mubarak]], calling for him to step down and organizing protests. He was detained by authorities and released after two weeks. Ghonim is credited as being a major factor in sparking Egypt's uprising. Google CEO Eric Schmidt said that Google is "very, very proud" of Wael Ghonim. <ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/02/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-says-company-is-proud-of-wael-ghonim-in-egypt.html Google CEO Eric Schmidt says company is 'very proud' of Egypt's Wael Ghonim, LA Times, February 15, 2011]</ref>

===Wi-Fi Snooping===

Google collected information from [[Wi-Fi]] networks as its street-view vans cruised neighborhoods around the globe, raising issues in more than 30 countries. The information Google gathered included e-mail fragments and passwords, alarming politicians and privacy and security advocates in Germany, France, and [[Spain]]. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/22/national-security-google-wi-fi-spy-scandal/ Is National Security Behind Google's Wi-Fi Spying?, Fox News, July 23, 2010]</ref> It was noted that Google supplies special mapping and search products to the U.S. military and intelligence community, with some Google employees enjoying top secret clearance to work with the government. Google said it was "accidental" data gathering. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, a senior [[Republican]] lawmaker, suggested that Google's data collection wasn't accidental and that it was "something to look at." Under the Democrat leadership, the [[FCC]] investigated but dropped further inquiry coincidently, just before a Google [[Democrat]] fundraiser was held. Many groups have been calling on Republican [[Darrell Issa]] to investigate Google's cozy relationship with the [[Obama administration]]. <ref>[http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2010/11/10/congress-must-investigate-google-obama-ties Congress Must Investigate Google-Obama Ties, National Legal and Policy Center, November 10, 2010]</ref>

*France: Privacy watchdog CNIL awarded its largest fine to date with a judgement of $141,300 against Google in relation to snooping. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/21/general-broadcasting-amp-entertainment-eu-france-google-fined_8366482.html France fines Google for Street View privacy breach, Forbes, March 21, 2011]</ref>

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

== External Links ==
* [http://www.google-watch.org/ Google Watch]

[[Category: United States Businesses]]
[[Category:Google]]
[[Category:Websites]]

Wikipedia

2012-02-23T17:30:14Z

Michaeldsuarez: Linking.

[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]

'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] online [[encyclopedia]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm</ref> written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of anonymous persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK)<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>, teenagers and unemployed persons.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref> However, in 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref> In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote|"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</ref>}}
The project was initiated by [[atheism|atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref> An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref>

Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011</ref> However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].

==Origins==
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>
== Leftist bias ==

See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]

David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:
{{cquote|There was not a single ideological vision driving Wikipedia’s founders and core contributors as they launched the project. Jimmy Wales, who would become the face of the project and its “benevolent dictator,” according to Andrew Lih’s ''The Wikipedia Revolution'', is a libertarian and [[Ayn Rand|Ayn Randian]] [[Objectivism|Objectivist]]. Also important in shaping Wikipedia was the so-called “hacker ethos,” the culture that has developed amongst computer programmers over the last 40 years and been shaped by the Left, the counterculture, popular culture, and [[anarchism|anarchist]] thought.

What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] ideal that human beings are more prone to [[altruism]] rather than self-interest. In Wikipedia Revolution Wales is quoted as saying, “Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good… It’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries in Wikipeda, that most people only want to help us and build this free nonprofit, charitable resource.” Ward Cunningham was the programmer who created the wiki concept and software. According to Lih, he believed in the Wiki because “People are generally good.”

Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:

A core idea Wikipedia embraced.. was to assume good faith when interacting with others. The guideline promoted optimistic production rather than pessimistic nay-saying, and reads, “Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it; avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence.

But as it worked out, Wikipedia in practice has strayed from these utopian ideas because of the ease with which political and social bias trumps altruism.

After almost a decade of rapid growth and free-wheeling experimentation the situation at the site by the Summer of 2009 was chaos. Political operatives would sabotage one another in electoral contests by vandalizing pages. More malicious misinformation filtered in freely, with living historical figures accused of involvement in conspiratorial plots.<ref>http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>}}

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]

=== Research ===

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]] and he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]] which helped demonstrate the Wikipedia has a leftist/[[liberal]] bias plus he discussed the liberal/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref>

== Wikipedia on bestiality ==

''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]

As noted earlier, the Wikipedia project was initiated by [[atheism|atheists]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref>

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. As of September 22, 2011, Wikipedia's article on zoophilia/bestiality has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia. In addition, as of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "Zoophilia and the law" article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where 6 alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.

See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

==Quality==
''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.''
—Douglas Adams

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

==[[Liberal bias]]==

''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005 a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist [[Daniel Brandt]], a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed [[Chip Berlet]] from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel whose intelligence career stretched back to accompanying President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to the [[Teheran conference]], was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. A Brandt biographical page was created using Berlet as the source for unsavory attacks on Brandt. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=40&p=21441&mode=linear#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible.

===Biographies of living persons===

Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}

Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry. Brandt demanded accountability from the army of unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering [[Chip Berlet]]'s agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert."
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&st=0&p=36485&mode=linear#entry36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense group-think Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Additionally, the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==

''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]

An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref>}}

[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is "a 26-year-old geeky male" who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.<ref>[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]</ref>

=== Song excerpt ===

{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,
whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin'
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so
White and nerdy". - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic<ref>http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm</ref>}}

==Unbaised editor recruitment==
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it. It an extent, its editor pool is self-selecting. However, on January 25–29, 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation paid for Gregory Varnum and others to attend and staff a booth at the " 24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change" conference in Baltimore, Maryland. The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia. Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.
==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]

Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy

2012-02-23T17:28:08Z

Michaeldsuarez: Linking.

An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in [[Wikipedia]] in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility, and continues to plague the project. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.
[[Image:Prouty1.JPG|thumb|350px|right|Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (1917 - 2001).]]
__TOC__
[[Chip Berlet]] built a career writing in various far-left [[revolution]]ary publications, including ''[[Guardian (NY)]]'' of New York,<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Preface & Acknowledgements. Berlet writes, "John Stockwell gave an interview even though he felt my "Guardian" article on Craig Hulet implied Stockwell was an ally of "Bo" Gritz. That was not my intent, and I regret any misunderstanding and appreciate Mr. Stockwell's patience. Dan Brandt, whose Namebase research database software remains very useful, originally attempted to keep my criticisms of his defense of Fletcher Prouty in perspective." The ''Guardian'' article is cited at PublicEye.org, "Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left," ''The Guardian'' (NY), September 11, 1991, p. 3. [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html]</ref> founded by [[KGB]] agent [[Cedric Belfrage]], whose writers at times included KGB operatives [[Anna Louise Strong]], [[Agnes Smedley]], and [[Wilfred Burchett]]. Burchett was a long time personal friend of [[Ho Chi Minh]],<ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22613596-5012694,00.html Losing it in Nam], ''The Australian'', October 20, 2007.</ref> assisted in extracting confessions from American [[POW]]s in the [[Korean War]]<ref>[http://www.asiapacificms.com/articles/rebel_reporter/ A Rebel Reporter], Book Review by Bertil Lintner, Asia Pacific Media Services, August 2006.</ref> and spread [[disinformation]] about American use of [[germ warfare]] which Soviet Archives now conclusively have shown was a lie manufactured in the [[Kremlin]].<ref>Bruce B. Auster, [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981116/archive_005192.htm ''Unmasking An Old Lie: A Korean War Charge Is Exposed As a Hoax''], U. S. News & World Report (16 November 1998), p. 52.</ref> [[Progressives for Obama]] webmaster<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]] was also a contributor who did not resign immediately at the time of the open break between [[Maoist]]s on staff and ''Guardian'''s editorial management.”<ref>[http://www.revolutionintheair.com/chron/chron4.html Chronology of Political Events, Part Four 1975-1980.] Max Elbaum. Retrieved from Revolution In The Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che, March 18, 2010. Text reads, "'''1975-''' March-April: Break between the [October League] OL and the ''Guardian'', bitter private meetings and internal staff struggles; an exchange of public polemics on foreign policy, International Women’s Day actions/”no united action with [[deviationism|revisionist]]s” line; finally OL pulls its cadre out of the staff - Renee Blakkan, Martin Nicolaus, Nancy Nikcevich and Rod Such resign; [[Carl Davidson]] is also associated with the OL position but does not resign at this time/check this. (self-published material in BTr-3; Guardian, April 16, 1975 in BTr-4)"</ref>

Berlet and [[Daniel Brandt]] wrote for the ''[[Covert Action Information Bulletin]]'' in the 1970s, and Brandt wrote for ''[[CounterSpy]]'' magazine, edited by [[Philip Agee]] and [[Timothy Butz]]. Butz was also on the editorial staff of ''[[The Public Eye]]''<ref>"Public Eye Staff," ''The Public Eye'' (Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979), 3.</ref> with Berlet as managing editor<ref>''The Public Eye'', Volume III, Issues 1 and 2 (1981).</ref> and which Berlet describes as a "spawn of the first ''Counterspy''."<ref>Chip Berlet and Linda Lotz, ''Reading List on Intelligence Agencies and Political Repression,'' (NY:National Lawyers Guild Civil Liberties Committee, Rev. 1/14/91).</ref> ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the names of several [[CIA]] agents,<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948672,00.html?iid=chix-sphere Dirty Work], ''[[Time magazine]]'', Monday, Oct. 02, 1978.</ref> including CIA Athens Station Chief [[Richard S. Welch]] who was murdered by the [[terrorist]] [[Revolutionary Organization 17 November]] in 1975<ref>''[[Washington Post]]'', [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/137503422.html?did=137503422&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Dec+29,+1975&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post++(1974-Current+file)&desc=Richard+S.+Welch Obituary: Richard S. Welch], 29 December 1975, A16. ISBN 01908286 </ref> and gave the impetus for passage of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]].<ref>For The Record, ''Washington Post'', 27 July 1980. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2005/col20051101.asp]</ref> Berlet was also a member of Brandt’s Public Information Research board of advisers, but Berlet's extreme [[leftism]] demands ideological purity from its followers. Berlet made an ultimatum to remove another Board member.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed Berlet from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included, in Berlet's words, "LaRouche-defender Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel whose intelligence career stretched back to accompanying President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to the [[Teheran conference]], was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. Berlet considered Prouty a [[fascist]]. Brandt retorted, "When it came to making a choice between Prouty and Berlet, it was a rather easy decision for me to make."<ref name="wikipediareview18679">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5315&st=0&p=18679&mode=linear#entry18679</ref> Berlet further sought to undermine Brandt by convincing three others to quit, adding "He (Brandt) was mad"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> but admitting "On the other hand, Brandt is highly critical of the LaRouchians."<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-research-associates/right.w.left ''Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected]'', Chip Berlet, Part 033 ''The JFK Conspiracy'' - November 22, 1993. Retrieved from the Nizkor Project, October 29, 2007.</ref>

The WikiMedia Foundation retained Berlet - despite his penchant for excess,<ref>Brandt notes, "Berlet, from Political Research Associates, is always denouncing folks as right-wing, fascist, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, sexist, cultic, or conspiracist." [http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01/SQ]</ref> to deal with the ceaseless barrage of idiosyncratic musings from the followers of [[Lyndon LaRouche]]- until July 2008 when Berlet requested that his account be deleted, and he appeared to stop editing Wikipedia<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cberlet</ref>

=== Impugning critics ===

'''Neutral Point of View (NPOV)''' requires,
{{Cquote|without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles.}}
Berlet complained about criticism in his Wikipedia biographical entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and the organization he is associated with, [[Political Research Associates]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_Research_Associates&diff=prev&oldid=24242896</ref> One critic was blasted in the article mainspace with an unsourced, unspecified rebuttal by Berlet as "unethical;" when an editor asked if the charge by Berlet could be substantiated the editor was rebuked and accused of "harassing a controversial expert."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_2#Laird_Wilcox</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Harassment_of_controversial_experts</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Dispute_Resolution_Process</ref> Another reliable source in the article read,
{{Cquote|one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s 'crusade' against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet 'may try to undermine your work and isolate you.' <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352 Chip Berlet: Leftist Lie Factory], By Chris Arabia, FrontPageMagazine.com October 16, 2003.</ref>}}
Berlet stated, "This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21</ref> and a Daniel Brandt entry on Wikipedia soon was created. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref name="wikipediareview21441">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=40&p=21441&mode=linear#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible. Brandt observed, "I soon discovered that she had slimed me in defense of Chip Berlet several months earlier."<ref name="wikipediareview21441"/><ref name="wikipediareview23072">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6666&st=20&p=23072&mode=linear#entry23072</ref><ref>SlimVirgin stated on stated 21:57, Dec 28, 2004, "Daniel Brandt is not a reputable source." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chip_Berlet/Archive_1 Talk:Chip Berlet/Archive 1], and at 23:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) "I removed Daniel Brandt. He's not a credible source"[http://www.talkaboutalternative.com/group/alt.conspiracy/messages/1164072.html]</ref>

'''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Self-published sources''' states,
[[Image:25may2006cberlet2.GIF|thumb|300px|right|Berlet inserts highly inflammatory, guilt by association material cited to himself; the slanders remained for at least 16 months.]]
{{Cquote|Self-published sources should never be used as sources for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements about living persons other than their author;<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources</ref>}}
'''Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Reliable sources''' states,
{{Cquote|Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the '''No original research''' and '''Verifiability''' policies, and could lead to [[libel]] claims....Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links...Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person that is controversial, or derogatory...<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Reliable_sources</ref>}}
Brandt is also a registered user at Wikipedia, hence '''No Personal Attacks''' and '''Civility''' clauses apply, in addition to '''What Wikipedia is Not''', a vehicle for propaganda, advertising or self-promotion, and '''Wikipedia is not a battleground'''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground</ref>

'''Wikipedia:No Original Research''', which has undergone several revisions, at the time stated, "This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge...If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere...the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person...They must cite reliable, third-party publications... bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=50820065#The_role_of_expert_editors</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Citing_oneself</ref>
'''Wikipedia:Ownership of articles''' prohibits asserting ownership over articles, particularly where a [[conflict of interest]] may arise. Chip Berlet has been cautioned by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee on several occasions about over involvement in his Wikipedia biography.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-12-19/Arbitration_report</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Cberlet_cautioned_regarding_autobiography</ref> When Berlet was unable to have criticism sourced to Brandt removed from his entry, Berlet dredged up a 16 year old highly inflammatory and vicious [[guilt by association]] smear against Brandt to elevate Berlet's own personal credibility and further undermine Brandt as a reputable critic of Chip Berlet. Berlet himself placed the slanders in Wikipedia entries about Brandt, citing himself, and using his own in-house self publishing source. Despite rigorous protestations and appeals to the WikiMedia Foundation Board of Trustees and the ultimate arbitrator Jimbo Wales himself, the slanders remained in for a year and half.



=== What is a reputable source? ===

[[Image:Americanextremist.JPG|thumb|300px|right|[http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America,'']John George and Laird Wilcox, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, Chapter 9, ''[[Guardian]]'', pgs. 125-131. (ISBN 0-87975-680-2)]]
Several official Wikipedia policies were rewritten<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Workshop#Request_of_finding_for_ex_post_facto_policy_changes Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Workshop/Request of finding for ex post facto policy changes].</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&diff=31675236&oldid=31668491 Wikipedia:No original research], Revision as of 00:21, 17 December 2005; SlimVirgin removes the language, "Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia."</ref>and modified at various times to exempt [[Chip Berlet]] from provisions and applications. Enforcement of basic civility clauses and no personal attacks regarding Berlet's conduct are routinely ignored. Berlet considers himself an expert on the subject of anti-Semitism, but was unanimously rejected by several key and influential Wikipedia Administrators<ref>"I, '''Jayjg''', hereby award you this '''Barnstar''' for your scrupulous adherence to Wikipedia policy and standards, most recently in your brilliant use of '''reliable sources''' at '''Holocaust Denial'''. 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Goodoldpolonius2&diff=41765875&oldid=40600697], retrieved from WP/User:Goodoldpolonius2, October 14, 2007.</ref><ref>Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Revision as of 00:01, 8 August 2005. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20507026&oldid=20505285]</ref> as a reputable source<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#What_counts_as_reputable.3F Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20321342&oldid=20321025 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/Deep problems with the article], Revision as of 07:17, 5 August 2005, Goodoldpolonius2; "the whole article is essentially original research. The only source cited (besides Chip Berlet's chart, which, whatever its merits, has remarkably little to do with the roots of racial anti-Semitism in the 19th century)....The racial anti-Semitism section is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=20321341#Racial_anti-Semitism not factually correct]."</ref> for the Wikipedia [[mainspace]] article, "Roots of Anti-Semitism" in 2005. As of October 2007, Wikipedia's '''Reliable sources/Extremist sources''' policy stated,
{{Cquote|Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as [[extremist]], whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Extreme sources], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 14, 2007.</ref>}}
High level Wikipedia Administrator SlimVirgin, in a remarkably transparent action removed herself as a defendant<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21733464 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], SlimVirgin (→Rangerdude - moved Katefan's); SlimVirgin made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=21732881 '''involved third party: Katefan0'''] a full party to take her place in the case after ArbCom voted to Accept. Katefan0 it was discovered later was Kathryn Wolfe of ''Congressional Quarterly''[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7603&st=0&p=25526&mode=linear#entry25526][http://www.cq.com/corp/show.do?page=thissite_masthead] accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery. Wolfe lost her Senate press credentials when an undisclosed [[conflict of interest]] came to light regarding her activities as an anonymous Wikipedia Administrator. Wolfe was promoted to a Wikipedia Administrator after her role in the frame up of the complaining party. Wolfe initiated Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures over an article about a former employer, the ''Houston Chronicle''. The facts were made known to ArbCom. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was a policy, and not a guideline. Several parties were known to enter Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Procedures, signing an agreement to participate in Good Faith, only to be viciously defamed in a public forum accessible to Google search engines, without recourse, and both the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and WikiMedia Foundation turned a blind eye to the situation.</ref> from Wikipedia's internal policy making and self-regulatory process governing user conduct known as Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee voted to accept a complaint filed against her<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin], Revision as of 15:45, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept);[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=next&oldid=25438528 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude], Revision as of 15:46, 13 October 2005, Mindspillage (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0) - accept and merge)".</ref> to review her conduct. SlimVirgin made the Complaining party the defendant, removed herself, and placed a third party, User:Katefan0 in her place. SlimVirgin then presented evidence in the same case which stated,
{{Cquote|'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' a passage I (SlimVirgin) was the author of back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Evidence/Response to suggestion that I violated NPOV and AGF], From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC).</ref>}}
The Complaining party stated,
{{Cquote|the section you cite giving the Socialist Worker's Party as an example of an extreme source actually seems to solidify my case against Mr. Berlet, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations?<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20292080&oldid=20249209 Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism/What counts as reputable?], Revision as of 21:49, 4 August 2005, Rangerdude.</ref>}}
Nonetheless, reprisal actions were taken against the Complaining party who exposed the duplicity of Wikipedia internal regulatory processes and favoritism granted to an extreme [[leftist]] writer.

=== Jimbo Wales chooses sides in the dispute ===

The negative publicity engendered by the Seigenthaler and Brandt cases put Wikipedia into crisis management mode. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all, based on my interactions with him. I tried very hard to help him, and he misrepresented nearly everything about our conversation in his very strange rant. He considers the very existence of a Wikipedia article about him to be a privacy violation, despite being a public person. I find it hard to take him very seriously at all. He misrepresents everything about our procedures, claiming that we have a 'secret police' and so on.<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}

Wales comments had an immediate threefold effect: 1) this was exactly what Berlet wanted, an official statement declaring Brandt was not a reliable source of criticism on Chip Berlet; 2) it fueled the already existent anti-Brandt sentiment within the Wikipedia Admin community; and 3) Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry, yet another systemic violation of Wikipedia's own written policies. All hope for a civil and equitable resolution to the impasse was lost, and many unwitting dupes in the Wikipedia Admin community picked up the anti-Brandt torch to retain Brandt's biography simply because Brandt wanted it deleted. As in the Seigenthaler controversy, Brandt once again demanded accountability, this time from the army of unnamed, unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering Berlet's agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert," while concealing the [[extremist]] roots of Berlet's own background which would deny him inclusion as a source on anything other than himself.
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

===First casualty: a Congressional correspondent gets canned===

The first casualty in the war between Brandt and the Wikipedia Admin community<ref name="wikipediareview26282">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7785&st=0&p=26282&mode=linear#entry26282</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy&diff=prev&oldid=118823615</ref> was a reporter for ''Congressional Quarterly'' and accredited to the [[U.S. Senate]] Press Gallery.<ref name="wikipediareview7935">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1422&st=0&p=7935&mode=linear#entry7935</ref> User:Katefan0 was a member of the Association of Immoral Wikimedians<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=243978&oldid=243977</ref> founded by [[Jimbo Wales]].<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Immoral_Wikimedians&diff=232409&oldid=230690</ref> Brandt stated,
[[Image:Washington 05 183.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Katefan was accredited to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery; ArbCom knew of some her conflicts of interest.]]
{{Cquote|One thing that a professional journalist must always do is properly and completely identify themselves to those they interview, before the interview starts. I think it is safe to assume that her employer does not know that she became an anonymous administrator on Wikipedia last September. It's also safe to assume that she did not inform the standing committee that her gallery press pass application needed to be modified when she became active on Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia, she was making edits on articles about Congresspeople, and about Congressional politics and political issues. Wikipedia is arguably much more influential than the ''Congressional Quarterly'', even though CQ has a good reputation. Anonymous administrators at Wikipedia have tremendous power to shape the content of articles.

It is clear to me that she should have identified herself as an administrator at Wikipedia to everyone in [[Washington DC]] that she came in contact with professionally. Her position at Wikipedia was an obvious [[conflict of interest]] to the extent that it was not disclosed.<ref name="wikipediareview7935"/>}}

Katefan outed herself<ref>http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/KinF/messages/1416?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1</ref> but Brandt conceded the circumstances surrounding her exit from Wikipedia damaged his reputation. Meantime the issue of accountability at the forefront of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]] was all but forgotten as privacy concerns of anonymous Administrators surmounted defamations of innocent real life people whose identity was known.

Katefan initiated '''Wikipedia:Dispute resolution''' with a knowledgeable conservative editor over various controversies on the ''Houston Chronicle'' article, including references to the ''Chronicle's'' coverage of [[Republican]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom Delay]]. Katefan had in fact worked for the ''Houston Chronicle'' during many of these controversies,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14272141</ref> was using Original Research and admitted to being friends with editors and reporters on the ''Chronicle'' staff.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Houston_Chronicle/Archive_1#Response</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14339760</ref> Katefan removed properly sourced examples of the ''Chronicle's'' Editorial Board and her former co-workers [[hate speech]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=next&oldid=14285136</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14285136</ref> which included references to prominent Republicans as a subhuman species. Katefan's [[conflict of interest]] was made known to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Personal_attacks.2C_incivility_and_bullying</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Houston_Chronicle&diff=prev&oldid=14282308</ref> For her assistance in silencing, and ultimately harassing a knowledgeable conservative editor out of the project with an Arbitration ruling of "tendentious editing,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude#POV_editing_by_Rangerdude</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Rangerdude_placed_on_probation</ref> Katefan was promoted to Admin.

Not long after, another professional journalist politely protested Wikipedia's exceedingly biased entries about [[Paul Weyrich]]. Patently false information about Weyrich was cited to none other than Chip Berlet, with the customary alleged "links and ties" to "fascist" [[Dominionism]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dominionism/Archive_1#latest_removal</ref> Berlet's latest ideological crusade. The user admitted to being a member of the same Melkite [[Catholic]] parish as Mr. Weyrich,<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Well_referenced_but_biased_sources Talk:Paul Weyrich#Well referenced but biased sources]</ref> and offered to volunteer his professional expertise to improve Wikipedia's Dominionism series and bring neutral balance. The editor was instructed point blank by high level Wikipedia Administrators, "people with a vested interest in the content of an article should not edit it,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pravknight#Paul_Weyrich User talk:Pravknight#Paul Weyrich]</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-January/060162.html ; Berlet circumvented official WP:Dispute Resolution by posting "I freely confess I have a vested interest in this..." at Wikien-1 and asked someone else to nominate '''Category:Soviet spies''' for deletion while the issue was being Mediated. At the time, WP:Assume Good Faith was policy and participants signed a Mediation pledge to participate in Good Faith [http://encyc.connectonline.com/index.php/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop#Good_faith]. Berlet's conflict of interest can be seen in (1) personal association with ''[[Guardian]]'' of New York, (2) personal association with [[Harry Magdoff]], (3) personal connection with ''CounterSpy'' magazine. ''CounterSpy'' magazine outed the true identities of living CIA officials, and lead to creation of the [[Intelligence Identities Protection Act]]. Berlet it appears never had a problem with exposing the real life identities of living CIA agents but has fought strenuously to keep deceased identities of [[KGB]] agents out of Wikipedia. Two years after Berlet circumvented policy, '''Category:Soviet spies''' has not been deleted.</ref> and of course, profiled as a conservative, was banned for "tendentious editing."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight#Question:_Why_is_Leftism_NPOV.3F Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight#Question: Why is Leftism NPOV?] The editor stated, "why is it that only Left-wing POVs are permitted on Wikipedia? Why is it that I constantly get harassed, picked on and intimidated for trying to bring things back to the center by excising the hate-filled, bigoted rhetoric that populates the articles about Christians in politics? This is extremely personal and hate-filled, and I'm sick of this harassment."</ref>

By March 2007 Katefan's name was no longer on the Senate Press Gallery list.<ref name="wikipediareview25526">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7603&st=0&p=25526&mode=linear#entry25526</ref>

=== Second casualty: Wikipedia "experts" called into question, the Essjay Scandal ===

On April 29-30, 2005 a conference of [[radical]] [[leftist]]s to discuss the "real agenda of the Christian right" <ref>[http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2005-June/018692.html ''Public university sponsorship of conference on "Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right"'']</ref> was held a CUNY. Berlet spoke at the forum and Doug Ireland reported,
{{Cquote|Nobody at the national level is tracking these ''[[Christer]]''<ref>[http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html Religious Right Watch''] July 10, 2005.</ref> censorship and pressure campaigns in a systematic way, to quantify them or assess their impact, so that strategies to defeat them can be developed. 'People for the American Way used to track this stuff, but they stopped doing so systematically in 1996. We at [[Political Research Associates]] would love to do it,' says Berlet, 'but we don’t have the resources. Groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute or [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] could easily do this sort of work. But none of us has the money to do it ....' <ref>[http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/06/the_new_blackli.html ''The New Blacklist: Corporate America Caves In to the Christers''], Doug Ireland, June 09, 2005.</ref>}}
Wikipedia had the resources, Political Research Associates began tracking them, and the “strategies to defeat them” were carried into the battleground of Wikipedia. Berlet's massive, “Dominionism” series, a compendium of anti-Christian screeds best characterized by Stanley Kurtz of the ''[[National Review]]'', who also reported on the conference, claims the "real agenda" of the Religious Right is to,
{{Cquote|suppress other religions ...reestablish slavery. ...reduce women to near-slavery by making them property. ...execute anyone found guilty of pre-marital, extramarital, or homosexual sex and ...to bring back the death penalty for witchcraft. <ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp ''Dominionist Domination, The Left runs with a wild theory.''] Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online, May 02, 2005.</ref>}}

Ten days later on May 10 Essjay posted on his user page,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#Your_.22apologies.22_sound_fake</ref><ref name="wikipediareview23005">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=80&p=23005&mode=linear#entry23005</ref>
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
I am a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. 

My Academic Degrees: 
* Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)
* Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)
* Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)
* Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD) 
</blockquote>

Essjay was nominated for Admin on July 13, 2005 and in accepting he wrote, "Most of my edits have been to theology related articles; I am a theology scholar after all. I’ve added a good bit of material to articles, particularly material related to [[Roman Catholicism]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=18741394&oldid=18741092</ref>
An anonymous IP commented, "I have read several of Essjay's articles on Catholicism and I am very impressed with how thorough and clear they are. Many scholars try to be "thick" in their language, but not Dr. Essjay."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Essjay&diff=19090368&oldid=19089436</ref> His Adminship was completed one week later with near unanimous support.

After serving in the leadership of various Wikipedian associations such as Administrator General of Esperanza and official contact for Wikimedia with Freenode, the IRC network that hosts most of Wikimedia's IRC channels, Essjay was elected a Bureaucrat on March 31, 2006.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Essjay</ref>

==== Hoaxes perpetrated against academics and mainstream media ====

On April 7, 2006 one week after moving into his new role as a Bureaucrat Essjay sent an email to a professor in response to her comments on using Wikipedia as an academic source. The professor had told her students, "PLEASE NOTE THAT WIKIPEDIA is not to be considered a reliable source." The email is not of a personal nature and Essjay clearly represents himself as speaking for Wikipedia and posted a verbatim copy for others to use. The letter stated:
{{Cquote|I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I am also a tenured professor of theology... I find it very disturbing that you included the statement "it is my understanding that anyone can put anything there, and it is not vetted for accuracy." ... Well credentialed individuals (myself included) participate in the project in the hopes that our involvement will help to make Wikipedia a better source, and dispel the misconceptions held by the public. ...

Wikipedia has recently experienced some bad publicity over the John Seigenthaler Sr. affair (I know the issue extensively; I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, Jimmy Wales); it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity. ...'''It is never the case that known incorrect information is allowed to remain in Wikipedia'''; we strive to provide a resource that is both accurate and expansive. As we approach one million articles (far more than any other encyclopedia could ever hope to attain) on the English Wikipedia alone (there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the projects that make up the Wikimedia Foundation in dozens of different languages), we prove ourselves as a resource like none ever known before. (''bolden added'') <ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref>}}

Of the two hundred thousand registered users, and the nearly one thousand administrators with powers to block others from editing, Essjay was one of only 14 with Checkuser rights, a responsibility which has always been the cause of grave privacy concerns and only given to those who have earned the trust of the WikiMedia Foundation. Essjay was recommended to [[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff of ''The New Yorker'' by a member of Wikipedia’s management team<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote Know It All], Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?, by Stacy Schiff ''The New Yorker'', July 31, 2006; Editor's Note appended.</ref> and would not identify himself other than confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>
In a piece entitled, ''Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?'', Schiff wrote,
[[Image:Schiffstacy 3l.jpg|thumb|350px|right|[[Pulitzer Prize]] winning author Stacy Schiff was hoaxed by Essjay and Wikipedia's management team.[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote] ]]
{{Cquote|One regular on the site is a user known as Essjay, who holds a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law and has written or contributed to sixteen thousand entries. A tenured professor of religion at a private university...

Wales also appointed an arbitration committee to rule on disputes. Before a case reaches the arbitration committee, it often passes through a mediation committee. Essjay is serving a second term as chair of the mediation committee. He is also an admin, a bureaucrat, and a checkuser, which means that he is one of fourteen Wikipedians authorized to trace I.P. addresses in cases of suspected abuse. He often takes his laptop to class, so that he can be available to Wikipedians while giving a quiz, and he keeps an eye on twenty I.R.C. chat channels, where users often trade gossip about abuses they have witnessed...

Wales recently established an “oversight” function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there. }}

''The New Yorker'' unwittingly published the deceptive information on Essjay's credentials in its July 31, 2006 issue. The same month Brandt pointed out at Wikipedia Review,<ref name="wikipediareview12701">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=0&p=12701&mode=linear#entry12701</ref> a forum frequented by prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia, "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day.

In August 2006, a professional journalist who attended the same Catholic parish as [[Paul Weyrich]] of the [[Free Congress Foundation]] protested the patently false information about Weyrich. Weyrich was [[politically profiled]] as a right-wing "theocratic dominionist." Wikipedia's [[Dominionism]] entry, authored by Berlet, stated in its opening sentence, "Dominionism is a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominionism&diff=83649766&oldid=83640075</ref> There was one big problem, Weyrich is Catholic. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Weyrich#Inaccurate_information Talk:Paul Weyrich#Inaccurate information]</ref> By now Essjay was becoming established as Wikipedia's leading scholar on Catholicism.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/RFC#Outside_finding_of_fact_by_Doug_Bell User:Essjay/RFC/Outside finding of fact by Doug Bell], 2 March 2007.</ref>

====The Wikipedia Review forum====

On January 7, 2007, Essjay outed his own true life identity on his user page at Wikia.<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/wmessjay.png</ref> A site administrator at Wikipedia Review posted on January 11 the Essjay user page at Wikia had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees and noted there was no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The same administrator posted further details <ref name="wikipediareview20992">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=20&p=20992&mode=linear#entry20992</ref> of discrepancies between Essjay's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19, after Essjay added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

Essjay claimed on February 2 he provided all his real life information to Jimbo Wales and Angela Beasley, and then the same information to Brad Patrick, Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel before he accepted the position.<ref>Essjay (Talk) 06:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC), [http://web.archive.org/web/20071105191108/www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html User:Essjay/Archives/52]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales_asks_Wikipedian_to_resign_"his_positions_of_trust"_over_nonexistent_degrees&oldid=382962 Jimmy Wales asks Wikipedian to resign "his positions of trust" over nonexistent degrees], Wikinews.</ref><ref>http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/05/one-last-brief-comment-on-the-essjay-scandal/</ref> It was apparent Essjay had lied.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref> Brandt sought to contact Stacy Schiff with the information, and expressed disillusionment over the next several weeks at not receiving a response.

Brandt sent several letters regarding his own biography to the Foundation Legal Department and never received a response. On February 3 Florence Devouard, Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation announced Brad Patrick would be resuming his role as General Counsel exclusively after serving as Interim Executive Director and to now "focus on developing the role of General Counsel, and addressing a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces moving forward."<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027478.html Executive director], Florence Devouard, Feb 3 21:47:48 UTC 2007.</ref>
[[Image:Mania-logo.gif|thumb|300px|right|The 2006 ''WikiMania'' Conference was held in [[Cambridge]], [[Massachusetts]], August 4-6.]]
Ken Myers, a recent graduate of Harvard Law School and author of ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia''<ref>[http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM2 ''Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia'']</ref> presented at the August 2006 Wikimania conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts<ref>http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KM1</ref> is known in the community as Ksm10. Myers registered an account at Wikipedia Review on February 21, 2007<ref name="wikipediareviewuser1003">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1003</ref> and spent several hours which included a discussion with Brandt on Section 230 issues. Brandt had been arguing for months that Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act does not provide immunity to the WikiMedia Foundation, due to the fact that the Foundation's entire structure is designed to moderate the content on Wikipedia and that the Foundation functions as a publisher rather than a service provider. Only internet service providers are immune from liability for libelous content under Section 230.<ref name="wikipediareview19429">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=0&p=19429&mode=linear#entry19429</ref> Brandt's efforts to get Wikipedia to remove the libelous information about him attracted a lot of attention, and was even being studied in a Cyberlaw class at [[Harvard]].<ref>
Cyberlaw: Internet Points of Control, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/foi/Cyberlaw_Syllabus#Day_3._A_Potential_Solution:_Intermediary_Liability Day 3. A Potential Solution: Intermediary Liability] 2007 Winter Term.</ref>

Two days later one of the lesser known occurrences in the explosive maze of events of February 23 happened when Wikipedia Administrator Yanksox registered an account at Wikipedia Review.<ref name="wikipediareviewuser1014">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=1014</ref> Curiously enough, Yanksox spent several hours perusing the site where the background material on Berlet and SlimVirgin's efforts to discredit Brandt is laid out but never posted anything in Wikipedia Review for still another two months. In a bizarre turn of events and without discussing with anyone, Yanksox suddenly executed what Brandt had been asking for 15 months: invoking '''Ignore All Rules''' ('''IAR''') policy, Yanksox deleted the Brandt biographical entry.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yanksox&diff=prev&oldid=110357260</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Evidence</ref> The page had been nominated for deletion numerous times, but always failed to win the necessary support in Wikipedia's mind-numbing bureaucratic processes. Yanksox stated his reasons as "privacy concerns, more trouble than it is actually worth. Are you people even human?",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Yanksox&page=Daniel+Brandt</ref> then performed a "kamikaze dive" by deleting his own user page.

It was now common knowledge among critics at the Wikipedia Review forum and many of Wikipedia's so-called "inner cabal" that gross distortions and lies had been used to advance Essjay within the organization and perpetrated against a mainstream news source with a good reputation for fact checking. Many of the more mature Wiki Admins now saw the wisdom of ending the dispute with Brandt which was claiming more and more dupes with no understanding of the root of the dispute. In the midst of the firestorm over Yanksox out of process deletion that same day, Jimbo Wales announced Essjay's appointment to the Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-February/063809.html</ref>

Three days later, on February 26, Brandt received and posted a response from the Deputy Editor of ''The New Yorker'' stating a retraction would be published in the March 5 issue including the comment, "which comes out today."<ref name="wikipediareview23635">http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=80&p=23635&mode=linear#entry23635</ref> Wikia’s public relations firm made Essjay’s response to ''The New Yorker''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111710102&oldid=111704869</ref>

====The scandal breaks====

When the scandal broke it was [[international]] in scope with ABC News,<ref name="ABC video">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2929512|title=ABC News broadcast on Essjay|accessdate=2007-03-08}}</ref> Associated Press,<ref name="Larry_Sanger_Springs_Citizendium">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia
|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2980046
|work=[[ABC News]]
|publisher=[[Associated Press]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-26
}}</ref> BBC,<ref name="BBC">{{cite news
| title = Fake professor in Wikipedia storm
| url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm
| work = [[BBC News]]
| date = March 6, 2007
| accessdate = 2007-03-16
}}</ref> USA Today,<ref name="BrianBergstein">{{cite news
|first=Brian
|last=Bergstein
|title=Citizendium aims to be better Wikipedia
|url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/2007-03-25-wikipedia-alternative_N.htm
|publisher=[[USA Today]]
|date=March 25, 2007
|accessdate=2007-03-25
}}</ref> London Daily Telegraph,<ref name=Jardine>{{cite news
|first=Cassandra
|last=Jardine
|title=Fount of all wisdom – and foolery
|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/03/08/nosplit/ftwiki108.xml
|publisher=''[[The Daily Telegraph]]''
|section= Features
|date=March 8, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=21
|quote =}}</ref> London Guardian,<ref name="Guardian">Finkelstein, Seth. [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html "Read me first"], ''[[The Guardian|The London Guardian]]'', March 8, 2007.</ref> Le Monde,<ref>[http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=979865&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01 Wikipédia, à visage découvert], Olivier Dumons, LE MONDE.FR 08 Mars 2007.</ref> The Register,<ref name="Farewell, Wikipedia?">{{cite web
| url = http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/06/wikipedia_crisis/
| title = Farewell, Wikipedia?
| accessdate = 2007-03-18
| last = Orlowski
| first = Andrew
| authorlink = Andrew Orlowski
| date = March 6, 2007
| work = Music and Media
| publisher = [[The Register]]
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
}}
</ref> Newsweek,<ref name=Keen>{{cite news
|first=Steven
|last=Levy
|title=Invasion of the web amateurs
|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/36171
|publisher=[[Newsweek]]
|section=The Technologist
|date=March 26, 2007
|accessdate=
|page=16
|quote =}}</ref> BusinessWeek,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070321_174505.htm?chan=search|title=Wikipedia's Not the Net Police|author=B.L.Ochman|publisher=''[[BusinessWeek]]''|date=2007-03-22|accessdate=2007-09-29}}</ref> CNSNews,<ref name=Bozell>{{cite news
|first=L. Brent
|last=Bozell III
|title=Not Your Father's Encyclopedia
|url=http://www.cnsnews.com/bozellcolumn/archive/2007/col20070321.asp
|publisher=CNSNews.com
|section=
|date=March 21, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=
|quote =}}</ref> Boston Globe<ref name=Beam>{{cite news
|first=Alex
|last=Beam
|title=Tricky truths behind Wikipedia
|url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/03/12/tricky_truths_behind_wikipedia/
|publisher=''[[Boston Globe]]''
|section=LivingGarts
|date=March 12, 2007
|accessdate=2007-09-29
|page=E5
|quote =}}</ref> and Sydney Morning Herald<ref name="LarrySanger2002">{{cite news
|first =
|last =
|authorlink =
|title = More than just a war of words
|url = http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/not-just-a-war-of-words/2007/04/21/1176697134712.html
|work =
|publisher = [[The Sydney Morning Herald]]
|pages =
|date = April 21, 2007
|accessdate = 2007-04-23
}}</ref> all reporting on it. The reaction within the Wikipedia Community was largely a feeling of shock, anger, and betrayal. Many ''bona fide'' experts and academics quit in disgust.<ref>[http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2007/05/sand_castles_of_knowledge.html Sand Castles of Knowledge], Kyle Gann, May 5, 2007.</ref>

Jimbo Wales' handpicked Arbitrator of civility began name-calling and attacked "Brandt and his Wikipedia Review cronies;"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111701367&oldid=111700836</ref> however this excuse rings hollow since Essjay posted the bogus credentials long before the Katefan controversy, and shortly after the campaign against Brandt's credibility began months before Brandt was ever involved, or even aware of it. Essjay also blamed ''The New Yorker'' :
{{Cquote|I’m also sorry the ''New Yorker'' chose to print what they did…no respectable publication would print it.”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=111847534&oldid=111838285</ref>}}''The New Yorker'' retraction quoted Jimbo saying, "I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref> Estranged co-founder [[Larry Sanger]], who is probably recognized as Wales most respected critic, confronted Wales,
{{Cquote|Look, either you hired him thinking he was a tenured professor, or you hired him knowing he was a fraud. There wasn't a third option. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#not_a_violoation_of_trust.3F.21 User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20], March 2 - 5, 2007.</ref>}}

A longtime editor from the very earliest days of the Wikipedia project, named JHK, after hearing [[Andrew Schlafly]]<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wikipedia_20070307.ram<</ref> founder of Conservapedia speak told Jimbo Wales,
{{Cquote|he is right about there being a cadre of people who tend to get their way on editorial matters. Perhaps that's part of the social engineering experiment that is part of Wikipedia. But when a member of that cadre has clearly abused his position based in part on lies he told to get that position, and the cadre circles wagons ...?<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20</ref>}}

''The Chronicle of Higher Education'' noted,
{{Cquote|Like most of the controversies that swirl around Wikipedia, the incident has wider ramifications than a simple personal dispute....the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud.<ref>{{cite news |title= Essjay, the Ersatz Academic|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070305162127/http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1909 |publisher= ''The Chronicle of Higher Education''|date= March 2 2007|last=Read|first=Brock}}</ref>}}

Six weeks after Foundation Chair Florence Devouard announced Brad Patrick resuming his role as General Counsel to focus on addressing "a backlog of complex legal questions the Foundation faces," Patrick resigned.<ref>[Foundation-l] [Announcement] [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-March/028404.html Brad Patrick Resigns as General Counsel], Brad Patrick, Mar 22 19:01:14 UTC 2007</ref>

===What did Jimbo know and when did he know it? ===

On April 11, 2007 the Wikimedia Foundation published as part of its Privacy policy for Checkuser rights a requirement for disclosure of the identification of Administrator to the Foundation. At the time of Essjay's appointment to Checkuser, several prominant Wikipedians expressed concern over the trustworthiness of Checkusers. Here is how Essjay addressed the gravity of their concerns:
{{Cquote|We have users from all over the world. Not all of them live in countries where their safety is guaranteed; there are, most assuredly, editors from regimes where if their personal information was discovered, they could be imprisoned and perhaps even killed. That terrifies me, because I don't want anybody dying over Wikipedia, nor do I want them to end up in prison. If checkuser falls into the wrong hands (I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I don't think it's too hard to imagine foreign governments wanting to hunt down our contributors; after all, at least two have blocked us flat out already), the result could literally be a matter of life and death. ''Life and death.''<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/020054.html [Foundation-l] Stewards are ignoring requests for CheckUser information?], Essjay Mon Apr 17 06:14:53 UTC 2006.</ref>}}
An editor asked, "I am really curious as to the reasons why Essjay and [another Admin] are any better candidates for checkuser status on en.wikibooks than the current two candidates on the request for checkuser status, and all I can say is that they enjoy somewhat better relationships with the Foundation board." The other Checkuser Admin responded,
{{Cquote|the fact that Essjay and I are well known to the Foundation makes us more appealing to the Foundation, not specifically because we have done most of our work on Wikipedia (although this is true for me and to a lesser extent for Essjay, who has more meta experience than I do) but because we have become known to the Foundation as reliable, trustworthy individuals.<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-April/006776.html Foundation-l new checkuser policy] Essjay, Fri Apr 21 19:22:21 UTC 2006</ref>}}

===Cracks in the dam===

Wikipedia reached a milestone in its history on October 12, 2007, when Wikipedia "controversial and knowledgeable expert" [[Chip Berlet]] received his first block for incivility.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Cberlet] Berlet, who had written for [[extremist]] publications<ref>[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Expertly+using+"experts":+leftist+media+organs+selectively+use...-a097822451 Expertly using "experts": leftist media organs selectively use so-called experts to propagandize the masses on behalf of a statist agenda. (Expert Opinion)].</ref><ref>John George and Laird Wilcox, [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America''], Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1992, (ISBN 0-87975-680-2), pgs. 125-131.</ref> throughout his career, had achieved a special "controversial expert" exemption from virtually all Wikipedia's written policies. This exemption from policy extended to citing self, no original research, no self promotion, incivility and personal attacks, and other policies.

In the wake of the Essjay scandal, and questions surrounding Berlet's conduct toward non-LaRouche editors, Wikipedia appears to be moving away from the "expert" designation, and now uses the term "knowledgeable editor."

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

[[Category:Wikis]]

Computer language

2012-02-10T17:50:55Z

Michaeldsuarez: Double redirect.

#REDIRECT [[Programming language]]

User:Michaeldsuarez

2012-02-07T14:58:13Z

Michaeldsuarez: Removing redlink and keeping it short.

A EncyclopediaDramatica.ch sysop, [[neoconservative]], [[States' rights|federalist]], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Whig_Party Modern Whig party] member. [[Jon Huntsman]] for Vice President or Secretary of State.

RINOs

2012-02-06T02:31:18Z

Michaeldsuarez: Double redirect.

#REDIRECT [[Republican in name only]]

.net runtime environment

2012-02-05T00:08:50Z

Michaeldsuarez: Undo revision 958790 by CarlN (talk) Vandalism.

The '''.NET runtime environment''' is a virtual machine for executing Just In Time (JIT) compiled byte-code ([[MSIL]]) for software written in [[.Net framework|.NET]] [[Programming language|programming languages]] such as [[C#]] and [[Visual Basic.net]].

[[category:information technology]]

"lame duck" session

2012-02-05T00:08:35Z

Michaeldsuarez: Undo revision 958793 by CarlN (talk) Vandalism.

#REDIRECT [["Lame duck" Session]]

110th Congress

2012-02-05T00:08:14Z

Michaeldsuarez: Undo revision 958792 by CarlN (talk) Vandalism.

#REDIRECT [[110th United States Congress]]

"Must pass" Bill

2012-02-05T00:07:50Z

Michaeldsuarez: Undo revision 958770 by CarlN (talk) Vandalism.

A '''"must pass" bill''' is a vitally important measure that [[Congress]] must enact, such as annual money [[bill|bills]] to fund operations of the [[government]]. Because of their must-pass quality, these measures often attract "[[riders]]" (unrelated [[policy]] [[provisos]]).<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/appropriation.htm] US Senate Reference</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:United States Government Word Definitions]]

.

"Must pass" Bill

2012-02-05T00:07:30Z

Michaeldsuarez: Undo revision 958791 by CarlN (talk) Vandalism.

"Lame duck" Session

2012-02-05T00:06:51Z

Michaeldsuarez: Undo revision 958787 by CarlN (talk) Vandalism.

A '''"lame duck" session"''' is when [[Congress]] (either chamber) reconvenes in an even-numbered year following the [[November]] general [[election|elections]] to consider various items of business. Some [[lawmakers]] who return for this session will not be in the next [[Congress]]. Hence, they are informally called "lame duck" members participating in a "lame duck" session.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/appropriation.htm] US Senate Reference</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:United States Senate Terms]]