Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Internet Explorer

2011-08-16T19:59:04Z

MrMorganH: Better to have nothing, than something this lame.

This article could be expanded a great deal. I'd like to know about the history of IE, and its place in the history of the [[web browser]] in general.
*What about the fight with Netscape Navigator?
*How popular is it, and how would we measure its popularity if they simply give it away with each copy of Windows?
*:If you don't buy a Mac, you get IE preinstalled. Most users don't even know how to download and install new software, so staying with what it came with doesn't mean much.
*What are its security problems, in more detail? Why hasn't Microsoft addressed these? Are there solutions or alternatives?
*Most interesting would be the web standards aspect. How about the [[CSS box model]], for example? Or the need for [[JavaScript]] programmers to write every piece of code twice: once for IE, plus once for FireFox and other standards-compliant browsers.

This article is lightweight and haphazard. I'm going to delete it if no one helps me fix it up. Better to have nothing, than something this lame. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:35, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:[[Curiosity|Really]], Ed? [[Luke Mably|really]]? [[PHP installation|Are you sure]], Ed? [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 15:59, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Islam

2011-08-15T13:37:42Z

MrMorganH: /* Christianity never attacked the Islamic world." */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.
----
Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21
:: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
: This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating "entirely" like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]
: It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "controversial" statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa
: I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of "putting across" your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21

::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... "Let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The "entire Old Testament" is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)
::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Anything "can be viewed" as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't "make" a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

No one seems to have been able to attach any meaningful support to the claims in this section. Jack Chick tracts are not proof. The section has been removed until someone can find halfway trustworthy sources for the claims made in it --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 00:41, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Recategorization ==

Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==See Also==
Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==Islamic Violence==
Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21

==Historical Background==
I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but "Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying."
:Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: The article says, "Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain". My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Head covering for women ==

While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Star and moon symbol ==
Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star & Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}

: I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for "islam" and "islam symbol" the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

* http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

== Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==
Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
::Except that it wouldn't be a truth. I'd say a major portion would be at least 0.5%, the number of jihadist muslims is much less.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:55, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Jihad is an important part of Islam. These people believe in a religion that supports "holy war", if killing infidels isn't a major part of Islam I fail to see why much else is.[[User:RightPatriot|RightPatriot]]

== Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==

Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.
Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.
Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the "vetting", it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Not to get into the Obama "controversy", but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:Gloria, I think you will find the Obama article ''speculates'' that he follows the Islamic faith. There is no conclusive proof (as yet) and as such he should not be included here. I am sue your concern is well-meaning, but speculation does not equate to fact. If he is ever found out be one, then by all means he can be added to the list. Until then...no. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the prompt & courteous response. I would argue that if we can say in the main article that he might be a Muslim, then we should be allowed to say that elsewhere on CP too. (After all, if we can't say it here, where ''can'' we say it?) However, I will be bound by your command. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:In a way,I honestly do not mind (he is not my President, in any event), but your reply answers your own question. There is a difference between saying he 'might' be a Muslim and listing it as 'fact' under "Prominent Muslims". Maybe "Prominent Suspected Muslims" but let us rather not go down that road. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== I object! ==

I submit that the "related" link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

The first section in this debate section-[ http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F] is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

TThe section Debate, is obama a muslim covers that myth, and is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Prominent Muslim ==

Right now it lists "Barack Hussein Obama" as a prominent Muslim but says he is "President-elect" of the United States. Even though it's inaccurate, is the title really necessary? Everyone should know who Obama is [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Relevance? ==

The last line of the introduction to this article states that "the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims." While this may be true - at least the majority of terrorists who are aimed at the United States may be Muslim, I'm not sure the majority of the world's modern terrorists are muslims - it is definately not cited. There is no evidence to this fact.
And frankly, even if there does turn out to be evidence, I do not see the relevance that this has to the Islamic faith as a whole. You would not see on the "African American" page that the majority of domestic violence cases occur within this ethnicity. It is just IRRELEVANT. [[User:89vanguard|89vanguard]] 9:53 11, March 2009 (EST)

== Consistency of Koran/Quran ==

I noticed that the article is not consistent in its use of Koran and Quran. Could we make a decision as to which one to use, then use it throughout? I don't know enough about it to say which one to use, I am just pointing the inconsistency.{{unsigned|PatrickA}}
:Good point. The correct spelling appears to be "Qur’an", although I am under the impression that "Koran" is probably the acceptable Western spelling. Would you care to go ahead and standarise the article accordingly? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 11:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Sorry for not getting there sooner, I had to get off. Thank you for standardizing the article. [[User:PatrickA|PatrickA]] 16:57, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Just as Chanukah has multiple spellings in english, Koran has no definite spelling using english characters.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:34, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens) ==

Can someone link the name in the prominent Muslim section, there is an article for him now.

:I reverted a comment on this page by User:The Troll because it was nothing more than rude remarks and did nothing to add to the article. I know we usually do not revert talk page comments. If any Sysop feels I was wrong, please feel free to revert my deletion of the comment, thanks [[User:Taj|Taj]] 16:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Obvious trolling, as in this case where the user self-identified as a Troll, isn't protected. We are not a free bulletin board for those who disagree with conservative and Christian values are welcomed to disagree with us with impunity, or argue we are wrong without end. Respectful disagreement or questions are welcome. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== could you remove something ==

I think the "despite his illiteracy" in the introduction is a little biased sounding. It's true he was illiterate, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like it didn't happen that way. While muslims believe that was a miracle in itself, you could always just put another sentence saying "So-so people doubt this because so-so". Just to make it less biased. I would do it, but I wasn't sure exactly if i should because it's a change in tone, although I feel a more neutral one.--[[User:Panda|Panda]] 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

*We are not unbiased. We are a conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia by definition. We have no interest in diluting the facts here, or making them "politically correct" so no one could possibly be offended. You should fight carrying over things you were indoctrinated with from Wikipedia and MSM. Someone saying God doesn't exist is a lie, and we don't mind saying so quite clearly. Too bad they don't agree; there are thousands of atheist/agnostic/secular wikis, boards and forums for them to participate in. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:21, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

== Dilution of Conservative POV ==

Please do not water this article down! By the tacit and explicit agreement of the so-called moderate elements of Islam, their failure to consistently and loudly speak out against violence, it is a violent religion. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:46, 15 January 2010 (EST)

But there are several instances of Muslims and Muslim organizations speaking out against violence and terrorism. A notable example is here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter16.htm [[User:YNathanielsz|YNathanielsz]] 20:23, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Yes, let's all be very careful not to water down the bias in this article! Neutrality is for liberals! Anyone who isn't willing to be held accountable for the actions of everyone even tangentially associated with them is just as guilty as a terrorist! [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 18:03, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Dialectical Logic of Islamists ==

''Dialectical logic'' [http://www.FrankHatchiii.com/The_Lost.html] is found in the core of Eastern and Western thought. It is a common flaw to the human species. Although the various human cultures have devloped their own methods of using this flaw, it is not simply a cultural defect. However, since each culture uses this flaw to defend and to define itself, every attempt to correct the flaw is perceived to be an attack on the culture itself. '''Islamists''' are particularly sensitive to this perceived attack; because the dialectical Absolute of the Koran is found in the attempt to synthesize the Old and New Testaments.[http://www.FrankHatchiii.com/Mayor.html]--[[User:FrankHatch|FrankHatch]] 13:32, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
--[[User:FrankHatch|FrankHatch]] 13:36, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

== Christianity never attacked the Islamic world." ==

The Pope authorized the Crusades. Is the argument that they weren't an attack, the target wasn't the Islamic world, or that Catholics aren't Christians? [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 19:58, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:'Attack' in this context means to be the aggressor. Christendom didn't attack the Islamic empire, it defended itself against invasion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 03:06, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
::Right. #1 then. Okay, thanks. [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 09:37, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-15T00:46:45Z

MrMorganH: /* Michele Bachmann */

==This is interesting==
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significance, and alphabetization ==

The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.

Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Land surveying ==

I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Eisenhower ==

He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ==

Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Because he's a black atheist Muslim foreign liberal. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

I am sure this was not the authors intent, but the above statement could come of as racist. I think he meant to say "a Black Muslim" - which is a political group. But by inserting atheist in between, it looks like "black" is being used in a perjorative way. The author might want to rephrase it.--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 17:08, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ??? ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Thomas Edison]] was named by Life magazine as the most influential person in the entire world in the second millennium. Yet he did not sign anything into law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Yes, but the section is titled "No clear influence ''in politics''." Obama clearly has enormous influence in politics. Particularly in that he controls the military, has a presidential veto and can pardon criminals. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:53, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Position does not necessarily equate to influence - but it makes it more likely that they had influence, but not certain. Ie. Michele Bachmann has spent most of her time in Congress when Republicans were in the minority. This is one of the reasons why most of the bills she has submitted have not been passed into law: her party lacked the political numbers to be able to do so. Compare this to a Democratic Congressman elected at the same time, whose party did have control in Congress, who would most likely have had a larger impact because the bills introduced would have been more likely to get further. And although the 43 most influential people in American politics would not consist of the 43 American Presidents (not 44, Grover Cleveland is counted twice), but if you tried to list the top 250 influential people in American politics, you would get nearly all of them in that list (not William Henry Harrison, serving for 1 month, and like). And with regards to Jesus being influential without a position, his main influence was not political, in fact his political influence could be considered minimal (ignoring the effect centuries later, which surely would not be relevant). Therefore Jesus would not be on this list, as this is about political influence in the US. - JamesCA, August 8 2011
:The trouble with this list is that it's often hard to evaluate a person's true influence until some years after the peak of their career - it's one thing to make policies or speeches while in office, and another to influence the actions of those who follow you. I don't think the list should include anyone who entered politics less than 25 years ago, since such inclusions cannot take a fully informed perspective.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Definition of influence ==

Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::It's obvious what "influence" is, isn't it? It means changing the way people view or conduct their lives. Rubber-stamping laws passed by Congress doesn't rank high on the list, but the media of course make money by pretending otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then Obama qualifies, but for the wrong reasons. forcing people into health care, downgrading the credit rating etc etc are all due to his political influence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I assume it isn't ''President Obama's war in Libya'' any longer? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::If you're going to consider Obama not influential, then you can't complain about his policies, only complain about incomptetence. Because if he is not influential, then his policies don't matter, and aren't worth complaining about. Complain about the policies of the Democratic Party, instead of the man who is supposedly their puppet (which I think deserves enough evidence that maybe a page on the Debate Topics should be started?) - JamesCA, August 8 2011

::::That's like say no one should complain about a lack of leadership, which is similar to a leader who lacks influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::It's not like that. I said complain about incompetence, which is a lack of leadership/a leader who lacks influence. But if he isn't influential, then his policies don't matter, because he has no effect on them. Once he is influential, then his policies matter because then he can do something about them. - JamesCA, August 8 2011

== LBJ??? ==

LBJ taught at a school near the Mexico border in a town called Cotulla for 1 year. He then returned to teachers college, finished his diploma and taught at a High School in Houston for 1 semester, before taking a job as a congressman's assistant in Washington. He was then appointed head of the Texas NYA (a new deal program) before geing elected congressman a couple of years later. In other words LBJ had no significant career prior to getting into politics. For this reason I will remove his name. Whatever you can say about LBJ (and there is a lot to say) you cannot say he wasn't a career politician. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Problem with organization ==

I don't really understand the logic of this page. The first part is clear enough, a list of politicians who had success in other careers before entering politics, but the second section seems to be talking about something different entirely. Do you mean for "No real influence in politics" to be the opposite category of "significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)"? Wouldn't a more logical second category be "Career Politicians," or "Politicians with no real career outside of politics"?

I only ask because I can think of several cases where a politician both had a real career outside politics and were not extremely influential in politics. Sunny Bono comes to mind, an extraordinarily successful musician who did relatively little as a congressman. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both successful businessmen who have never managed to break through to meaningful political careers. As others have argued above, Obama can't be considered to have little influence in politics, since the president is by definition the most important politician in the system. However, there is a case to be made that he never had much of a career before entering politics. At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:28, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're right JDW. You'd think that a guy with that kind of pedigree would be doing some really interesting/earth-shattering/high-stakes and high-paying work, maybe in the private sector or in academia, before moving on to politics. Otherwise, what a waste of time and potential. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::That's a strange remark, John (or are you being ironic?) Whether you like his brand of politics or not, he's decided to devote his undoubted potential to national-level politics. Seeking elected office in a democracy is a worthy ambition. Why do you regard it as a waste? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:30, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Duke of Wellington ==

Confused newcomer here. Why is the 1st Duke of Wellington in the list headed "No clear inluence in politics"? He was the dominant figure on the right of British politics from 1829 to 1848. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:If explained in the entry, that's a good reason to promote him to the top list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:: OK, so I've done this for Wellington and also for MacMillan and Chamberlain. I've left Heseltine, Major and Baldwin in the bottom list - perhaps they're examples of how a significant career before/outside politics doesn't prepare you for high office. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Chamberlain was a typical liberal appeaser. He had no clear influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: I think you need to bring yourself up-to-date on British history. Chamberlain was libelled as an appeaser by the authors of a leftist pamphlet called ''The Guilty Men'', published in 1940. Many of the leftists who wrote the pamphlet were much more strongly in favour of appeasement than Chamberlain was. Churchill admired and trusted him and placed him in charge of domestic policy. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:16, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: (edit conflict) Sorry... what? Chamberlain was a typical inter-war Tory. He hated war and was prepared to do anything to stop it! His only major opponent was the ex-Liberal Winston Churchill! Without Chamberlain, the Czech appeasement deal would never have happened and the war would have been different because Czechoslovakia would have had a chance to defend itself. I really don't see how you can write him off so easily. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::The alternative to Chamberlain as PM in 1937 was Halifax, in which case there would have been more enthusiastic appeasement and no military build-up, and Britain would have become the western outpost of the Reich. No, Chamberlain's judgement in foreign policy wasn't immaculate but considering that his Foreign Secretary was Halifax and that Parliament, ''especially Labour'', was very strongly pro-appeasement, it wasn't as bad as ''The Guilty Men'' made out. Your line about "typical inter-war Tory" is incorrect; his achievements in improving working conditions and in economics were genuine. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Sorry, but there wasn't really a choice in '37. Baldwin advised the King to send for Chamberlain, and he did. The choice was Halifax vs Churchill a few years later. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:32, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: The debate took place within the Tory party. They chose the outstanding domestic politician of the first half of the 20th century although it would shortly become apparent that the expertise the PM would need was in foreign affairs. (But had they chosen the leading foreign affairs expert, history would have been disastrously different...) Modern historians are much less harsh on Chamberlain than their predecessors. If he had stood up to Germany in 1938, he would have given Hitler the opportunity to drag Britain into a war which she could not have won, under-equipped and without the support of France. The Czechoslovak economy and military was relatively strong but too small to resist the Wehrmacht. The real damage was done about 5 years earlier, when Baldwin refused to re-arm. Chamberlain's own policy as PM was the classic, "if you hope for peace, prepare for war" but that doesn't work against a madman. It's now generally understood that Chamberlain did ''not'' trust Hitler but felt he had no alternative in the Munich Conference; he certainly had no sympathy with the Nazis, unlike some more aristocratic Tories. It's also widely recognised that his very real achievements as Chancellor put Britain into a position in which rearmament from 1937 onwards was economically possible. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:53, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Ron Paul ==

For the benefit of non-US editors, please could someone explain who Ron Paul is. The page describes him as "the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade". I must say that he's completely unknown in the UK and I don't see that he won many votes in Presidential elections.

The point is to have a benchmark so we know where to add names of the many politicians who've had significant outside careers: why is Ron Paul in the "influential" list and the Duke of Wellington in the "not influential" list? Or for that matter, Neville Chamberlain: he had one of the most influential ''peace-time'' careers of any politician in the UK in the 20th century. As Health Minister, he got the first Factory Act passed, a keystone of legislation on safety at work, and as Chancellor, he ensured that Britain had the economic strength and military spending it needed to fight Hitler. Churchill inspired the Spitfire pilots but Chamberlain got the Spitfires built. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significant isn't the same thing as good ==

Mr Schlafly, as you give history lessons (are you a professional history teacher?) you surely understand that many significant politicians weren't good people. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:Regarding Heydrich and Lenin: you've now placed them in the category of people whose career outside politics needs discussion. They were both thoroughly evil people but they both had significant careers before going into politics and were both extremely significant (negatively) as politicians. When you say, "Significant politicians", do you mean, "Significant politicians whose policies Andy Schlafly approves of"? Please let me know because if you do, perhaps it would not be a good use of my time or that of other editors to attempt to assist you. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:21, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Trudeau, Levesque, Parizeau, Mulroney as "undeserving" ==

By what definition are these four men, who together and in opposition completely changed the political landscape of a country that happens to be our largest trading partner "undeserving"? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

I would consider them morally undeserving. Levesque and Parizeau were separatists. Mulroney was corrupt and Trudeau was a socialist. In terms of influence, I might say Levesque because he was the first PQ premier. Trudeau and Mulroney were long serving but did not really do that much to change the country. Parizeau was a failure.
:This article isn't about moral purity. Read the title of the article: "Politicians who had a real career." They were politicians. They were important politicians. They had careers before embarking in politics. Therefore, they deserve to be in the article. Your assertion that Trudeau and Mulroney didn't change the country is absurd. Trudeau, if he did nothing else, repatriated the constitution and gave the country the Charter of rights and Freedoms. Mulroney, if he did nothing else, opened the door for the a complete retooling of Canada's concept of a "social safety net." Parizeau might not have succeeded in bringing about Quebec independence, but he came very close, and Quebec-Canada relations have never been the same since 1995; moreover he was the financial brains behind the creation and expansion of "Quebec. Inc in the 1970s and 1980s. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:38, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Headlines are concise out of necessity. Implicit in the headline for this entry is the word "influential", as has already been explained before on this talk page. Someone who merely "opened the door" doesn't count; doormen are not counted among the most influential people, unless they do something in addition to opening doors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Pierre Trudeau wrote a new constitution for Canada. Writing a new constitution for a country is being a doorman? Look at Canada in 1983 when he left office, and look at Canada when Mulroney left office--do those countries look at all the same to you? Look at Quebec in 1976 before Levesque. Look at Quebec when Parizeau left office -- does that look at all like the same place? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Honestly, Canada does look the same to me throughout that period: beautiful landscape, terrific people, but headed in the misguided [[liberal]] direction. It's a tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Confusion ==

Is there some special set of criteria here? Why are people like Margaret Thatcher being deleted while others like Lech Walesa are being moved to different sections? It's pretty clear that these two had significant careers before becoming politicians (Thatcher's science background was often referenced during her term as PM). I don't see why they shouldn't make the list, while Michele Bachmann, who has had no career outside politics at all, makes the top list. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would suggest including an introductory paragraph at the top, to help clarify what exactly this is about. Certainly, Lech Walesa had a very clear and very real career, so why does he need "further discussion?" It is, I admit, an interesting idea to analyze the pre-politics careers of those that would be our leaders. But I'm not sure of the intentions of this essay nor its contents.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 23:24, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::Thatcher did not have a real career outside of government. Majoring in chemistry is not a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::[[Homeschooling]] 5 kids and helping raise about two-dozen additional foster children, as [[Michele Bachmann]] did, is a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I don't consider homeschooling 5 kids and raising foster kids a career. Nothing against homeschooling, but anyone can do it (although its hard to do it well). Same with raising foster kids. In Canada, most of the foster parents are on welfare and take in kids because the money does not come off of their cheques. Do they have careers ? Bachmann has two law degrees and was a successful lawyer. That is not something everyone could do. That is what I would call a career--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 18:01, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::Lech Walesa may merit the top list. Good point. Perhaps a greater explanation of what his career and political influence were would help.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

I really am also very confused - I added the two-term Mayor of New York and the likely GOP Presidential nominee, yet they have "no clear influence in politics"? Sorry, but I don't understand at all - they are both very significant figures? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 23:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am confused as to how Bachmann is considered to have a real career but not Obama? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:58, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::I'm confused too. I accept that Chamberlain's later career was controversial but why on earth have (1) Harold MacMillan and (2) Alex Salmond been removed from the top list? (1) Decolonisation of Africa was a big ahievement and (2) like him or loath him, Salmond is probably the most effective politician in the UK today. Perhaps I could politely suggest that the contributions of certain editors are not being made with the benefit of a strong sense of history...? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:06, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Insight ==

Hi folks. I believe I have just had a fascinating conservative insight, based on the current form of this list. I present it here for your perusal and hope that it will provoke discussion. Noting that there are very few influential liberals in the first list, I conclude that

'''Nearly all influential liberals are professional politicians. In contrast, many influential conservatives hold "real" jobs prior to entering politics.'''

This appears to be particularly true among conservatives whose views align with those of the Tea Party. I believe this insight is well-supported by the data presented here, as soon as one has appropriately defined "influential" and "real job". --[[User:PhilS33|PhilS33]] 09:17, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

:Superb insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed. "As soon as one has appropriately defined 'influential' and 'real job.'" It's all about how you choose to define your terms. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:47, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Not necessarily. "Influential" and ""real job" are hardly arcane or technical terms - they are commonly understood by most people. Now of course influence is not a binary quality, but one can certainly say that the more influential, the more likely to have had a real job (or vice versa) without getting bogged down in pedantic definitions.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:04, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::::It seems like this is almost a truism. Those who hold real jobs will gain an understanding of the value of money and the damage caused by over-regulation and high taxes. Thus, they will tend to become more conservative with time. Those who never hold real jobs will have little grasp of the value of a dollar or the harm of government overreach, and will thus tend towards liberalism. It's not unlike the difference between a child who is expected to attend to chores and a part-time job in order to earn spending money, as opposed to one who is spoiled and freely given money without responsibility. The first child will learn to be independent and self-sufficient, while the second will learn to run to mommy and daddy (or, in the case of liberals, the government) with outstretched hands whenever money runs short. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:43, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

PhilS's insight looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy as far as this site is concerned. Politicians that conservatives don't approve of aren't included in the list at the top part of the page (or get removed from it as soon as Mr Schlafly spots them). Winston Churchill and Reinhard Heydrich had careers as military officers of about the same length of time and were two of the most influential politicians of any country in the 20th century. Which implies that having a real job before entering politics won't make you the kind of politician decent people would approve of. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:35, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

:The list is objective. Winston Churchill was a phenomenal writer and historian, and he had a significant political influence. That obviously warrants the top list. Reinhard Heydrich, in contrast, was an immoral underachiever outside of politics, and the horrific crimes of Nazism continued after Heydrich died at age 38.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::The list cannot be considered "objective" for a moment as you say, as long as former US Presidents, current Presidential primary candidates, sitting US Senators and Governors of States are not considered to have had "influence". It seems very strange that you would take such a view, I must say? --[[User:JanW|JanW]] 16:31, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

==Denis Healey==

Denis Healey introduced monetarism to the British economy in the late seventies. If that's not influential, what is?

As for the "obscure or otherwise inept Brits" section, A+ for childish humour, Z-- for political insight ~~Rafael
::Hey, I tried to argue that a guy who [[Pierre Trudeau|gave his country a new constitution]] was influential, and got shot down for no discernable reason. Good luck with this. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

:::The policy of every British Chancellor since 1976, except Gordon Brown, has essentially followed Healey's policies. He's much more highly regarded - including by conservatives - and has been much more influential in the long term than either Wilson or Callahan, the PMs in whose cabinets he served. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I've put DH back in the top list. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:02, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Mandela ==

Can Mandela be said to have had a 'real' career before politics? He was an aristocrat who ran away from an arranged marriage and worked for a few years as a solicitors clerk after being fired from manual employment. Hardly a career... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:I see your point. It's not like he played a sport or sang songs, you know, really important careers. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 12:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::I'd say that being a popular singer is more significant than being fired from a factory and failing the law exams, especially given Mandela's privileged background. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]]
:::I agree. So unless anyone objects, I'll remove Mandela from the list in the next few days because, although he was an extraodinarily influential politician, he had no real other career. - JamesCA, August 15 2011

== Putin ==

"(I don't think the KGB is a career outside of government)", but Washington's military career, which was certainly a government job, counts? I too am confused. [[User:ACork|ACork]] 17:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

: Washington is listed for reasons more than his brilliant military career which, by the way, was not a government job like the KGB.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::So, 'working for The Government' can mean different things when applied to different people. Sounds very like Orwell's (that good working class Conservative) Newspeak. As you are moving the goalposts depending whether the person fits your agenda or not I'll leave you to it. By the way, both Churchill and Thatcher were Atheists. Godspeed [[User:ACork|ACork]] 12:35, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::A mostly volunteer army is hardly "the government" in the same sense that career KGB functionaries are. And, as I said, Washington had a distinguished career in land development.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== "What is a beach-master"? ==

Surprised a history teacher doesn't know this. It's a military officer in charge of a section of beach during an amphibious invasion. He's the guy who's in charge of making sure everything/everybody that lands on his section of the beach goes where it's supposed to and is responsible for keeping things running in a smooth and unobstructed manner. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

: OK, that seems clear enough, thanks ... but if it isn't more what you describe, then I don't think it qualifies as a significant career for the purposes of this list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Well, I heard a radio interview with Healey in which he spoke extensively and movingly about Anzio. If you don't think it counts as significant work experience, I really pity you. Please have more respect for the armed forces. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 15:28, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== Ike ==

What part of his career is there to discuss? He was an officer from more or less the midway point of WWI and kept getting promoted until he was made "Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe" culminating in the organisation and leading of D Day. He then became NATO supreme commander in Europe from 1951 until he ran for president in 1954. And that's just the highlights! I understand that Ike is not popular on this site, but lets not pretend that he didn't have a significant pre politics career. The very reason he won two landslide elections was because of his pre-politics career. Unless someone can give a coherent argument to the contrary, I will move him up to the top section. (And I don't think it can be argued he didn't have influence - his role in ending the Korean war, his moderating the demands of the Taft led senate all point to a significant influence, for good or bad). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:Without objection; it is so moved. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:07, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== RE: John Major ==

John Major was downgraded, and described as inept and obscure. I'd like to make a couple of points. John Major left school at 16, with only 3 O-levels. But he studied hard by correspondence course, and taught himself three more: 'British Constitution,' 'Economics,' 'Mathematics.' He helped with his father's small, failing business, and worked as a clerk. His father died, and that year, he joined the Young Conservatives, got a job with the London Electricity Board (and studied banking by correspondence while working a full time job). He became a banker with Standard Chartered Bank and became a senior executive who traveled across Africa for them. He famously began making speeches about economic conservative principles, standing on a box, at his local market, and became a Conservative Member of Parliament. He went on to be Chancellor of the Exchequer under Thatcher, and succeeded her as Prime Minister.

To me, somebody who didn't do very well at school, but worked very hard to better himself, and became a senior banking executive (remember that getting into such jobs without Oxford/Cambridge education or family connections is very difficult), then became the director of economic policy under THATCHER and then went onto be Prime Minister is a veritable conservative legend, who indeed had a solid career. He could, certainly, have earned more as a banking executive than as a politician.

Now, let's talk about influence. If directing economic policy under Thatcher isn't influence enough, lets talk about other things. He famously convinced George Bush Sr to support no fly zones in the Gulf War. If convincing the American President of something isn't influence, what is? In 1992, with Major as Leader, the conservative party gained more votes than any other British political party has ever gained in an election. More than Thatcher or Churchill ever gained! Major's Back to Basics campaign emphasized the family values which sadly were absent from the last few years of Thatcher's administration. John major did as much to solve the Northern Ireland problems as anybody else: And lets remember, that's one of the most successful cases of defeating terrorism ever. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 23:32, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

: You state your arguments very well. Thanks - I learned from your comments. But what is John Major's '''''influence'''''? It seems Major didn't recognize the importance of social issues ... and perhaps his somewhat traditional career was part of the problem. Most on the list have unique careers that enable them to bring something insightful to politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Did you not read the last paragraph or something, Andy? The editor gave a nice synopsis on Major's influence, including his recognition of social issues." '''If directing economic policy under Thatcher isn't influence enough''', lets talk about other things. He famously convinced George Bush Sr to support no fly zones in the Gulf War. '''If convincing the American President of something isn't influence, what is'''? In 1992, with Major as Leader, '''the conservative party gained more votes than any other British political party has ever gained in an election.''' More than Thatcher or Churchill ever gained! Major's Back to Basics campaign '''emphasized the family values which sadly were absent from the last few years of Thatcher's administration'''. John major did '''as much to solve the Northern Ireland problems as anybody else''': And lets remember, that's one of the most successful cases of defeating terrorism ever. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::'solve the Northern Ireland problems'? I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure NI's problems are far from solved. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:41, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::1.He didn't say he "solved" them, he said he ''' did as much to solve (them) as anybody else.''' There's a difference. 2. While Northern Ireland is hardly "solved," credit where credit is due: it's much more peaceful there now than it was for a long, long time. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 10:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well quite. That's rather weak praise, don't you think? He contributed 'as much as anyone' - not the most, just 'as much as' others, to the improving - not the solving - of a problem. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:53, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have no opinion on Major one way or the other. I'm just taken aback at the fundamentally poor basic reading comprehension displayed in this thread. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I certainly support the claim that he "did as much to solve the Northern Ireland problems as anybody else". Bliar tends to get the credit for the Good Friday Agreement but much of the hard work was done by John Major and was completed by the excellent Mo Mowlam (whose success in N.Ireland made Bliar insanely jealous of her...) [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 15:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: I don't doubt that John Major had some influence, but nothing cited above rises to the level of political influence of the others on the top list. And, alas, his tenure in power seemed to end in failure, with very little lasting influence '''''even in Britain'''''. Unfortunately, long-term failure can happen when one ignores the social issues and instead pretends that foreign and economic policies are all that matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:40, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

His party's collapse in the elections of 1997 was down to the "sleaze factor": too many of his party had their hand in the till. To say his achievements (the extensive - and radical even by Margaret Thatcher's standards - privatisation of nationalised businesses, taking sterling out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, the Maastricht treaty, extensive reform of the civil service, laying the groundwork for the Good Friday Agreement etc) are of very little lasting influence seems like a hurried comment and not a considered and researched one[[User:Rafael|Rafael]]
:Regarding the USA politicians in the top list, you've got one (Ron Johnson) whose major achievement so far is rejecting some judicial nominees (did he make constructive suggestions for alternatives?), one (Rick Scott) described as an innovative local government official and one (Michele Bachmann) who sounds like a wannabe President (sounds a bit like B.H.O. ...?) Set against these, you have to forgive Brits who think that John Major had some significant achievements, especially in Northern Ireland. And (thanks for reminding us, Rafael), almost the whole country with the exception of Bliar is delighted he got us out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 15:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::I think a lot of good points have been made, but I'd like to present a new argument: John Major cemented conservatism in Britain. Thatcher's administration was a whirlwind of reform and change with many privatisations. While Thatcher was indeed brilliant, she became an incredibly divisive figure and, had things continued (remember the poll tax riots), Thatcher as leader in 1992 may well have seriously lost the election: and an incoming Labour government could well have renationalised (at least some) industries - either way, it would be a point for debate. John Major was a much less divisive figure. By taking over as Prime Minister, a line was drawn under the Thatcher era, and it was his role to cement it. Thatcher continuing as Prime Minister could certainly have led to a Labour majority reversing some or all of her work. Major's 5 years as a 'steady' Prime Minister, without the huge upheaval and reform cemented the idea that no government would nationalise industries. In fact, Labour could only win the 1997 election by promising that. This was something of a rebirth for the Conservative Party, and let's not forget that William Hague was first a minister under him, and David Cameron personally worked with him. He also promoted Iain Duncan Smith and Ken Clarke - he was certainly influential in shaping the influential British conservatives of today. So I think his influence can be summed up as follows:

# Significant and successful work towards peace in Northern Ireland.
# Fighting tooth-and-nail for Britain's right to remain a member of the European Union, but not join the Euro. Joining the Euro, as Blair later wanted, would have ruined the country.
# Played a very important role in the fact that Britain's industries are now privately owned, not nationally owned. If Thatcher had continued until she lost, we may have seen a reversal of this.
# Played a very important part in shaping the Conservative 'line up' today.
# Directed Thatcher's economic policy for over a year.

In the late 80s, the Conservative party was considered the 'nasty party' and a swing of a few percent in an election would've seen Labour get back in. It was only by having a mild-mannered, less divisive figure that Thatcherism became cemented. "We're all Thatcherites now," as Peter Mandelson said. From a conservative point of view, having influenced Thatcher's policies AND influenced the line up of modern conservative figures, he is a big hitter. I think that if the UK was in the Euro, everybody would be blaming John Major right now. But he made the right decision, and fought for it, and that is affecting the UK's GDP recovery to this day. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 21:34, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

: Thanks for the interesting analysis. John Major apparently had some significance, but part of this is speculative ("If Thatcher had continued until she lost ...") and several of the policies probably would have continued with or without Major (e.g., keeping the pound out of the Euro). So I doubt that Major's marginal significance rises to the level of the other listed politicians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:: Andy, please read and pay attention to what other British editors have written. Thatcher would undoubtedly have lost an election in 1992, giving us Neil Kinnock for Prime Minister (aargh!!), John Smith as Chancellor who would have increased taxes and no-one with the guts to take Britain out of the ERM. (Remember that even now, Bliar, who was ''the'' rising star in 1992, is even now saying that Britain should have joined and should now join the Euro - what an idiot.) [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 10:43, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

::: I appreciate your insights and have learned from them. That said, John Major was a "status quo" type of politician who quickly departed from political discourse as soon as he was voted out of office. There is not much lasting influence there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:22, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

== Mustafa Kemal ==

I regards to Mustafa Kemal I personally think that his longstanding service record in the Turkish forces and his driving force in the Young Turks movement makes him a certain candidate for a politician who had a real career. No peanut farming or so-called organizing for him. A proud member of his country's armed forces.
--[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 23:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

: You may be right. Honestly, I don't know enough about Kemal's career to say. Was his military career distinguished?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

I am aware that he won twenty four medals throughout his career. Primarily awarded for distinguished service during the First World War. As well as one awarded during the war of independence. His military command record is a mixed bag i believe. Though by all accounts he seems to have been a good commander and a dutiful soldier. --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

: : Also I for his significance in history it should be his role in creating modern Turkey and making ties with the West. Its a nation that until recently had resisted the allure of Islamic extremism. --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Thanks for the history - please add him to the top list with your explanations. Please note, however, that I'm reluctant to open the door to every politician who served in the military. That would be a very long list indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: I have added him to the top list with explanation and note that he created a ''democratic'' Turkish state. Would abolishing the monarchy also qualify? --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Kemalist Turkey wasn't a democratic nation. Kemalist Turkey was a single-party state that didn't tolerate anyone a embracing non-Turkish identity (Armenians, Greeks, and Kurds) or wishing to practice their religion and traditions without government interference. Thousands of Armenians and Greeks were killed or deported. Kemalist Turkey also embraced a sort of nationalistic socialism and statism. Kemalist Turkey also had close ties with the Soviets prior to WW2. I'm a fan of the Turkish people and their rich culture, but I'm not a fan of their government's history. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 17:14, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

== Revision ==

I've done some revision of the essay in line with discussion on this Talk Page. My changes aren't very dramatic. E.g. I've left Jim Bunning in the top list even though he's practically unknown outside the USA, I've reluctantly left Chamberlain in the second list because I accept that his major achievements in domestic policy are eclipsed by his ambiguous and often misunderstood record in foreign policy, and I've left Heydrich in the third list because even though he fits the criteria of a significant career before politics and major "achievements" (of a kind) in politics, he was utterly awful and revolting. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 15:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Michele Bachmann ==

For the benefit of non-Americans to whom she's totally unknown, please could someone (Andy Schlafly?) explain what Michele Bachmann has achieved in politics that places her on a par with Churchill, Reagan or Ataturk? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:05, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

: This is a list of "Politicians Who Had a Real Career." [[Michele Bachmann]] certainly had a real career, and she's influential in the current presidential election cycle as well as Congress. It's interesting that news outside the U.S. seem to be ignoring her. Typically the [[lamestream media]] will either ignore a real [[conservative]] or try to demonize that person. In the U.S., the media are doing the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:: You've put her in the list of "significant politicians". Please tell us what's so significant about her. (Obama was influential in the previous presidential election cycle!) I don't think media outside the USA are ignoring her; in the UK, they tend not to pay much attention to inexperienced politicians who are wannabe Presidents. Obama didn't get much attention here until around February 2008. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:54, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:::This list is not about titles, or who won or lost a particular election. It's about '''''influence'''''. Obama is simply trying to be reelected. That's not influence. Bachmann, in contrast, is framing the debate and moving the entire process to the more [[conservative]] side, as illustrated as recently as Thursday night when she essentially eliminated media-favorite [[Tim Pawlenty]] from contention with her response to his criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Also, Michelle Bachmann is one of the leading figures of the [[Tea Party]]. You wouldn't argue that the tea party isn't influential, would you? Well Bachmann has been one of the main reasons why it has stayed at the front of the political scene.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 19:28, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK, understood. If influence in shaping the debate is the main factor in determining influence, I would move at least the following from List 2 to List 1:
Bush (shaped debate on how to deal with international terrorism)
Chamberlain (how can economic growth contribute to achieving peace or preparing for war)
Eisenhower (how to deal with communist expansionism)
Healey (how to achieve long-term economic stability by control of the money supply)
Kemp (how to drive prosperity by cutting taxes)
Lévesque (how far should distinct language groups have autonomy)
Major (how to achieve peace in a situation of civil strife by consensus)
Macmillan (how to decolonise empire)
Rice (as Bush Jr)
Salmond (how far should small, economically successful nations have independence)
Trudeau (how far should independent constitutions be seen as a sign of national maturity).
All these names were people of considerable experience of life and work outside politics and brought fresh ideas to framing debates of the highest importance (which is your criterion for putting Bachmann in List 1). I'll leave this posting here for a couple of hours before moving them all to List 1 in case of any reasoned objections. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 10:37, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

: I do object to equating the minor influence of the persons you list with the major influence of those in the first category. Virtually none of the people you list is cited today by many speakers or writers for having any political influence. Contrast that with Reagan, who is still frequently mentioned for his influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, Reagan isn't the issue. The issue is why the likes of Michele Bachmann, Jim Bunning, Jimmie Davis, Rand Paul and Ron Paul are in the top list. They simply don't stand comparison with Reagan, Walesa, Ataturk, Wellington or many of the names I mentioned above. Or is your list of 'Significant '''conservative''' [i.e. conservative in the sense used in the USA] politicians'? Rather than politicians in general. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 14:44, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You still seem to be missing the point. All of the people you are labeling as insignificant (with the exception of maybe Jim Bunning and Jimmie Davis) are currently shaping the face of politics today. Ron Paul has made the idea of small government conservativism, which was considered out of the question a few years ago, one of the most popular causes today. Bachmann and Rand Paul are leading the tea party movement, which is arguably the most powerful shaping force in American politics today. I notice you didn't answer my question above; you wouldn't call the tea party non influential, would you?--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 16:25, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I have no idea if the Tea Party is or will be influential. Better to wait until after the next General Election before you decide, perhaps? And in the long term, better to wait 10 years? John Major's standing has been steading revised upwards in the 14 years since he left office. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:37, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I really hope you're joking. Did you pay attention to the 2010 midterm elections? The debt ceiling debate? The tea party has already profoundly shaped American politics, and this is incredibly likely to continue as American's grow more and more frustrated with Obama's policies.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 16:58, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::So shall we wait and see whether the Tea Party (and Michele Bachmann) is a long-term influence or a short-term blip? I'm really amazed by how much Americans want their senior national politicians to have no significant experience of learning how to negotiate in Washington in order to get their policies accepted, and by how quickly momentum builds up behind such complete unknowns - like Obama and now Bachmann. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:12, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Alright, clearly we're not getting anywhere here. I personally believe the Tea Party has already proven itself to be incredibly influential, and the quickness of that is probably largely due to its grassroots nature. But I think we need some input from other editors here clearly.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 17:23, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Politics is about the future, not the past, and Bachmann is hardly a "complete unknown[]." Bachmann's views and voting record have been well-known for years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:22, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Four of them. [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 20:46, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I'll buy you a pint of the Schlafly family's finest if President Bachmann doesn't find it as difficult to negotiate with stroppy Democrats as Obama does with stroppy Republicans. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:08, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I appreciate your wit! But the reality is that a principled conservative can get good laws passed by Democratic Congresses better than [[RINO]]s can, as Reagan illustrated. Moreover, Bachmann's coattails could bring in a conservative Congress. We'll see. But regardless, Bachmann's influence is substantial already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:45, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obamacare? ==

Given the radicalism of [[Obamacare]], surely someone must have exerted considerable political influence to get it passed. If not Obama, then who? --[[User:MarioD|MarioD]] 19:52, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:The liberal media. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:"Obamacare" -- a named that some liberals complain about -- was surely not Obama's idea, and he certainly did not draft it. There are other liberals in government and the media.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:23, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Why is Michelle Bachmann the only one who has her jobs listed in a footnote as opposed to in the body of the article? ==

Is there something special about Bachmann's legal career that warrants it being relegated to a footnote? She WAS a practicing lawyer, right? [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 15:49, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

: I'm sure, like most people, Bachmann has worked in several various jobs over a period of several decades. Those other jobs are not the "career" that earns her the top category.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion for no-consensus category ==

Perhaps it would be a good idea to add a list which includes those who we have not reached a consensus about? With a note as to whether the disagreement is with regards to influence, or whether they had a real career, (or both). Suggestions for the list that I've noticed so far: Barack Obama (influence), Michele Bachmann (influence and career). And then remove these from the other lists until/if a consensus is reached. I have noticed the 'needs more discussion' section, but the no-consensus section would be only for those where a (lengthy) discussion is ongoing, and it seems unlikely that a consensus will be reached in the near future. (In contrast to Nelson Mandela, which there appears to be a consensus that he had no real other career, and only after a short discussion.) - JamesCA, August 15 2011

:Thanks for the suggestion, but objective truth is not defined by consensus. Bachmann's influence and career can hardly be doubted, and just because some may not like giving her full credit that would not justify demoting her.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:42, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Islam

2011-08-14T23:58:01Z

MrMorganH: /* Christianity never attacked the Islamic world." */ new section

Talk:Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2011-08-14T19:49:44Z

MrMorganH: /* Why is Michelle Bachmann the only one who has her jobs listed in a footnote as opposed to in the body of the article? */ new section

==This is interesting==
Just to clarify do you mean people who are not "career politicians"? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oh yeah, I added Herman Cain. Would he qualify (don't know much about US politics). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significance, and alphabetization ==

The list is for ''significant'' politicians who have had some influence. Many who have been added do not qualify. They need to be moved to the lower category.

Also, why alphabetize rather than rank by influence?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:What would qualify as significance? I moved Franken because, though his career was perhaps less-than-serious, as a senator, he makes law. Perhaps that could be the judge of influence? And I thought alphabetization would be effective for the purposes of locating a certain name following the explansion of the article. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::Good point about the value of alphabetization ... if there are enough names whereby it becomes an issue. Many of the names need to be moved to the "not significant" category. For example, unless you can identify a real influence that Al Franken has had, then he does not belong on the real list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I moved Franken.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Until such a time, I think alphabetization is still desirable, to avoid getting into arguments over who is more influential than whom. Regarding Franken, he has presided over two Supreme Court Justice confirmations, intoduced [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1495: a bill] to provide service dogs to disabled veterans as well as an amendment to the appropriations bill regarding contract disputes, and was in the national news a good deal due to his election controversies. (This is assuming that the positivity or negativity of influence is moot). --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Land surveying ==

I see Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were moved out of the list. Both were land surveyors for several years, which ''is'' a "real" job. They might not have been hugely successful at the position, but it is a job that has real responsibility and there are legal consequences if done incorrectly. Mount Rushmore have 3 surveyors on it - only Theodore Roosevelt had the poor judgement of not attempting the profession. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Eisenhower ==

He was a five-star general in the Army and was very influential in WWII. He helped with the Invasion of Normandy.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ==

Whether you like him or hate him, he ''is'' the president of the United States. How can it be said he isn't "significant" in politics? What has all the fighting been about the past three years then? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:24, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Edited to add - if he's insignificant, why does CP have so many articles about him and his administration's policies? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Because he's a black atheist Muslim foreign liberal. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

I am sure this was not the authors intent, but the above statement could come of as racist. I think he meant to say "a Black Muslim" - which is a political group. But by inserting atheist in between, it looks like "black" is being used in a perjorative way. The author might want to rephrase it.--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 17:08, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obama ??? ==

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Politicians_Who_Had_a_Real_Career&curid=114700&diff=898411&oldid=898410 I am curious about edit.] Obama had a very wealthy career as a attorney and author before stepping into the political fray. Why does it not count? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
: (Edit conflict) Also, why would there be question marks by Obama's name, but attorney by Santorum's, despite Santorum only having 4 years under his law belt and Obama having 9+? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And what does "no clear influence in politics mean"? He's the president!!! Can't get much more influential than that! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Surely influence means more than someone's title or position. Otherwise, the 44 most influential people in American history would be the 44 presidents, which is obviously not the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::But he has quite a clear influence. He is the President. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:17, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So Barack Obama is no longer destroying the country? What a glorious day for America. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 23:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Folks, position does not equal influence. Jesus had no position at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::But Obama has huge influence. He can sign things into law that cause massive changes. How do you classify influence? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:41, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Thomas Edison]] was named by Life magazine as the most influential person in the entire world in the second millennium. Yet he did not sign anything into law.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Yes, but the section is titled "No clear influence ''in politics''." Obama clearly has enormous influence in politics. Particularly in that he controls the military, has a presidential veto and can pardon criminals. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:53, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Position does not necessarily equate to influence - but it makes it more likely that they had influence, but not certain. Ie. Michele Bachmann has spent most of her time in Congress when Republicans were in the minority. This is one of the reasons why most of the bills she has submitted have not been passed into law: her party lacked the political numbers to be able to do so. Compare this to a Democratic Congressman elected at the same time, whose party did have control in Congress, who would most likely have had a larger impact because the bills introduced would have been more likely to get further. And although the 43 most influential people in American politics would not consist of the 43 American Presidents (not 44, Grover Cleveland is counted twice), but if you tried to list the top 250 influential people in American politics, you would get nearly all of them in that list (not William Henry Harrison, serving for 1 month, and like). And with regards to Jesus being influential without a position, his main influence was not political, in fact his political influence could be considered minimal (ignoring the effect centuries later, which surely would not be relevant). Therefore Jesus would not be on this list, as this is about political influence in the US. - JamesCA, August 8 2011
:The trouble with this list is that it's often hard to evaluate a person's true influence until some years after the peak of their career - it's one thing to make policies or speeches while in office, and another to influence the actions of those who follow you. I don't think the list should include anyone who entered politics less than 25 years ago, since such inclusions cannot take a fully informed perspective.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:03, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Definition of influence ==

Andy, please give a definition of "influence" for us to work with. Thanks. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:15, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am curious as well. I am reluctant to add any more names until a clearer pattern emerges. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 00:22, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::It's obvious what "influence" is, isn't it? It means changing the way people view or conduct their lives. Rubber-stamping laws passed by Congress doesn't rank high on the list, but the media of course make money by pretending otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then Obama qualifies, but for the wrong reasons. forcing people into health care, downgrading the credit rating etc etc are all due to his political influence. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:10, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I assume it isn't ''President Obama's war in Libya'' any longer? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:01, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::If you're going to consider Obama not influential, then you can't complain about his policies, only complain about incomptetence. Because if he is not influential, then his policies don't matter, and aren't worth complaining about. Complain about the policies of the Democratic Party, instead of the man who is supposedly their puppet (which I think deserves enough evidence that maybe a page on the Debate Topics should be started?) - JamesCA, August 8 2011

::::That's like say no one should complain about a lack of leadership, which is similar to a leader who lacks influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::It's not like that. I said complain about incompetence, which is a lack of leadership/a leader who lacks influence. But if he isn't influential, then his policies don't matter, because he has no effect on them. Once he is influential, then his policies matter because then he can do something about them. - JamesCA, August 8 2011

== LBJ??? ==

LBJ taught at a school near the Mexico border in a town called Cotulla for 1 year. He then returned to teachers college, finished his diploma and taught at a High School in Houston for 1 semester, before taking a job as a congressman's assistant in Washington. He was then appointed head of the Texas NYA (a new deal program) before geing elected congressman a couple of years later. In other words LBJ had no significant career prior to getting into politics. For this reason I will remove his name. Whatever you can say about LBJ (and there is a lot to say) you cannot say he wasn't a career politician. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 02:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Problem with organization ==

I don't really understand the logic of this page. The first part is clear enough, a list of politicians who had success in other careers before entering politics, but the second section seems to be talking about something different entirely. Do you mean for "No real influence in politics" to be the opposite category of "significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)"? Wouldn't a more logical second category be "Career Politicians," or "Politicians with no real career outside of politics"?

I only ask because I can think of several cases where a politician both had a real career outside politics and were not extremely influential in politics. Sunny Bono comes to mind, an extraordinarily successful musician who did relatively little as a congressman. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both successful businessmen who have never managed to break through to meaningful political careers. As others have argued above, Obama can't be considered to have little influence in politics, since the president is by definition the most important politician in the system. However, there is a case to be made that he never had much of a career before entering politics. At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:28, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're right JDW. You'd think that a guy with that kind of pedigree would be doing some really interesting/earth-shattering/high-stakes and high-paying work, maybe in the private sector or in academia, before moving on to politics. Otherwise, what a waste of time and potential. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::That's a strange remark, John (or are you being ironic?) Whether you like his brand of politics or not, he's decided to devote his undoubted potential to national-level politics. Seeking elected office in a democracy is a worthy ambition. Why do you regard it as a waste? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:30, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Duke of Wellington ==

Confused newcomer here. Why is the 1st Duke of Wellington in the list headed "No clear inluence in politics"? He was the dominant figure on the right of British politics from 1829 to 1848. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 16:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:If explained in the entry, that's a good reason to promote him to the top list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:: OK, so I've done this for Wellington and also for MacMillan and Chamberlain. I've left Heseltine, Major and Baldwin in the bottom list - perhaps they're examples of how a significant career before/outside politics doesn't prepare you for high office. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Chamberlain was a typical liberal appeaser. He had no clear influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: I think you need to bring yourself up-to-date on British history. Chamberlain was libelled as an appeaser by the authors of a leftist pamphlet called ''The Guilty Men'', published in 1940. Many of the leftists who wrote the pamphlet were much more strongly in favour of appeasement than Chamberlain was. Churchill admired and trusted him and placed him in charge of domestic policy. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:16, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: (edit conflict) Sorry... what? Chamberlain was a typical inter-war Tory. He hated war and was prepared to do anything to stop it! His only major opponent was the ex-Liberal Winston Churchill! Without Chamberlain, the Czech appeasement deal would never have happened and the war would have been different because Czechoslovakia would have had a chance to defend itself. I really don't see how you can write him off so easily. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:18, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::The alternative to Chamberlain as PM in 1937 was Halifax, in which case there would have been more enthusiastic appeasement and no military build-up, and Britain would have become the western outpost of the Reich. No, Chamberlain's judgement in foreign policy wasn't immaculate but considering that his Foreign Secretary was Halifax and that Parliament, ''especially Labour'', was very strongly pro-appeasement, it wasn't as bad as ''The Guilty Men'' made out. Your line about "typical inter-war Tory" is incorrect; his achievements in improving working conditions and in economics were genuine. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:27, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Sorry, but there wasn't really a choice in '37. Baldwin advised the King to send for Chamberlain, and he did. The choice was Halifax vs Churchill a few years later. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:32, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: The debate took place within the Tory party. They chose the outstanding domestic politician of the first half of the 20th century although it would shortly become apparent that the expertise the PM would need was in foreign affairs. (But had they chosen the leading foreign affairs expert, history would have been disastrously different...) Modern historians are much less harsh on Chamberlain than their predecessors. If he had stood up to Germany in 1938, he would have given Hitler the opportunity to drag Britain into a war which she could not have won, under-equipped and without the support of France. The Czechoslovak economy and military was relatively strong but too small to resist the Wehrmacht. The real damage was done about 5 years earlier, when Baldwin refused to re-arm. Chamberlain's own policy as PM was the classic, "if you hope for peace, prepare for war" but that doesn't work against a madman. It's now generally understood that Chamberlain did ''not'' trust Hitler but felt he had no alternative in the Munich Conference; he certainly had no sympathy with the Nazis, unlike some more aristocratic Tories. It's also widely recognised that his very real achievements as Chancellor put Britain into a position in which rearmament from 1937 onwards was economically possible. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:53, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Ron Paul ==

For the benefit of non-US editors, please could someone explain who Ron Paul is. The page describes him as "the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade". I must say that he's completely unknown in the UK and I don't see that he won many votes in Presidential elections.

The point is to have a benchmark so we know where to add names of the many politicians who've had significant outside careers: why is Ron Paul in the "influential" list and the Duke of Wellington in the "not influential" list? Or for that matter, Neville Chamberlain: he had one of the most influential ''peace-time'' careers of any politician in the UK in the 20th century. As Health Minister, he got the first Factory Act passed, a keystone of legislation on safety at work, and as Chancellor, he ensured that Britain had the economic strength and military spending it needed to fight Hitler. Churchill inspired the Spitfire pilots but Chamberlain got the Spitfires built. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Significant isn't the same thing as good ==

Mr Schlafly, as you give history lessons (are you a professional history teacher?) you surely understand that many significant politicians weren't good people. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:Regarding Heydrich and Lenin: you've now placed them in the category of people whose career outside politics needs discussion. They were both thoroughly evil people but they both had significant careers before going into politics and were both extremely significant (negatively) as politicians. When you say, "Significant politicians", do you mean, "Significant politicians whose policies Andy Schlafly approves of"? Please let me know because if you do, perhaps it would not be a good use of my time or that of other editors to attempt to assist you. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:21, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Trudeau, Levesque, Parizeau, Mulroney as "undeserving" ==

By what definition are these four men, who together and in opposition completely changed the political landscape of a country that happens to be our largest trading partner "undeserving"? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

I would consider them morally undeserving. Levesque and Parizeau were separatists. Mulroney was corrupt and Trudeau was a socialist. In terms of influence, I might say Levesque because he was the first PQ premier. Trudeau and Mulroney were long serving but did not really do that much to change the country. Parizeau was a failure.
:This article isn't about moral purity. Read the title of the article: "Politicians who had a real career." They were politicians. They were important politicians. They had careers before embarking in politics. Therefore, they deserve to be in the article. Your assertion that Trudeau and Mulroney didn't change the country is absurd. Trudeau, if he did nothing else, repatriated the constitution and gave the country the Charter of rights and Freedoms. Mulroney, if he did nothing else, opened the door for the a complete retooling of Canada's concept of a "social safety net." Parizeau might not have succeeded in bringing about Quebec independence, but he came very close, and Quebec-Canada relations have never been the same since 1995; moreover he was the financial brains behind the creation and expansion of "Quebec. Inc in the 1970s and 1980s. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:38, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Headlines are concise out of necessity. Implicit in the headline for this entry is the word "influential", as has already been explained before on this talk page. Someone who merely "opened the door" doesn't count; doormen are not counted among the most influential people, unless they do something in addition to opening doors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Pierre Trudeau wrote a new constitution for Canada. Writing a new constitution for a country is being a doorman? Look at Canada in 1983 when he left office, and look at Canada when Mulroney left office--do those countries look at all the same to you? Look at Quebec in 1976 before Levesque. Look at Quebec when Parizeau left office -- does that look at all like the same place? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 21:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Honestly, Canada does look the same to me throughout that period: beautiful landscape, terrific people, but headed in the misguided [[liberal]] direction. It's a tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:44, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== Confusion ==

Is there some special set of criteria here? Why are people like Margaret Thatcher being deleted while others like Lech Walesa are being moved to different sections? It's pretty clear that these two had significant careers before becoming politicians (Thatcher's science background was often referenced during her term as PM). I don't see why they shouldn't make the list, while Michele Bachmann, who has had no career outside politics at all, makes the top list. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 19:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would suggest including an introductory paragraph at the top, to help clarify what exactly this is about. Certainly, Lech Walesa had a very clear and very real career, so why does he need "further discussion?" It is, I admit, an interesting idea to analyze the pre-politics careers of those that would be our leaders. But I'm not sure of the intentions of this essay nor its contents.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 23:24, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::Thatcher did not have a real career outside of government. Majoring in chemistry is not a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:36, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

::[[Homeschooling]] 5 kids and helping raise about two-dozen additional foster children, as [[Michele Bachmann]] did, is a real career.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I don't consider homeschooling 5 kids and raising foster kids a career. Nothing against homeschooling, but anyone can do it (although its hard to do it well). Same with raising foster kids. In Canada, most of the foster parents are on welfare and take in kids because the money does not come off of their cheques. Do they have careers ? Bachmann has two law degrees and was a successful lawyer. That is not something everyone could do. That is what I would call a career--[[User:PeterNant|PeterNant]] 18:01, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::Lech Walesa may merit the top list. Good point. Perhaps a greater explanation of what his career and political influence were would help.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

I really am also very confused - I added the two-term Mayor of New York and the likely GOP Presidential nominee, yet they have "no clear influence in politics"? Sorry, but I don't understand at all - they are both very significant figures? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 23:46, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am confused as to how Bachmann is considered to have a real career but not Obama? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:58, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::I'm confused too. I accept that Chamberlain's later career was controversial but why on earth have (1) Harold MacMillan and (2) Alex Salmond been removed from the top list? (1) Decolonisation of Africa was a big ahievement and (2) like him or loath him, Salmond is probably the most effective politician in the UK today. Perhaps I could politely suggest that the contributions of certain editors are not being made with the benefit of a strong sense of history...? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:06, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Insight ==

Hi folks. I believe I have just had a fascinating conservative insight, based on the current form of this list. I present it here for your perusal and hope that it will provoke discussion. Noting that there are very few influential liberals in the first list, I conclude that

'''Nearly all influential liberals are professional politicians. In contrast, many influential conservatives hold "real" jobs prior to entering politics.'''

This appears to be particularly true among conservatives whose views align with those of the Tea Party. I believe this insight is well-supported by the data presented here, as soon as one has appropriately defined "influential" and "real job". --[[User:PhilS33|PhilS33]] 09:17, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

:Superb insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Indeed. "As soon as one has appropriately defined 'influential' and 'real job.'" It's all about how you choose to define your terms. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:47, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Not necessarily. "Influential" and ""real job" are hardly arcane or technical terms - they are commonly understood by most people. Now of course influence is not a binary quality, but one can certainly say that the more influential, the more likely to have had a real job (or vice versa) without getting bogged down in pedantic definitions.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:04, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::::It seems like this is almost a truism. Those who hold real jobs will gain an understanding of the value of money and the damage caused by over-regulation and high taxes. Thus, they will tend to become more conservative with time. Those who never hold real jobs will have little grasp of the value of a dollar or the harm of government overreach, and will thus tend towards liberalism. It's not unlike the difference between a child who is expected to attend to chores and a part-time job in order to earn spending money, as opposed to one who is spoiled and freely given money without responsibility. The first child will learn to be independent and self-sufficient, while the second will learn to run to mommy and daddy (or, in the case of liberals, the government) with outstretched hands whenever money runs short. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:43, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

PhilS's insight looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy as far as this site is concerned. Politicians that conservatives don't approve of aren't included in the list at the top part of the page (or get removed from it as soon as Mr Schlafly spots them). Winston Churchill and Reinhard Heydrich had careers as military officers of about the same length of time and were two of the most influential politicians of any country in the 20th century. Which implies that having a real job before entering politics won't make you the kind of politician decent people would approve of. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:35, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

:The list is objective. Winston Churchill was a phenomenal writer and historian, and he had a significant political influence. That obviously warrants the top list. Reinhard Heydrich, in contrast, was an immoral underachiever outside of politics, and the horrific crimes of Nazism continued after Heydrich died at age 38.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::The list cannot be considered "objective" for a moment as you say, as long as former US Presidents, current Presidential primary candidates, sitting US Senators and Governors of States are not considered to have had "influence". It seems very strange that you would take such a view, I must say? --[[User:JanW|JanW]] 16:31, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

==Denis Healey==

Denis Healey introduced monetarism to the British economy in the late seventies. If that's not influential, what is?

As for the "obscure or otherwise inept Brits" section, A+ for childish humour, Z-- for political insight ~~Rafael
::Hey, I tried to argue that a guy who [[Pierre Trudeau|gave his country a new constitution]] was influential, and got shot down for no discernable reason. Good luck with this. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

:::The policy of every British Chancellor since 1976, except Gordon Brown, has essentially followed Healey's policies. He's much more highly regarded - including by conservatives - and has been much more influential in the long term than either Wilson or Callahan, the PMs in whose cabinets he served. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I've put DH back in the top list. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 19:02, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Mandela ==

Can Mandela be said to have had a 'real' career before politics? He was an aristocrat who ran away from an arranged marriage and worked for a few years as a solicitors clerk after being fired from manual employment. Hardly a career... [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 12:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:I see your point. It's not like he played a sport or sang songs, you know, really important careers. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 12:21, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::I'd say that being a popular singer is more significant than being fired from a factory and failing the law exams, especially given Mandela's privileged background. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]]

== Putin ==

"(I don't think the KGB is a career outside of government)", but Washington's military career, which was certainly a government job, counts? I too am confused. [[User:ACork|ACork]] 17:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

: Washington is listed for reasons more than his brilliant military career which, by the way, was not a government job like the KGB.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::So, 'working for The Government' can mean different things when applied to different people. Sounds very like Orwell's (that good working class Conservative) Newspeak. As you are moving the goalposts depending whether the person fits your agenda or not I'll leave you to it. By the way, both Churchill and Thatcher were Atheists. Godspeed [[User:ACork|ACork]] 12:35, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::A mostly volunteer army is hardly "the government" in the same sense that career KGB functionaries are. And, as I said, Washington had a distinguished career in land development.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== "What is a beach-master"? ==

Surprised a history teacher doesn't know this. It's a military officer in charge of a section of beach during an amphibious invasion. He's the guy who's in charge of making sure everything/everybody that lands on his section of the beach goes where it's supposed to and is responsible for keeping things running in a smooth and unobstructed manner. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

: OK, that seems clear enough, thanks ... but if it isn't more what you describe, then I don't think it qualifies as a significant career for the purposes of this list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Well, I heard a radio interview with Healey in which he spoke extensively and movingly about Anzio. If you don't think it counts as significant work experience, I really pity you. Please have more respect for the armed forces. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 15:28, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== Ike ==

What part of his career is there to discuss? He was an officer from more or less the midway point of WWI and kept getting promoted until he was made "Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe" culminating in the organisation and leading of D Day. He then became NATO supreme commander in Europe from 1951 until he ran for president in 1954. And that's just the highlights! I understand that Ike is not popular on this site, but lets not pretend that he didn't have a significant pre politics career. The very reason he won two landslide elections was because of his pre-politics career. Unless someone can give a coherent argument to the contrary, I will move him up to the top section. (And I don't think it can be argued he didn't have influence - his role in ending the Korean war, his moderating the demands of the Taft led senate all point to a significant influence, for good or bad). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 03:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:Without objection; it is so moved. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:07, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== RE: John Major ==

John Major was downgraded, and described as inept and obscure. I'd like to make a couple of points. John Major left school at 16, with only 3 O-levels. But he studied hard by correspondence course, and taught himself three more: 'British Constitution,' 'Economics,' 'Mathematics.' He helped with his father's small, failing business, and worked as a clerk. His father died, and that year, he joined the Young Conservatives, got a job with the London Electricity Board (and studied banking by correspondence while working a full time job). He became a banker with Standard Chartered Bank and became a senior executive who traveled across Africa for them. He famously began making speeches about economic conservative principles, standing on a box, at his local market, and became a Conservative Member of Parliament. He went on to be Chancellor of the Exchequer under Thatcher, and succeeded her as Prime Minister.

To me, somebody who didn't do very well at school, but worked very hard to better himself, and became a senior banking executive (remember that getting into such jobs without Oxford/Cambridge education or family connections is very difficult), then became the director of economic policy under THATCHER and then went onto be Prime Minister is a veritable conservative legend, who indeed had a solid career. He could, certainly, have earned more as a banking executive than as a politician.

Now, let's talk about influence. If directing economic policy under Thatcher isn't influence enough, lets talk about other things. He famously convinced George Bush Sr to support no fly zones in the Gulf War. If convincing the American President of something isn't influence, what is? In 1992, with Major as Leader, the conservative party gained more votes than any other British political party has ever gained in an election. More than Thatcher or Churchill ever gained! Major's Back to Basics campaign emphasized the family values which sadly were absent from the last few years of Thatcher's administration. John major did as much to solve the Northern Ireland problems as anybody else: And lets remember, that's one of the most successful cases of defeating terrorism ever. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 23:32, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

: You state your arguments very well. Thanks - I learned from your comments. But what is John Major's '''''influence'''''? It seems Major didn't recognize the importance of social issues ... and perhaps his somewhat traditional career was part of the problem. Most on the list have unique careers that enable them to bring something insightful to politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Did you not read the last paragraph or something, Andy? The editor gave a nice synopsis on Major's influence, including his recognition of social issues." '''If directing economic policy under Thatcher isn't influence enough''', lets talk about other things. He famously convinced George Bush Sr to support no fly zones in the Gulf War. '''If convincing the American President of something isn't influence, what is'''? In 1992, with Major as Leader, '''the conservative party gained more votes than any other British political party has ever gained in an election.''' More than Thatcher or Churchill ever gained! Major's Back to Basics campaign '''emphasized the family values which sadly were absent from the last few years of Thatcher's administration'''. John major did '''as much to solve the Northern Ireland problems as anybody else''': And lets remember, that's one of the most successful cases of defeating terrorism ever. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 09:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::'solve the Northern Ireland problems'? I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure NI's problems are far from solved. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:41, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::1.He didn't say he "solved" them, he said he ''' did as much to solve (them) as anybody else.''' There's a difference. 2. While Northern Ireland is hardly "solved," credit where credit is due: it's much more peaceful there now than it was for a long, long time. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 10:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well quite. That's rather weak praise, don't you think? He contributed 'as much as anyone' - not the most, just 'as much as' others, to the improving - not the solving - of a problem. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:53, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have no opinion on Major one way or the other. I'm just taken aback at the fundamentally poor basic reading comprehension displayed in this thread. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I certainly support the claim that he "did as much to solve the Northern Ireland problems as anybody else". Bliar tends to get the credit for the Good Friday Agreement but much of the hard work was done by John Major and was completed by the excellent Mo Mowlam (whose success in N.Ireland made Bliar insanely jealous of her...) [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 15:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: I don't doubt that John Major had some influence, but nothing cited above rises to the level of political influence of the others on the top list. And, alas, his tenure in power seemed to end in failure, with very little lasting influence '''''even in Britain'''''. Unfortunately, long-term failure can happen when one ignores the social issues and instead pretends that foreign and economic policies are all that matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:40, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

His party's collapse in the elections of 1997 was down to the "sleaze factor": too many of his party had their hand in the till. To say his achievements (the extensive - and radical even by Margaret Thatcher's standards - privatisation of nationalised businesses, taking sterling out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, the Maastricht treaty, extensive reform of the civil service, laying the groundwork for the Good Friday Agreement etc) are of very little lasting influence seems like a hurried comment and not a considered and researched one[[User:Rafael|Rafael]]
:Regarding the USA politicians in the top list, you've got one (Ron Johnson) whose major achievement so far is rejecting some judicial nominees (did he make constructive suggestions for alternatives?), one (Rick Scott) described as an innovative local government official and one (Michele Bachmann) who sounds like a wannabe President (sounds a bit like B.H.O. ...?) Set against these, you have to forgive Brits who think that John Major had some significant achievements, especially in Northern Ireland. And (thanks for reminding us, Rafael), almost the whole country with the exception of Bliar is delighted he got us out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 15:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::I think a lot of good points have been made, but I'd like to present a new argument: John Major cemented conservatism in Britain. Thatcher's administration was a whirlwind of reform and change with many privatisations. While Thatcher was indeed brilliant, she became an incredibly divisive figure and, had things continued (remember the poll tax riots), Thatcher as leader in 1992 may well have seriously lost the election: and an incoming Labour government could well have renationalised (at least some) industries - either way, it would be a point for debate. John Major was a much less divisive figure. By taking over as Prime Minister, a line was drawn under the Thatcher era, and it was his role to cement it. Thatcher continuing as Prime Minister could certainly have led to a Labour majority reversing some or all of her work. Major's 5 years as a 'steady' Prime Minister, without the huge upheaval and reform cemented the idea that no government would nationalise industries. In fact, Labour could only win the 1997 election by promising that. This was something of a rebirth for the Conservative Party, and let's not forget that William Hague was first a minister under him, and David Cameron personally worked with him. He also promoted Iain Duncan Smith and Ken Clarke - he was certainly influential in shaping the influential British conservatives of today. So I think his influence can be summed up as follows:

# Significant and successful work towards peace in Northern Ireland.
# Fighting tooth-and-nail for Britain's right to remain a member of the European Union, but not join the Euro. Joining the Euro, as Blair later wanted, would have ruined the country.
# Played a very important role in the fact that Britain's industries are now privately owned, not nationally owned. If Thatcher had continued until she lost, we may have seen a reversal of this.
# Played a very important part in shaping the Conservative 'line up' today.
# Directed Thatcher's economic policy for over a year.

In the late 80s, the Conservative party was considered the 'nasty party' and a swing of a few percent in an election would've seen Labour get back in. It was only by having a mild-mannered, less divisive figure that Thatcherism became cemented. "We're all Thatcherites now," as Peter Mandelson said. From a conservative point of view, having influenced Thatcher's policies AND influenced the line up of modern conservative figures, he is a big hitter. I think that if the UK was in the Euro, everybody would be blaming John Major right now. But he made the right decision, and fought for it, and that is affecting the UK's GDP recovery to this day. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 21:34, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

: Thanks for the interesting analysis. John Major apparently had some significance, but part of this is speculative ("If Thatcher had continued until she lost ...") and several of the policies probably would have continued with or without Major (e.g., keeping the pound out of the Euro). So I doubt that Major's marginal significance rises to the level of the other listed politicians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:: Andy, please read and pay attention to what other British editors have written. Thatcher would undoubtedly have lost an election in 1992, giving us Neil Kinnock for Prime Minister (aargh!!), John Smith as Chancellor who would have increased taxes and no-one with the guts to take Britain out of the ERM. (Remember that even now, Bliar, who was ''the'' rising star in 1992, is even now saying that Britain should have joined and should now join the Euro - what an idiot.) [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 10:43, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

::: I appreciate your insights and have learned from them. That said, John Major was a "status quo" type of politician who quickly departed from political discourse as soon as he was voted out of office. There is not much lasting influence there.

== Mustafa Kemal ==

I regards to Mustafa Kemal I personally think that his longstanding service record in the Turkish forces and his driving force in the Young Turks movement makes him a certain candidate for a politician who had a real career. No peanut farming or so-called organizing for him. A proud member of his country's armed forces.
--[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 23:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

: You may be right. Honestly, I don't know enough about Kemal's career to say. Was his military career distinguished?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

I am aware that he won twenty four medals throughout his career. Primarily awarded for distinguished service during the First World War. As well as one awarded during the war of independence. His military command record is a mixed bag i believe. Though by all accounts he seems to have been a good commander and a dutiful soldier. --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

: : Also I for his significance in history it should be his role in creating modern Turkey and making ties with the West. Its a nation that until recently had resisted the allure of Islamic extremism. --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Thanks for the history - please add him to the top list with your explanations. Please note, however, that I'm reluctant to open the door to every politician who served in the military. That would be a very long list indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: I have added him to the top list with explanation and note that he created a ''democratic'' Turkish state. Would abolishing the monarchy also qualify? --[[User:TaylorH|TaylorH]] 00:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== Revision ==

I've done some revision of the essay in line with discussion on this Talk Page. My changes aren't very dramatic. E.g. I've left Jim Bunning in the top list even though he's practically unknown outside the USA, I've reluctantly left Chamberlain in the second list because I accept that his major achievements in domestic policy are eclipsed by his ambiguous and often misunderstood record in foreign policy, and I've left Heydrich in the third list because even though he fits the criteria of a significant career before politics and major "achievements" (of a kind) in politics, he was utterly awful and revolting. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 15:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Michele Bachmann ==

For the benefit of non-Americans to whom she's totally unknown, please could someone (Andy Schlafly?) explain what Michele Bachmann has achieved in politics that places her on a par with Churchill, Reagan or Ataturk? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:05, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

: This is a list of "Politicians Who Had a Real Career." [[Michele Bachmann]] certainly had a real career, and she's influential in the current presidential election cycle as well as Congress. It's interesting that news outside the U.S. seem to be ignoring her. Typically the [[lamestream media]] will either ignore a real [[conservative]] or try to demonize that person. In the U.S., the media are doing the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:: You've put her in the list of "significant politicians". Please tell us what's so significant about her. (Obama was influential in the previous presidential election cycle!) I don't think media outside the USA are ignoring her; in the UK, they tend not to pay much attention to inexperienced politicians who are wannabe Presidents. Obama didn't get much attention here until around February 2008. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:54, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:::This list is not about titles, or who won or lost a particular election. It's about '''''influence'''''. Obama is simply trying to be reelected. That's not influence. Bachmann, in contrast, is framing the debate and moving the entire process to the more [[conservative]] side, as illustrated as recently as Thursday night when she essentially eliminated media-favorite [[Tim Pawlenty]] from contention with her response to his criticism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Also, Michelle Bachmann is one of the leading figures of the [[Tea Party]]. You wouldn't argue that the tea party isn't influential, would you? Well Bachmann has been one of the main reasons why it has stayed at the front of the political scene.--[[User:MorrisF|MorrisF]] 19:28, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK, understood. If influence in shaping the debate is the main factor in determining influence, I would move at least the following from List 2 to List 1:
Bush (shaped debate on how to deal with international terrorism)
Chamberlain (how can economic growth contribute to achieving peace or preparing for war)
Eisenhower (how to deal with communist expansionism)
Healey (how to achieve long-term economic stability by control of the money supply)
Kemp (how to drive prosperity by cutting taxes)
Lévesque (how far should distinct language groups have autonomy)
Major (how to achieve peace in a situation of civil strife by consensus)
Macmillan (how to decolonise empire)
Rice (as Bush Jr)
Salmond (how far should small, economically successful nations have independence)
Trudeau (how far should independent constitutions be seen as a sign of national maturity).
All these names were people of considerable experience of life and work outside politics and brought fresh ideas to framing debates of the highest importance (which is your criterion for putting Bachmann in List 1). I'll leave this posting here for a couple of hours before moving them all to List 1 in case of any reasoned objections. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 10:37, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

: I do object to equating the minor influence of the persons you list with the major influence of those in the first category. Virtually none of the people you list is cited today by many speakers or writers for having any political influence. Contrast that with Reagan, who is still frequently mentioned for his influence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, Reagan isn't the issue. The issue is why the likes of Michele Bachmann, Jim Bunning, Jimmie Davis, Rand Paul and Ron Paul are in the top list. They simply don't stand comparison with Reagan, Walesa, Ataturk, Wellington or many of the names I mentioned above. Or is your list of 'Significant '''conservative''' [i.e. conservative in the sense used in the USA] politicians'? Rather than politicians in general. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 14:44, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

== Obamacare? ==

Given the radicalism of [[Obamacare]], surely someone must have exerted considerable political influence to get it passed. If not Obama, then who? --[[User:MarioD|MarioD]] 19:52, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:The liberal media. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:"Obamacare" -- a named that some liberals complain about -- was surely not Obama's idea, and he certainly did not draft it. There are other liberals in government and the media.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:23, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Why is Michelle Bachmann the only one who has her jobs listed in a footnote as opposed to in the body of the article? ==

Is there something special about Bachmann's legal career that warrants it being relegated to a footnote? She WAS a practicing lawyer, right? [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 15:49, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Relativistic mass

2011-08-14T14:12:50Z

MrMorganH: Created page with "This seems highly jargon-laden and specialized for a site meant for the general reader/homeschooling community. ~~~~"

This seems highly jargon-laden and specialized for a site meant for the general reader/homeschooling community. [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 10:12, 14 August 2011 (EDT)