Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Liberalism is the root of all racism

2009-06-12T02:46:14Z

Murray: Created page with '''[i]t was the southern liberals who made life hell for blacks, who resisted inclusion of the black race in America.'' That is one of the more ridiculous statements that a person...'

''[i]t was the southern liberals who made life hell for blacks, who resisted inclusion of the black race in America.''
That is one of the more ridiculous statements that a person could conceivably make. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:46, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Robert Mugabe

2008-12-13T19:49:09Z

Murray:

'''Robert Mugabe''' has been the repressive dictator of [[Zimbabwe]] since December 31, 1987. Zimbabwe was previously a [[British]] colony, when it was known as [[Rhodesia]]. <ref>https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/zi.html</ref> He violently oppresses anyone who opposes his government. He has cracked down on dissidents and violently seized farms from white (and many black) farm owners - seizures that led to much of the land becoming desolate as those who took the land knew about guns, not farming. A black nationalist, he eventually established one-party rule in his country, becoming Executive President of Zimbabwe in 1987 with his [[Marxism|Marxist]] "Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front" (ZANU-PF).<ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9054151/Robert-Mugabe</ref>

In his 27 years in power, he has gone from the poster boy for the "New [[Africa]]", ruled by educated, democratic leaders, to the bottom of the heap. Under his rule the health and well-being of his people have dropped dramatically, with his arbitrary arrests and torture of anyone considered to be an opponent. According to the [[World Health Organization]], Zimbabwe has the world’s shortest life expectancy - 37 years for men and 34 for women. It also has the greatest percentage of orphans (about 25%, says [[UNICEF]]) and the worst annual inflation rate (1,281% as of last month). He last allowed an election in 2002 but “won” only after having his leading opponent arrested for treason.

Mugabe came into power with the help of [[China]] and [[North Korea]]. The [[UK]] and the [[UN]] did nothing, as Rhodesia fought off a Communist-backed attack supported by not only China and [[North Korea]] but the [[Soviet Union]] and [[East Germany]] as well.{{fact}}

The son of a village carpenter, Mugabe was trained as a teacher in a [[Roman Catholic]] mission.

== Fast Facts ==

*Date of Birth 21/02/1924
*Place of Birth Kutama Mission, Zvimba
*Country of Residence Zimbabwe
*Nationality Zimbabwean
*Father's Name Gabriel Mugabe
*Mother's Name Bona Shonhiwa
*Spouse's Name Grace Marufu
*Marriage Date 00/08/1996
*Children 2 son(s) 1 daughter(s)
*School Kutuma Mission School

== Education ==

*Bachelor of Arts University of Fort Hare Education 1951
*Bachelor of Science University of London - UOL Economics
*Master of Science University of South Africa Economics
*Bachelor of Law University of South Africa
*Master of Laws University of South Africa
*Bachelor of Administration University of South Africa
*Bachelor of Education University of South Africa
<ref>http://www.whoswhosa.co.za/Pages/profilefull.aspx?IndID=3562</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Mugabe, Robert}}

[[Category:Dictators]]

Charity effect

2008-12-13T19:44:07Z

Murray:

A '''charity effect''' is an unexpected benefit resulting from an act of [[charity]]. This concept is typically ignored or even rejected by those who advocate compulsory tax-and-spend programs instead of voluntary charity.

Examples of the charity effect include:

*in volunteering to teach others, there is a remarkable and unexpected benefit to the understanding of the teacher himself

Historical examples of the charity effect include:

*invention of the [[telephone]] by [[Alexander Graham Bell]], who was simply trying to build a device for the deaf
*development of the [[Jacuzzi]] by Candido Jacuzzi, who was simply trying to help his 15-month old son deal with painful, crippling rheumatoid arthritis<ref>http://famousbrandnames.blogspot.com/search?q=%22at+home%22</ref>

(add more)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Charity]]

Friedrich Nietzsche

2008-12-13T18:37:21Z

Murray: "insanity" is a legal term, not a medical one

[[Image:nietzsche2.jpg|right|250px|thumb]]
'''Friedrich Nietzsche''' (1844-1900) was a [[Germany|German]] [[atheism|atheist]] [[philosopher]] whose work set a foundation for the [[existentialism|existentialist]] movement of the 1900s.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/ Stanford's Biography on Nietzsche].</ref> Nietzsche later suffered a mental breakdown from which he never recovered, most probably due to a [[brain]] tumor. <ref>[http://wais.stanford.edu/General/general_individualsniezsche.htm Another Stanford Biography on Nietzsche]</ref>

Nietzsche was critical of [[religion]] in general, though especially [[Christianity]], which he described as the "religion of pity."<ref>[http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Friedrich_Nietzsche/ Nietzsche Quotations]</ref> Nietzsche is perhaps most famous for his declaration that “God is dead,” which, rather than a [[theological]] argument, suggests that Western culture seemed no longer rooted in Christian dogmatism and a faith-based worldview. Without [[God]], the idea of absolutes are difficult to come by, and Nietzsche thus suggested ways for people to cope with this loss of "[[Good]]" and "[[Evil]]".

{{quotebox|When [[Adolf Hitler]] first met [[Benito Mussolini]], he presented him with a gift of the collected works of Nietzsche. It was an appropriate memento. Hitler's ideas about life and politics were largely derived fro Nietzsche. Hitler subscribed to the Nietzschean idea that superior people have an inborn right to rule. - [[William Kilpatrick]]}}

Nietzsche suffered a mental collapse in 1889, and spent the last ten years of his life unable to care for himself. During this time, his sister Elizabeth Förster-Nietzsche took over his affairs, and worked to falsify and re-edit his writings in order to support her virulent Antisemitism (a view which Nietzsche arguably abhorred, and often mocked, during his lifetime). It was her distorted version of culled and misquoted statements which later provided an intellectual fig leaf for the [[Nazi]]s and [[Italian]] [[Fascist]]s.

The ''Übermensch'' (overhuman, superhuman) was a literary device used in his magnum opus, "[[Thus Spoke Zarathustra]]". The Overman was to be a new kind of being which would overcome resentment and affirm the Eternal Recurrence of the same.

The statement "God is dead" first appeared in Nietzsche's "[[The Gay Science]]", in Aphorism 108, titled "New Struggles". This aphorism introduces Nietzsche's famous Madman, who runs out into the street shouting, "God is dead!" Yet, to his dismay, the Madman sees "he has come too soon," for people have not realized this cultural revelation for themselves and are blind to it. They consider the Madman's seemingly theological claim as absurd for they misunderstand him; it is no argument about the existence of God, but a claim of how [[secular]] society has become. Nietzsche was no friend to Christian beliefs, and no doubt considered the Christian God to be a mere myth. This passage shows his hope for a [[philosophy]] of the future, one he imagined would be emptied of coarse objective rationalizing, which he characterized as God and associated with Christianity. Nietzsche, in other words, felt his message of subjective truth came too soon and hoped, as the Madman, that he would be understood someday.

Nietzsche's father Carl Ludwig Nietzsche, was a [[Lutheran]] pastor.

In his first Papal Encyclical, "Deus Caritas Est" (God is Charity/Love) [[Pope Benedict XVI]] quotes from Nietzsche's ''Beyond Good and Evil'', taking very seriously Nietzsche's claim that the Church has poisoned ''eros'' (love) with dogma, and responding to it.

==On Morality==
Friedrich Nietzsche argued that [[rational egalitarianism]] denies [[creativity]], and reason cannot create values and [[morality]], attempt to do so would only lead to [[nihilism]]. Therefore morality has been imposed.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.", "With morality, the individual can only ascribe value to himself as a function of the herd", "I submit that egoism belongs to the essence of a noble soul ... and has its basis in the primary law of things", "all morality is partisan; just as any legal system will favor certain behavior against others", "who else should we wish to serve, if not ourselves?" and "Whoever battles monsters should take care not to become a monster too, for if you stare long enough into the Abyss, the Abyss stares back into you."

==On Science and Knowledge==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "I mistrust all systemizers and avoid them; the will to systematize is a lack of integrity", "there is no pre-established harmony between the furtherance of truth and the well-being of mankind", "the free-spirit is brought into disrepute chiefly by scholars who miss their thoroughness and ant-like industry in his art of regarding things", "there are many things I do not wish to know, wisdom sets a limit on knowledge too", "the fact that science as we practice it today is possible proves that the elementary instinct which protect life have ceased to function", "we have arranged for ourselves a world in which we are able to live with postulation of bodies, lines, surfaces, causes, and effects, motion and rest, form and content: without these articles of faith, nobody could manage to live", "the irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition for it", "[too much knowledge causes us to] choke on our own reason", "creed of nihilism which I see everywhere is the result of too much learning" and "Any truth which threatens life is no truth at all, it is an error".

==On Politics==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "As a political subject, it is an illusion to ask myself what I require from the state. In reality, it is a question of what the state requires from me", "culture and the state are antagonistic", "clearly, the individual will is forfeit to the demands of government - a kind of political Darwinism. The herd triumphs again, this time under the banner of the state", "socialism is the fantastic younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, which it wants to succeeded", "the doctrine of free will is an invention of the ruling classes" and "madness is something rare in individuals; but in groups, parties, ages, it is the rule".

==On Women==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "Women are essentially unpeaceful" and "Man is for woman a means; the purpose is always a child. But what is woman for man?"

==On Philosophy==
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "Philosophy is the dressing-up in rational argument of moral beliefs, intuitions and desires".

==On Religion==
Friedrich Nietzsche was born to a long line of Protestant Lutheran ministers. His grandfather, Friedrich August Ludwig Nietzsche, was in fact an established Protestant scholar whose writings argued the “everlasting survival of Christianity.” From an early age Friedrich Nietzsche maintained a dedication to Lutheranism and continued his passion for theology in university. In the year 1864, Nietzsche entered the University of Bonn as a theology and philology student with a particular interest in the translation and interpretation of Biblical texts. Nietzsche's views on religion are scattered amongst his earliest works in the 1860s well up until the time of his death in 1889. As such, his views concerning religion, morality, and human nature are not outlined definitively and are thus the subject of scholarly debate.

However, Nietzsche spoke out against Islam citing that it was a force subsisting wholly on the denial of the individual. He posed in his work "The Birth of Tragedy" that Islam (among other religions) utilizes the restriction of necessary human desires such as love as a means of securing their permanence as a force of control.

Thus Friedrich Nietzsche viewed [[Mohammed]], [[Buddah]], [[Homer]] etc, not as religious figures, but as creators of rigid moral frameworks, who lost their authority as [[Europe]] severed ties with its diverse religious tradition.

==See Also==
*[[Nihilism]]

==References==
<references/>
*[https://www.dartmouth.edu/~fnchron/index.html Nietzsche Chronicle]
*[http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/452786.html Nietzsche: The Problem of Autumn]
*[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=816224 "The Case for Nietzschean Moral Psychology"]
*[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html#_ftnref1 ''Deus Caritas Est'', from the Vatican website]
*[http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Nietzsche-Third-Introducing-Laurence/dp/1840466278/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5268663-4749443?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179639544&sr=1-1 Introducing Nietzsche, Third Edition by Laurence Gane]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nietzsche, Friedrich}}

[[category:German Philosophers]]
[[Category:Children of Clergy]]

Sanctuary city

2008-12-13T18:33:22Z

Murray:

The term '''"Sanctuary City"''' refers to a city or state that enacts policies which are favorable to illegal immigrants. Specifically, sanctuary cities often mandate local laws which prevent inquiry into a person's immigration status, unless they are a suspect of crime or have been deported in the past. <Ref> http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20547&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&gd=05042007</ref>

Often, however, sanctuary cities lack clearly written laws harboring illegal aliens. Instead, they can be identified by their treatment of illegal aliens.

Sanctuary policies are a violation of federal law, such as the section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which prohibits the embedding of illegal immigrants<Ref> http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/tancredo-70903.html</ref>, and the March 2005 [[United States Supreme Court]] case, Muehler v Mena, which stated that law enforcement has the right to ask about immigration status.<ref> http://www.cairco.org/legal/legal.html</ref>

In addition to major cities, such as [[New York City]] <ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/the_sanctuary_spat.html The Sanctuary Spat], FactCheck.org, December 10, 2007</ref>, [[Los Angeles]], and [[Chicago]], a few states have adopted sanctuary policies, including [[Alaska]] and [[Oregon]]. <ref> http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20547&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&gd=05042007</ref>

==List of Sanctuary Cities==

Below is a list of sanctuary cities throughout the [[United States]]. While many of these cities have specific “don’t ask, don’t tell” laws, others have been added to this list because of their unwritten, informal sanctuary policies seen through the town's treatment of illegal immigrants.

'''Alaska'''
* Anchorage, AK
* Fairbanks, AK

'''Arizona'''
* Chandler, AZ
* Phoenix, AZ

'''California'''
* Bell Gardens, CA
* City of Industry, CA
* City of Commerce, CA
* Cypress, CA
* Davis CA
* Diamond Bar, CA
* Downey, CA
* Fresno, CA
* Lakewood, CA
* Los Angeles, CA
* Long Beach, CA
* Lynwood, CA
* Maywood, CA
* Montebello, CA
* National City, CA
* Norwalk, CA
* Oakland, CA
* Paramount, CA
* Pico Rivera, CA
* So. Gate, CA
* San Bernardino, Ca.
* San Diego, CA
* Santa Cruz, CA
* San Francisco, CA
* San Jose, CA
* Sonoma County, CA
* Vernon, CA
* Watsonville, CA
* Wilmington, CA

''' Colorado'''
* Aurora, CO
* Commerce City, CO
* Denver, CO
* Durango, CO
* Federal Heights, CO
* Fort Collins CO
* Lafayette, CO
* Thornton, CO
* Westminster, CO

'''Connecticut'''
* New Haven, CT
* Springfield CT (Disputed)

'''Florida'''
* DeLeon Springs, FL
* Deltona, Fl
* Miami, FL
* Sanford, Fl

''' Georgia'''
* Dalton, GA

'''Illinois'''
* Chicago, IL
* Cicero, IL
* Evanston, IL

'''Massachusetts'''
* Cambridge, Mass.
* Chelsea, Mass.
* Orleans, Mass.

'''Maine'''
* Portland
* State of Maine

'''Maryland'''
* Baltimore, MD
* Gaithersburg, MD
* Takoma Park, MD

'''Michigan'''
*Ann Arbor, MI
*Detroit, MI

'''Minnesota'''
* Minneapolis, MN
* St. Paul, MN
* Worthington, MN

'''Nevada'''
* Reno

'''New Jersey'''
* Bridgeton, NJ
* Camden, NJ
* Fort Lee, NJ
* Hightstown, NJ
* Jersey City, NJ
* Newark, NJ
* North Bergen, NJ
* Trenton, NJ
* Union City, NJ
* West New York, NJ

'''New Mexico'''
* Albuquerque, NM
* Aztec, NM
* Rio Arriba County, NM
* Santa Fe, NM

'''New York'''
* Bay Shore, NY
* Brentwood, NY
* Central Islip, NY
* Farmingville, NY
* New York City, NY
* Peekskill, NY
* Riverhead, NY
* Shirly/Mastic, NY
* Spring Valley Village, NY
* Uniondale, NY
* Westbury, NY

'''North Carolina'''
* Charlotte, NC
* Durham, NC
* Raleigh
* Winston-Salem

'''Ohio'''
* Columbus, OH
* Painesville, OH

'''Oklahoma'''
* Oklahoma City
* Tulsa

''' Oregon'''
* State of Oregon'''
* Ashland, OR
* Gaston, OR
* Marion County, OR
* Portland, OR

''' Texas'''
* Austin, TX
* Baytown, TX
* Brownsville, TX
* Channelview, TX
* Denton, TX
* Dallas, TX
* El Cenizo, TX
* Ft.Worth, TX
* Houston, TX
* Katy, TX
* Laredo, TX
* Mcallen, TX
* Port Arthur, TX
* San Antonio, TX

'''Utah'''
* Provo, UT
* Salt Lake City, UT

'''Virginia'''
* Fairfax County, VA
* Virginia Beach, VA
* Washington

'''Washington'''
* Seattle, WA

'''Wisconsin'''
* Madison, WI
* Wyoming
* Jackson Hole, WY

'''Washington, D.C.'''

==References==
<References/>

[[Category:Immigration]]

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-11-29T01:02:11Z

Murray: /* Nuetral light? */

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::The number of his gaffes. --[[User:MugiK|MugiK]] 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example [[John McCain]], [[Bill Clinton]], and [[Barack Obama]], the choice should be clear.
:"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when [[George W. Bush]] became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with ''truth'' not, (per Wikipedia), ''verifiability''.
::: The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, what you've repeatedly deleted (censored) from the [[Obama]] entry is factual information that is undeniably true, such as how he pronounces "Pakistan". Conservapedia never stated that Obama is a Muslim, but presents compelling evidence about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== Admin only? ==

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start [[American Revolution|taxing me]]! [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
*Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see [[talk:Barack Obama]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive ''voting''. But I see your point. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Who are these Liberal administrators? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh Henry, look and read. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "''Anti-democratic cliquism''"! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::It's funny you should say that. I was under the impression that it is those who deny the truth - both about Obama and the nature of discourse on Conservapedia - and who have to rely on censorship, who have lost the argument. Read what Andy says below. We present the facts, pro and con, and let readers make up their own minds. That is the conservative way, and the Conservapedia way, but it clearly is not the way of the Rayment faction. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)

This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:I see. That seems rather reasonable. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::''Limiting it to Philip and his four imaginary Liberal friends is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are his four imaginary liberal friends supposed to include Conservative, Ed Poor, and Tim? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Only one of those, Klumpers. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Funny, I thought all of those people existed. Learn something new every day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Great American Tradition==
In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. {{unsigned|KimSell}}

:Am I really the only non-sysop who thinks this is a good idea? Too often the arguments on talk pages are dragged out to the point of oblivion of reason. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 16:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== My comment ==

I've added a comment about his religion. I probably won't be adding anything else, because I haven't looked into the other issues as much.

Contrary to the offensive labelling of me as an "Obama defender", I'm not here to defend Obama, but simply to correct a blatant untruth in calling him a Muslim.

This straw poll is going to be pointless if we don't get a large percentage of the administrators putting comments here, but at the same time, perhaps many don't have too much of an opinion, at least on every issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

: The "blatant untruth" is any claim that Conservapedia asserts definitively that Obama is a Muslim. Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::''Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.'' Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''should'' present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''is'' presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::"The facts" would include factual evidence to the contrary, as I suggested [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=571768#Suggestion_for_compromise a week ago], to no avail. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:44, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== Nuetral light? ==

Can we not just portray him as we would a white christian republican president? It seems almost like we are just spreading rumors about our future commander and chief. --[[User:Rcollins|Rcollins03]] 19:34, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Yes, almost. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Obsessive compulsive disorder

2008-11-27T02:10:40Z

Murray:

'''Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)''' is a psychiatric disorder characterized by the presence of either obsessions or compulsions. Obsessions are frequent, disturbing thoughts that the person is unable to prevent (e.g., repeated thoughts of harming oneself or another person). Compulsions are usually specific behaviors (e.g., handwashing due to a fear of germs) that the individual feels compelled to perform over and over again; being prevented from engaging in these behaviors causes extreme anxiety. OCD patients recognize that their obsessions or compulsions are excessive.

There are two primary methods of treatment for OCD. [[Exposure therapy]] is a method in which the OCD sufferer is exposed to the thing that he or she fears and prevented from engaging in compensating behaviors. For example, a patient who washes his hands for hours due to fear of germs may be exposed to germs in a public restroom and not allowed to wash his hands. Repeated exposure teaches the patient that the fear is excessive, diminishing anxiety and compulsive behavior. OCD is also sometimes treated with [[selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors | SSRIs]], a form of [[anti-depressant]] medication. Exposure therapy is generally considered the preferable mode of treatment, because the effects are long-lasting, whereas the beneficial effects of medication fade when the drug is discontinued.

[[category:psychiatry]]
[[Category:Psychiatric Disorders]]
[[category:psychology]]

Agoraphobia

2008-11-27T02:02:03Z

Murray:

'''Agoraphobia''' is an [[anxiety disorder]] characterized by fear of situations in which one might be trapped and unable to get help, especially in the event of a [[panic attack]]. Agoraphobics may avoid crowds, enclosed spaces (such as elevators and buses), or large open spaces. Like other anxiety disorders, the first line of treatment for agoraphobia is [[exposure therapy]]. In exposure therapy, the patient is exposed, either ''in vivo'' (i.e., in person) or imaginally, to the situation or object that he or she fears. Repeated exposure allows the agoraphobic patient to learn that his or her fears are unfounded.

From the [[Greek]] "fear of the marketplace"

==Sources==
Abnormal Psychology, Rosenhan & Seligman, 1984

[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Phobias]]

Homosexuality in animals myth

2008-11-26T20:00:53Z

Murray: spelling, grammar

{{move|Homosexuality in animals myth}}
[[Image:Carl wieland.jpg|thumbnail|120px|left|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] - Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]].]]
The '''homosexuality in animals myth''' refers to the current interest on whether [[homosexual]] behavior is or is not [[zoology|zoologically]] "natural." This is largely a sterile debate because behavior is not necessarily moral even if "natural;" because the nature of human beings is not necessarily the same as the nature of other species, and because it is not at all clear when an observed behavior can be counted as "sexual," or as implying a sexual "orientation." Examples such as one male mounting another have been used as evidence in the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore should be permitted in human beings. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL] </ref>

[[Creation Ministries International]] wrote on this subject of whether or not there is [[homosexuality]] in the animal kingdom: "There is...documented proof of [[cannibalism]] and rape in the animal kingdom, but that [[Appeal to Nature|doesn’t make it right]] for humans."<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2774</ref> While some animals (like the [[lion]]) eat their young, neither supporters or opponents of "[[gay rights]]" have used this as an argument in favor of [[infanticide]] or [[cannibalism]].<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html</ref> Thus, a healthy dose of wariness needs to be employed in making scientific claims about homosexual animals justifying homosexual humans.

A 1996 article published by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization committed to the treatment of homosexuality, musters the arguments against interpretation of animal behavior as sanctioning homosexuality.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html The Animal Homosexuality Myth], Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, excerpt from book ''Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.''</ref> It notes that "homosexual scientist [[Simon LeVay]]" stated that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
{{Cquote|Although homosexual behavior is very common in the [[animal]] world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.}}
[[Image:Apardo.gif|thumb|150px|Dr. [[Antonio Pardo Caballos]]]]
In addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, [[Spain]], wrote:
{{Cquote|Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the [[reproduction|reproductive]] instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.<ref name="narth">http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html</ref>}}

[[National Geographic]] somewhat favors that homosexual behavior occurs in animals although their article leaves the question open.<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html</ref> Human sexual behavior appears to involve more than reproduction as well. However, although it might not have been the result of a deliberate hoax, the [[Archaeoraptor]] was a large embarrassment to [[National Geographic]] and National Geographic's judgment in scientific matters is certainly open to debate given the Archaeoraptor episode.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4208news2-3-2000.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4273news4-11-2000.asp</ref> For example, every cattle farmer is familiar with the phenomenon of "bulling", cows mounting other cows; in fact, this is one of the standard signs farmers look for when determining that a cow is coming into estrus. However, it does not follow that the cows involved are showing anything analogous to human lesbian orientation. There are also lesbian lizards.[http://www.nerve.com/regulars/scienceofsex/09-19-00/09-19-00.asp]

Despite the hotly contested nature of homosexuality in animals, ideologically motivated zoo directors in liberal American cities and progressive European countries are placing their supposedly homosexual animals on parade and declaring it to be fact that the animals are gay and that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature. In addition to the famed "gay penguins" [[Roy and Silo]] at the [[Central Park]] Zoo in [[Manhattan]] there has been a supposed homosexual animal photo and video gallery in the zoo in [[Oslo]], [[Norway]], featuring [[flamingo]]es and [[giraffe]]s, among other allegedly gay animals.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm BBC] Oslo gay animal show draws crowds</ref>

==See also==
*[[Roy and Silo]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Liberal Myths]]

Clint Eastwood

2008-11-26T01:51:06Z

Murray:

'''Clint Eastwood, Jr.''' (b. May 31, 1930) in [[San Francisco]], [[California]], is an award winning American [[actor]], [[director]], [[producer]], [[composer]] and [[writer]]. Eastwood was also the [[mayor]] of [[Carmel]], [[California]], from 1986 until 1988.

==Academy Awards==
*2006 Best Director [[Letters from Iwo Jima]]
*2006 Best Picture Letters from Iwo Jima
*2004 Best Director [[Million Dollar Baby]]
*2004 Best Picture Million Dollar Baby
*2004 Best Actor Million Dollar Baby
*2003 Best Director [[Mystic River]]
*2003 Best Picture Mystic River
*1992 Best Picture [[Unforgiven]]
*1992 Best Actor Unforgiven
*1992 Best Director Unforgiven

==External Links==
*http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/clint-eastwood/145220
*http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9283502
*http://www.clinteastwood.net/
*http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/eastwood_c.html


{{DEFAULTSORT: Eastwood, Clint}}
[[Category:Actors]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-25T04:33:48Z

Murray: /* The Truth is not always popular */

{{Controversial}}

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Liberal is not an ad hominem, it's a statement of your political views (whether accurate or not), which is completely valid to make in a political arena such as this. Calling someone sarcastic, or making sarcastic remarks about how they live is certainly ad hominem. My two cents--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: "Liberal" ''is'' an ''ad hominem'', for two reasons:
::::::::* "''ad hominem''" refers to an argument about the ''person'' rather than about the ''issue''. So even if it is accurate and descriptive, it's still about the ''person'' rather than the ''issue''.
::::::::* An '''''abusive''' ad hominem'' is when you say something ''nasty'' about the person. If "liberal" is an accurate description, or even if it's not but it's said in the reasonable belief that it is, then it's not an '''''abusive''' ad hominem''. But when it's said without any grounds other than disagreeing with a single point of view, then I'd classify as abusive.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery ''does'' have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any ''given'' individual. The issue here is about a ''given'' individual, Barack Obama.
:: I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::I like maths and logic, so good section. This isn't arguing for the prosecution error, but just about statistical sampling. I suppose you could ask how many muslims convert, but it might be more accurate to ask how many American born muslims convert, or how many muslims that have had a Christian baptism have genuinely converted (I hope there's a special place in hell for those that were faking their baptism)--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::In [[Dante's Inferno]], I don't think there is. Any kind of liar goes to the bottom of the eighth circle though. I wonder whether covert apostacy was known in Dante's time.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::MylesP, have you been reading [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/0007240198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227138689&sr=8-1 Bad Science?]

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

The article is full of fiction. Stuff like this is part of the reason why Conservapedia is a joke to everyone who isn't a member here.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Facts" as in already repeatedly proven falsehoods such as Obama being a Muslim? This page is filled with outright lies. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

If you are going to repeat a proven lie, you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it-[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
: Bugler, I will concede that point. Instead I'll say that Andy's point that this was a response to was rather unclear as to its aim, and I was reading his comments differently.
: However, I will add another response to your previous post. You say that "the whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." The problem with this claim of yours is that it's ''not'' the way the argument is being used. That is, the arguments are not being used to ''oppose'' the claim that he couldn't possibly be a Muslim; the arguments are being used to ''support'' the claim that he ''is'' a Muslim. If they were being used the way that you say, then at least some of them would have some legitimacy. But being used the way they are is invalid.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: The problem, Ed, is that these things have already been discussed at length. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: They are ''not'' "unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism". When you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is ''not'' censorship. Why do you keep repeating that false claim? Also, I have explained ''why'' the claims are "disliked", why do you falsely say that the reasons are unknown? As I said to Bugler above, when you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. And the evidence is not only not compelling, some of it is false and some is logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Perhaps worth pointing out here that FredX did indeed, as he had predicted, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AFredX&year=&month=-1 receive a 90/10 ban] while trying to debate the content of this article. I imagine he rests his case. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Well? Am I understood now? Is the section going to be removed? [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 18:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks. Here is a quote "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process of law, that threatens my civil liberties."--Barack Obama, 2004 DNC speech. (Yes, it is what some would call a quote mine, but it is a direct quote of a complete sentence.) That being said, I agree with others that the article would be better if it were to document the fact that many people are speculating about whehter or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, including adding their reasoning. But trying to make a case that he is a Muslim in this article isn't turning out too well in my opinion. It's good to see some changes have been made. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 22:50, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for compromise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required]. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here]. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."'] Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ''ever'' dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:More. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html Washington Post, but hey, ''I'm'' not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies], I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Accusations of Homosexuality ==

The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.
::I really wish someone with authority to edit the article would add some mention of Obama's homosexual leanings. There's evidence of murder, harassment and extensive political corruption and the article makes no mention of it. Isn't it the responsibility of a reliable source to present all the facts, negative and positive, about the soon to be President?--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==

Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.

Examples of things which could be highlighted more:

1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted.

2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

===Consequences of the current state of the article===

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President? ==

Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].

The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists!
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Two of those links just link back to conservapedia. The third references "research" by a man named Leroy Vaughn. The claims and evidence seem dubious to say the least. Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is wrong to call this a "liberal" claim since most conservatives believe him to be the first black president as well. [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 20:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I for one find it hard to believe that you would have agreed with that research two years ago Schlafly. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==How to collaborate==

If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here.

We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''.

:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November
::: And that's not all of it. At least two other administrators have also made known their opposition, via e-mail (which Andy got copies of at the time). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, it is ''your'' view that is in the minority; JohnZ was citing the ''majority''. It seems that Ed (inadvertently) recognised that by his comment below. Hopefully logic would prevail, but unfortunately you are trying to make ''your'' minority and illogical view prevail.
::: And this yet again highlights a major problem here. You are throwing around these personal opinions as though they are factual, denigrating the opposing view and the people that put them, but not actually engaging the arguments and providing a logical response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: So are you saying that the administrators who are in the majority on this issue are not trustworthy? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Hi Ed,

:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''

:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''

:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.

:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I had no problem understanding Aziraphale's comment, so it is quite coherent, and he makes a very good point. It would make more sense to take notice of the problem than to brush it aside and silence him with a block. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==You're All Missing the Point==

Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.

'''YOU ARE ALL MISSNIG THE POINT'''

Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:

*Abortion
*Stem cell research
*War on Terror
*Criminal rights
*Lack of substance in policy
*Economic regulation

and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.

In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are ''trying'' to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== obama, Muslim or "liberal Christian" with a skeptical streak - The duck test ==

Andy, you claim that you are better educated regarding Islam than the oppposing sysops and that gives you deeper understanding of the issue. In response, I will first say that you have not shown that Lolo Soetoro was a staunch Muslim and given that Obama was sent to a Catholic school at some point I don't think you can show that his father had a great influence in his life. Furthermore, it appears as if Obama's mother was not married to the stepfather Lolo Soetoro long. In addition, his skeptical mother appears to have had the most influence in his life. Given that I have spent sometime studying Islam and had a Muslim housemate when I was younger and lived in a area highly concentrated with Muslims in the past, I don't think it is fair to say that I have great ignorance about Islam. I am well aware that patriarchy is present in Islamic families, but I am also aware that Obama's fathers did not appear to have great influence in his life.

I really think at this point that Obama's behavior is key in terms of the likelihood of him being a Muslim.

Most American Muslims are not rabidly pro-abortion, have great antipathy to the homosexual agenda, and abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, most "liberal Christians" who have a philosophical skepticism streak favor the "pro-choice" position and most do not have great antipathy toward the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, most "liberal Christians" have no problem drinking alcohol. Also, there is the fact that Obama's daughters were baptised.

Given the above, if Obama walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is probably a duck. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)'

Obama's nominally Muslim father was not religious in the first place.[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reversion ==

All three items of evidence that Philip deleted are fully supported and hardly deniable. I don't know why Philip wants to delete them. The entries are educational also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:I'm afraid not one of them is "supported" in any way and all are deniable. None of them are educational, and all are merely unfounded assertion and speculation. The first accusation (for that is what they are) about him not changing his name is dependent on him being Muslim to begin with. If he is not Muslim, then he has no need to change his name, and you haven't provided any evidence he's Muslim. The second accusation, about taqiyya, depends upon him being a Muslim, and you have not provided any evidence to that. The third, about the pronunciation of Pakistan, is irrelevant, as that is the correct pronunciation of that country's name. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 23:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: As FredX says, they are ''not'' supported, and they are most definitely deniable. Simply making those assertions is not a supporting argument. And how can you continue to claim that you don't know why I want to delete them when I've told you several times? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, you have to do better than that before deleting factual and informative material. All three points are enlightening and undeniable, and I doubt you knew any of them before reading them here. We let the readers decide here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::: Okay Andy, I'll try and lay it out as simply as I can for you.
::: For something to be included in this (or any) article, it needs to be both ''factual'' and ''relevant''. We could put in the article that Obama eats breakfast every morning, and that would (presumably) be quite ''factual'', but it would not be ''relevant''. Agreed?
::: So when you say that I should not delete ''factual'' information, as long as it is ''relevant'', I agree.
::: The problem is, however, that the claim about Obama using a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan", for example is '''not factual'''. This is because there is no such thing as a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan". We thrashed this out ages ago on the Main Talk page, so it's not as though this is new information to you.
::: So when you keep repeating ad nauseam that "we don't delete factual information", '''you are avoiding the point that it is ''not factual'''''. That's why I keep deleting it—because it is ''not'' factual—and you repeatedly claiming that it is factual '''is not a valid argument''', because it is merely an assertion, not evidence or reason. If you want the claim kept, you have to show that it is ''factual''. That is the very thing that you avoid doing.
::: I don't know how this can be explained any more simply. It is beyond my comprehension that you cannot understand this, which leaves outright deceit on your part as the only other explanation. But then I can't comprehend that you would be outright deceitful either, so I'm at a loss to understand what's going through your mind.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

"Letting the readers decide" would ring more true if you simply laid out the facts about Obama instead of riddling the article with unsubstantiated, repeatedly disproven falsehoods to skewer it toward your personal political viewpoint. Do you not realize that simply highlighting the positions he supports that conservatives are opposed to (his support of gay rights and abortion rights as just two examples) would do a better job turning conservatives against Obama than telling easily proven lies about him? The fact that you feel you have to resort to lies makes you look like you are guilty of the very thing you accuse liberals of: not having any actual factual argument to make. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Unbelievable ==

It's understandable that conservatives disapprove of Obama and much of this article reflects that. Smearing is nothing new to politics, but the poor logic shamelessly employed here is an embarrassment to American conservatives. As this site becomes a "de facto" conservative reference, more and more people will begin believing this is how conservatives reason and come up with their ideas. With great power comes great responsibility, and Conservapedia and Aschlafly fail disastrously as representatives of the conservative movement.

Under the pretense of "not censoring" and "letting the readers decide" the article is allowed to introduce deceptive evidence toward building weak and ultimately unproven hypotheses. Simultaneously, the exact opposite policy is used when contradictory evidence is presented.

This stunning hypocrisy can be best illustrated by how the "Obama is likely a Muslim" section is moderated. Several times myself and others have attempted to delete the statement "Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." Yes he said the words "My Muslim Faith" but this is utterly meaningless as no context for the statement is provided. I could say "I approve of the killing of babies coming to an end" and using the logic here I could be quoted as saying "I approve of the killing of babies"

However, we cannot escape the fact he said the words "My Muslim Faith" and since Conservapedia doesn't censor information, it must remain in the article. Furthermore, it must remain in a section attempting to show secret Muslim faith, however misleading it may be.

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that there is an overwhelming body of information that suggests Obama is not a Muslim and in fact a Christian. For example, he was sworn into the Senate using a bible in 2005, he attended a (albeit controversial) christian church for decades, no one has ever observed him performing Muslim rituals (ie, praying 5 times a day). Even the "My Muslim Faith" comment is evidence of him being a christian when viewed in full context, as it's more than clear he meant to say "My Christan Faith". Attempting to mention any of this in the article will result in an almost immediate undo and block.

The intentions of this section are transparent: to pander to modern American distrust of Muslims to build distrust of Obama. The irony of this and the article as a whole is obvious and almost comedic, as even a semi-informed reader can see through the deception and will likely end up with a reduced opinion of Conservatives.

I expect to immediately be labeled a liberal for posting this. I need to say for the record, I voted for McCain. I attend Church. I have an American flag outside my house. However I cannot stomach this article and quite frankly am ashamed that such cheap hate tactics are being used by people calling themselves conservative.

[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Your best arguments against Obama being Muslim amount to unsourced opinion on your part. You gave no evidence just expressed opinions. Personally, I would hope this encyclopedia would hold itself to a higher standard and demand sources. There is ample evidence that Obama is Muslim pretending to be a Christian. Arguing that he can't be Muslim because no one has seen him bowing to Mecca is an appeal to ignorance. The Koran permits Muslims to lie about being Muslim if it advances the Muslim faith.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==Counter Evidence==

If we are letting the readers decide (as written above) then in order to keep this article fair and balanced we should add a section detailing the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (such as his positions on abortion and stem cell research, his religious history, his Catholic schooling etc). If the evidence is truly overwhelming that Obama is a Muslim then there should be no problem with adding such a section, as readers will quickly be able to see that it is insufficient to counter the claim. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Fine, post your best stuff here first. But claiming that Obama went to Catholic school is counter evidence is, of course, absurd. Stop by your local Catholic school and you'll see Muslims students who never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: And Jewish students. In many areas the public schools are pathetic. In the absence of a good Protestant school, many parents are forced to choose between overly liberal public schools with poor curriculum, home schooling or a Catholic school. Many choose Catholic schools. The Jesuits tend to be in charge of the Catholic schools and they're actually pretty even handed in their treatment of non-Christian students. Saying someone attended a Catholic school or sent their children to one as "evidence" of their being Christian is absurd and betrays a deep ignorance of how the schools are actually run.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Dunno if this is counter evidence, but my two cents about the misguided motivations of Obama's Lenin poster.

Most Europeans, East and West, would be severely alienated by any hidden or subliminal message that Obama was Leninist. Eastern Europe suffered under the communist iron heel for 45 years after WW2, including East Berlin. And Western Europe feared invasion. West Berlin was nearly starved by the communist blockade of the late 40s. Eastern Europe's rush to join NATO and the EU to ensure their free economies and societies is testament to this hatred of Soviet Leninist domination. Of course none of this goes to whether the poster was Leninist, only that if it was it was a serious mistake on Obama's part.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:54, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== My innocuous talk page contribution removed? ==

The Lenin poster one. Just wondered why.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh figured it out now, sorry --[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== About the Muslim allegations ==

Allow me to play devil's advocate. I am lost. As a conservative, bordering on a paleo-conservative, with a streak of classical liberal in the John Locke/Jeffersonian sense, who also fears the coming administration greatly (I keep thinking Jimmy Carter, stagflation, FDR, Civilian Conservation Corps, prolongation of the depression, and a world war), a man's religion is his own business.

This is the United States. Our forefathers fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In those rights are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

The freedom of speech does give Conservapedia the right to impune the president elect for his supposed Muslim faith (backed by what looks to me to be evidence that is neither conclusive nor wholly circumstantial). But that doesn't mean Conservapedia should squander that right in an attempt to prove what is ultimately between him and God.

The first amendment also gives every man in this country the right to hold whatever spiritual beliefs he wants, and to share, or not share, those beliefs with others.

While I do think it is appropriate to mention speculation that President elect Barack Obama may be a Muslim, to the extent that such allegations exist and are notable, as I think they are, I do not think it is proper for this encyclopedia to attempt to make the case that he is a closet Muslim. The Muslim speculation should be relegated to later parts of the article, and reworked.

Juxtaposing a reference early on in the article, which, if you scroll to the references, indicates that Keith Ellison used a Koran in his swearing in ceremony, with the statement that Obama is an "apparent Muslim" is tawdry at best, and beneath a serious conservative encyclopedia.

Certainly, President elect Obama's political views deserve much more scrutiny from a conservative perspective, than whether or not he is a closet Muslim.

Senator Barack Obama was rated the most liberal senator, left of a self-declared socialist. I think we should focus on that.

President elect Barack Obama seems to hold political views that go against our Constitution. This raises the question about whether or not he can honestly affirm to protect and defend the Constitution.

President elect Barack Obama may institute nationalized health care, requiring children to be vaccinated in order to receive benefits, while bankrupting the private health care system for middle and lower class Americans. Where will this leave such children?

Barack Obama may very likely work to reduce or control home schooling and private schools.

Barack Obama may work to erode or eviscerate the second amendment.

There is plenty of political evidence for these other fears, and it is more appropriate to focus on these, and not his supposed secret Muslim belief system.

I recommend focusing on his easily provable liberal and possibly anti-American political views, and not waste too much time trying to prove he has some religious belief system. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 10:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:BigMike, I take it you're not an historian. People's beliefs matter greatly, and you can bet a real historian would not tolerate censorship of inquiry into someone's beliefs. Our other entries likewise provide information about the beliefs of other presidents, great scientists, and others. The insistence on censoring a similar inquiry about Obama's beliefs is misplaced and inappropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::I didn't mean to censor it, I just suggested a shift in focus. I meant to focus on extreme liberal political views first, as they are, to me, the most important. Change the prominence within the article, and change the tone. But you're right, I am not a historian. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::OK, your point is well-taken then. But the reality is that many of Obama's positions to date were posturing to win the presidency, and not necessarily indicative of his priorities as president. His beliefs matter more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::No problem. I know this site takes a lot of pointless flack, and it is hard to seperate the wheat from the chaf. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Perhaps a template would help ==

The discussion on this page keeps covering the same ground over and over again. Aside from the wasted time and effort, a major problem is that new users often edit the page and become instantly embroiled in the controversy, sometimes leading to bad feeling and thus driving away potentially valuable contributors.

As a solution, I suggest a template is created and added to the top of the page and any others in this situation. The wording could be something like:

:''This article deals with a controversial topic and has already been the subject of lengthy discussion. Your input is welcome, but '''please check the talk page carefully''' to make sure that the issues you raise have not been dealt with already. New users in particular are advised to start by editing less controversial pages to get a feel for the site.''

Thoughts and suggestions very welcome.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 15:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

*We do have such. Template "Controversial". But it has problems, and needs some fixing. use the {{ and type in Controversial, and see what I mean. I have read it noted several places it is broken. If you or anyone else knows what is needed, fix the template, and if it is locked, contact Philip Rayment or Ed Poor and let them know. Thanks, good suggestion. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks - I've asked Mr Rayment. If that template's ever going to be used, I think this article could do with it, though the wording could be more diplomatic in my opinion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::Perhaps it would be better slapped here, on this page? If anyone is going to change the article, hopefully they will look here first? Assuming this page is ever partially archived! :D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I've fixed the bug, although I don't think putting the template on the article page is going to solve much. And by the way, it's designed for article pages, not talk pages; the link in it to the talk page won't work if placed on a talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== "Captured the White House" ==

Is it just me, or does this memorable line conjure up images of Barry and Joe, the special forces operatives, sneaking across the White House lawn under cover of darkness before launching a daring assault, creating a beach head in the kitchen before ensnaring their ultimate goal: the Oval Office.

Would the phrase "won the presidential election" be more encyclopedic?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Your phrase would be an improvement. Go ahead, and thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::It would indeed be an improvement, but he cannot make it, as the article is locked. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Religious Affiliation ==

OK, I do not want to get involved in the whole debate about whether Obama is a covert (or even overt) Muslim. (Although the statistically savvy amongst you can probably predict with 99.9999% certainty what my view is on that matter.)

However, the article currently has two sections dealing with religion. The first ("Obama will likely become the first Muslim President") comes as part of the introduction. It provides a list of evidence supporting the author's view that Obama is a Muslim. The second ("Religious Affiliation") describes various issues to do with Obama's connections in the Christian church, and provides some quotes about his history relating to the Islamic faith. Nobody reading just the second section would come away beleiving the author thinks Obama is a Muslim.

The two seem a little contradictory - either the article does take the view that he is a Muslim, in which case the second piece needs re-writing, or the article takes the view that he is not a Muslim, in which case the first piece needs re-writing, or the article presents the issue as unresolved, in which case both pieces need re-writing.

Given that the subject is so controversial, I do not want to volunteer to do the writing. It would appear that Ed Poor is Appeaser-in-Chief - maybe someone should ask him to have a go?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: So are you now saying both sides should not be presented??? The liberal opposition to the observation that Obama is likely a Muslim is as self-contradictory as it is unjustified.

: By the way, I don't think Obama has had any Christian affiliation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, there is plenty of conservative opposition to the notion that Obama is a secret Muslim as evidenced by this talk page. Andy, what conservative news organizations are still wedded to the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim? I have not checked but I am guessing that [[Cybercast News Service]] which runs plenty of hard hitting and reasonable conservative pieces does not currently promote the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I think all I'm saying is the two bits are inconsistent, in that the first leaves no room for the possibility of the second being true and vice versa. I think it's fine to present both views if that's what the authors want to do - but it has to be done consistently. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 06:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== Another shocked conservative here ==

I came to Conservapedia hoping to find a valuable resource on the internet for people like me but to tell the truth I have been shocked and disappointed by some of the content, and this article seems absurd to me. How can we be taken seriously if some of us are peddling nonsense like this? Any right thinking person knows Obama isn't a Muslim. I can't stand the guy but it's clear he's a family man and a Christian. This is just gutter politics, nothing more or less, and it reflects incredibly badly on us.

Most of the stuff in this article has been easily refuted on Snopes at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp. For instance, this shows pictures of Obama with his hand on his heart at the national anthem: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp which makes that picture featured on this page, without his hand on his heart, just another smear.

This is the kind of reason folks didn't vote for McCain - because it's just ugly smear tactics. I despair. [[User:MrCoulter|MrCoulter]]

:The thing that scares me is that the tactics continue even after the election. I dislike them, but during an election, I can at least understand them; that's politics. But now, with the "Muslim" and the "not born in the US" charges (most likely among others I can't think right now), it's like people are trying to de-legitimize the election, declaring him a false president before he's even sworn in. In the eyes of people who believe those allegations, Barack Obama's election was no more legal than a military coup.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 10:08, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:*The election officially lost its validity for many, with the ''fraud'' committed by the Obama campaign in the caucuses [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/caucus-fraud-proof/] which stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. That was months before this article appeared. There are many pictures, all real, that show Obama with his hand on his heart, and without, so this photo was not altered. I suggest you at least open your mind, do some proper research, and perhaps you will learn of some valid questions, and the total lack of vetting by the media of their favorite candidate. The media has special rights granted in the Constitution. The real question is if they should continue to have those special rights or not, given their continued[[deceit]] in helping with Obama's leftist agenda. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:31, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::Rather off topic, but what are these special rights constitutionally granted to the media? [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Those rights are included within the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

<blockquote>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of '''speech''', or of '''the press'''; or the right of the people '''peaceably to assemble''', and to '''petition the Government''' for a redress of grievances."
</blockquote>

You can read more about this [http://www.consource.org/index.asp?sid=28&taxlist=180 here.] --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== The Truth is not always popular ==

In response to all the "dismayed conservatives" upset about the muslim section. One of the stated goals of CP is to highlight facts and stories that are suppressed by the liberal media. Obama's muslim heritage is one of the best examples of this right now. The mainstream liberal media refuses to even broach the topic! I commend Mr. Schlafly and Conservapedia for not censoring these facts for the sake of political correctness (in the eyes of liberals). Try to have a more open mind. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:55, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Here here. It saddens me to see how incredibly effective the deceit of the liberal media has been. Many upstanding, conservative contributors to this site have been thoroughly insulated from the facts of Obama's muslim heritage. As Aschlafly has repeatedly pointed out, the evidence for it is extremely strong and, even if you don't agree that he ''is'' a muslim, the evidence is strong enough and so thoroughly censored that it should be presented on Conservapedia. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:26, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:I don't suppose it's occured to you that a person could have an open mind, evaluate the evidence, and still come to a different conclusion than you?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Draw whatever conclusions you want, but don't expect the article to be changed or have facts removed to support the conclusion that you come to. The facts are the facts, they exist independant of popular opinion.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::: It ispossible that Obama is a Muslim, what is not possible is that this evidence that we have here on this page is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. It is not good enough. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Correct. Andy and a few others here have repeatedly ''claimed'' that the evidence is strong. The problem is that they have yet to produce ''any'' strong evidence, and some of the evidence produced is actually either wrong or logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::::: No, Philip, the evidence speaks for itself and should not be censored. Conservapedia exists precisely because of such censorship on liberal sites and the media. I'm restoring the facts yet again.

::::: At bottom, liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship. We're seeing an illustration of that here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: '''ANDY, I AM NOT A LIBERAL. STOP CALLING ME ONE AND APOLOGISE FOR DOING SO.'''
:::::: '''Deleting false and irrelevant information is not "censorship". The "facts" are not facts, and you declaring them to be so does not make them so. You have ''not'' shown them to be facts.''' [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::Philip. your post demonstrates how not to communicate properly on a project of this nature. Aggressive posts like that undermine collaborative efforts, quite apart from th want of courtesy. Your demand for an apology - even were it justifiable, and even were it not directed at the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia, who deserves your respect - is couched in unacceptable terms. And that is just the style. Turning to the 'substance' of your post, you are attempting to impose your subjective views on Conservapedia. The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia. The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant and raises sufficient questions to have a place here. That argument is incontrovertable. As for ''You have ''not'' shown them to be facts'', well, let us apply a little test here. You are so sure of your case. Can you ''prove'' them to be false? And please, ''manners makyth man''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:29, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Bugler, I wonder if there's any point in responding to you, as you appear to have a closed mind on this issue. But I'll assume for the moment that you are open to civil discussion.
:::::::: You accuse me of various faults, but totally ignore the faults on the other side. You say that posts like mine "undermine collaborative efforts", but totally igore that Andy imposing his will on the article ''in direct opposition to many other reputable editors'' is doing exactly that—undermining collaborative efforts.
:::::::: You question whether my demand for an apology is justifiable, but offer not the slightest reason to think that it's not. And somehow seem to think that a person name-calling someone else is above having to apologise for that simply because they are a site owner. Are you saying that Andy doesn't have to observe common courtesy?
:::::::: You say that "The information deleted is not 'false' and 'irrelevant' except in your personal opinion. This is not Raymentapedia.", but offer nothing but your personal opinion as support. And wilfully ignore that it's not just my opinion, but the opinion of a large number of the senior administrators. And also ignore that my claims are ''not'' opinion, but testable.
:::::::: "''The information has been deemed sufficiently relevant...''": By whom? Most senior administrators disagree. And that's the point—it's been ''deemed'' sufficiently relevant, it hasn't been ''demonstrated'' to be relevant. You accuse me of basing it on my personal opinion, but ignore that its relevance is nothing more than the ''personal opinion'' of Andy. Although Andy started this encyclopaedia, he called it ''Conservapedia'', not "Aschlaflypedia". Contrary to your unfounded implication, I'm not expecting it to conform to my personal opinion, but to ''logic and evidence'' and beyond that to the opinions of a majority of the reputable editors. You, on the other hand, are expecting it to conform to the personal opinion of Andy, who as site founder has the right to decide the commandments and who can have what privileges, but can't ''decide'' (as distinct from ''determine'') the truth of such things as whether Obama is a Muslim.
:::::::: "''The information ... raises sufficient questions to have a place here.'': The questions are only relevant if the information is correct, so that objection begs the question.
:::::::: The onus is on those making the claims in the first place to demonstrate them to be correct, not on me to demonstrate their falsity. In any case, the three points are slightly different. One (regarding his name) involves a correct fact making a point that is of little relevance and what relevance it has is based on another claim that hasn't been demonstrated. The second (taqiyya) is a logical fallacy, as it's not actually an argument that Obama is a Muslim. Do you, Bugler, deny that you are a Muslim? Then you must be according to this point, because Muslims deny that they are if it suits their purpose! The third (pronunciation) has been argued at length previously on the main talk page, not only without the claim being supported, but with good counter evidence.
:::::::: In summary, the arguments ''have'' been refuted, but Andy keeps reinserting them anyway, and when he does justify it, it's on the basis of "the evidence speaks for itself" or similar (if it did, then we wouldn't have so many disagreeing), that it's undeniable (if so, we wouldn't have so many denying it), that removal is liberal censorship (it's being removed by a conservative, and removal of incorrect or irrelevant information is not censorship), and so on. The one line of argument glaringly absent is any argument actually ''showing'' (as distinct from asserting) that the information ''is'' both accurate and relevant. This is true both from Andy and from the others such as you supporting him. If the information is so obviously correct and relevant, why is it so hard to actually show that?
:::::::: But I do thank you for one small point, Bugler. Unlike Andy, you did actually raise the point of testing the claims. Now can you demonstrate that they ''are'' correct and relevant? Please support your implied claim that if I speak nicely I will get proper answers, by giving me proper answers.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Philip, I'd like to ask you a question (without wading into your arguments with Bugler). Are you accusing ASchlafly of bias or deceit? You seem to be inferring so and, if that isn't your intention, perhaps you should reconsider your phrasing. If it ''is'' your intention, perhaps you should be explicit. On a side note, a number of editors, myself included, have backed the inclusion of this information. Naturally, our opinions seem to be valued less, not being senior administrators, but they're still worth consideration. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 21:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: RodWeathers, I assume that you are not asking about accusations such as of Andy calling me a "liberal", but about the disputed content of the article. That being so, see my post on this page with a timestamp of "20:42, 19 November". And despite someone in the Sock Drawer suggesting that I wasn't being totally honest in those comments, they were totally honest.
:::::::::: Yes, I realise that a number of editors such as you have backed the inclusion; I referred to that in my reply to Bugler. But as I said, none of you have produced any ''argument'' for their inclusion; merely repeating Andy's unsupported ''claim'' that they are correct. So no, unsupported ''opinions'' are ''not'' worth consideration when logic and the evidence say otherwise.
:::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:31, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Philip, I must respond in no uncertain terms, even if it means risking getting banned for saying my piece to an admin. I find your comments highly offensive, and indeed reprehensible. When you accuse my opinions of being illogical and unevidenced, you attack my character and attack my intelligence. You do '''not''' have a monopoly on logic, and what conclusions you consider logical are '''not''' universal. You can dance around it all you like, but what you are accusing ASchlafly, myself, and others of is no less than stupidity (inability to reach ''your'' conclusions through reasoning) or malice (intent to deceive through including this information). Many users on this site have reached different conclusions than you on this matter. We may not be administrators, but our reasoning is no less solid. Obama's religious past is suspect, and riddled with episodes that cast serious doubt on his alleged "christianity." We conclude from this, and his "gaffes" (to quote Picasso, "there are no accidents") that he is quite possibly a Muslim. There is no certainty of this, but the evidence is enough to necessitate the evidence's inclusion (along with its associated conclusions) on this website, further as the liberal media is adamant in its hiding of this evidence. You may disagree, but that does not give you the right to treat us with condescension. Obama's potential muslim heritage is '''not conjecture''' and it is '''not POV.''' It represents a broadly, if not universally held conservative view. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:37, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::Philip, I said that "liberal beliefs inevitably lead to demands for censorship." That is not calling you "a liberal" as you claim (with inappropriate bolding). Perhaps you still maintain that supporting gun control is not a "liberal belief"; perhaps you also think that insisting that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" is not atheistic. The evidence is otherwise. Regardless, information about the actual beliefs of the president will not be censored here to appease someone's dislike of it.

:::::::::::Historians and encyclopedias do examine the beliefs of presidents, and do not simply fall for self-serving comments by presidents. An independent inquiry is appropriate and will continue to provide the evidence for readers to decide, demands for censorship notwithstanding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:19, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven. Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself. I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness. It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth. There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously. This does not help the cause in the least.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] November 18 2008

: The above editor was blocked for 5 years for infractions that included editing someone else's comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks. I was rather shocked to see someone editing my comments to make me look like a racist, for no conceivable reason. That's a real low of deceit. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 00:09, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:*To [[liberals]], the end always justifies the means, sadly. We used to have a pretty good political discourse in America. Then the Bill Maher's, the George Soros's infected the [[MSM} and the colleges, and what we see at CP is happening everywhere. A woman has a Down's baby, rather than abort it, as the liberals demand she should have, and they must endure all the slime Hell has to offer, like Sarah Palin did. Here they wait day and night to sneak bad info into CP, so they can brag about it elsewhere. They edit comments, change user names or just their sigs to appear to be someone else, to start fights. Where in the world are there Christians and/or conservatives doing that? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::''To liberals, the end always justifies the means, sadly''. The irony of this comment being placed on this page in particular is truly remarkable. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:33, 24 November 2008 (EST)

==Mr.Schlafly, take heart!==

Mr. Schlafly,

I commend you on joining a long list of great minds who, despite all the superficial [[Liberal]] based evidence, managed to see the truth and purged his mind of all pernecious and evil [[Liberalism]]. It is undeniable that Obama is a Muslim, and thanks to you, millions of people around the world have embraced the truth of conservatism, and its spectacular ability to find the truth, even when the [[Liberal]] based evidence distorts and twists the truth. The only thing I can say to you Mr. Schlafly is to take heart! These [[Liberals]], who would take and twist our infallibable country and out impenatrable conservative hearts and minds will never allow their 'evidence' to supersede the truth! We shall win this culture war Mr. Schlafly, with great minds like yours! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:23, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== Islam ==

You've gotta be kidding me. Obama is not a muslim, you tools. The thing about "his Muslim faith" was taken out of context, and you damn well know it. Also, someone who knows Arabic, and has heard the call to prayer and considers it to be pleasant-sounding does not a Muslim make. I was deployed to Iraq in 2005, and appreciated the musical quality of the morning call to prayer, and I am by no means a Muslim. I'm sure Malcolm X's fight for racial equality inspired plenty of non-Muslims too. And holy crap, someone read a book written by a Muslim, they too must be a dastardly terrorist. And yes, I'm sure Obama chose his SS code name based on the several hundred-year old etymology of "renegade".

But, I should have known that you hacks wouldn't actually write a legitimate article on Obama. None of you have even an inkling of what actual, scholarly research, and unbiased writing is all about. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:23, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:Oh, and unless the guy above me is trying to be sarcastic, he should probably be locked up for having the mental age of a 3 year old. [[User:Ottotanaka|Ottotanaka]] 09:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::I think he was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong. I've seen similar attitudes put forth in complete seriousness.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:11, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Formatting? ==
I understand the reason why this page is locked, but could a sysop fix the formatting? Every other page on this site that has a table of contents has it right after the introduction. This should too. The first section should come after the table of contents. I know this is minor, but for some reason, it's really bugging me. Thanks [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

: Why is it bugging you? No, not "every other page on this site" has a table of contents up front, and even if every other one did, consistency is not something to be worshiped.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:19, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Clever, JANorton, clever. By moving the table of contents, you'd bury the information about Obama's muslim faith further down the page, reducing the number of people who would see it. Nice try. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 14:30, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::That wasn't actually my goal, but now that I understand why the table of contents is below the first section. I was really just going for consistency here, but I withdraw my request. [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 14:36, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Consistency is the hallmark of excellence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:12, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::''Truth'' is the hallmark of excellence. You've proven yourself to be a liberal through your edits to this wiki, and your attempt to [[Placement bias|hide this information]] under the name of 'consistency' will not do. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:16, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Very well put, Rod. Truth matters far more than consistency does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:21, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I noted two years ago in studying American history that the college-level textbooks we used would present liberal presidents in a consistent fashion: general information, positives, then negatives (typically glossed over, especially in the cases of FDR, Carter, and Clinton), while the conservative presidents were presented in the ''opposite'' order. Reagan's description jumped right into Iran-Contra and accusing him of threatening nuclear war. I guess the only consistency is consistent bias. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Aschafly, who are you trying to kid saying lines like "truth matters more than consistency"? You care nothing whatsoever about truth, as evidenced by you erroneously calling Obama a Muslim and then devoting a paragraph to his CHRISTIAN pastor Wright. Pick a story and stick with it.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 23 November 2008

:::::: That's an excellent observation: "the only consistency is consistent bias." I recall Jesus had a parable about laborers in the vineyard that pointed out how wrong an insistence on a foolish consistency can be. In that parable, the owner pays inconsistently as he likes. From the other end of the spectrum, Emerson criticized worship of a foolish consistency.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Since you bring up Jesus, the 10 Commandments include "thou shalt not lie". Maybe if you actually knew more about Christianity, you would know this.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: I suspect it's the simple fact that a closed mind ''always'' needs to fit information into strict, predetermined categories. New and different knowledge scares such a person, as it breaks the boundaries they're so used to. But I digress. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:44, 22 November 2008 (EST)

(Unindent) Why is the TOC at the top of all the other biographical articles then? Is its purpose to be useful in getting at the truth or to be untruthful? As I see it the rest of the article is more accessible if the TOC is within the first page view, and that is an opinion informed by a number of books and articles I have read on the subject. As for me being liberal I'm just more centrist than you, I still lean right, my edits just lean towards the middle mark because I am more liberal than the average conservapedian. My edits typically do not land on a pov issue however, they are typically issues of format and factual issues, but this is not a blog so I'll stop there. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==Template==
Is it about time to put the president infobox up on this page? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:02, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe when he actually becomes the president. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:09, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::Do you think that will not happen? Why not be proactive? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 20:52, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::I think there is a hysteria with acting like Obama is already president. Our president is still George W. Bush and it's and insult to him to downplay the remainder of his presidency by focusing everything on Obama. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:00, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::That is why they call the president a lame duck during this period, if in four years a conservative takes it the format will be changed late Tuesday election night. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 21:04, 22 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Has Barack Obama been sworn is as president? No. Has he at any time held the title of 'president'? No. Do we have a 44th president yet? No. These are simple facts. He's not the president. When he becomes the president, THEN give him an info box. Stop trying to make this a partisan issue...they're just facts.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 21:50, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Muslim/Rev. Wright==

Ashafly endlessly repeats the demonstrative falsehood that Obama is a Muslim, yet devotes a paragraph to the controversy surrounding Obama's CHRISTIAN Reverend Wright. Pick a version of the truth and stick with it. .[[User:ChristianBlade1|ChristianBlade1]] 21:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:This has already been discussed ''ad nauseam'', and a decision reached. Please see the archives for this page (links at the top).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:30, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::I'm not sure there's a point in even responding to these register-only-to-whine type liberals. If they're not going to contribute or ask meaningful questions, we should just ignore and move on to more important matters. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

As per Aschafly's instruction, I recreated my account with the proper username. In response to being labeled a "register-only-to-whine type liberal", why is that anyone who points out blatant inaccuracies in articles is labeled a whining liberal? Shouldn't conservative Christians care about telling the truth in their articles? I am not saying this trying to pick fights, I am simply commenting that the most effective way for conservatives to oppose Obama is with his own proven record.
[[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 11:55, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks for re-registering, and please don't take the 'whining' comment to heart. I'm sure you'll appreciate that the Obama article is controversial, so I'd suggest you check the archives before commenting as there is a good chance the points you made have been made and discussed before (as in this case). Really, an emotive subject like Obama isn't an ideal place for a new user to begin.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:11, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::90/10 applies, especially if you take it literally. A newbie would have to make 10 substantial edits before making an ideological comment. It's like the rule against loitering, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::: No, Ed, and it's unfortunate that you, a senior administrator, don't appear to understand the rule. The rule ([[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment 7]]), if taken literally, would require a newbie making at least ''one'' quality edit for each ''nine'' talk-page comments. So unless that was a simply typo on your part, perhaps you should review blocks you have made on this faulty understanding and unblock all those who ''didn't'' break the rule? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 24 November 2008 (EST)

::::You both have a point, but I'm a great believer in trying to be civil to new users if there's even a small chance they might be for real. Even liberals could contribute a great deal to politically-neutral pages, if they could only be persuaded to divert their efforts away from the endlessly repetitive discussions that take place here.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Absolutely. I'm all in favor of being civil (and against immediately blocking or otherwise belittling). It's just that, given the endless flow of them, we almost need copy-and-paste responses to the most common interruptions. Your above response would be almost perfect for that purpose. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:03, 24 November 2008 (EST)

The last two New Yorkers I spoke to about Obama's religion said that he is a Muslim. Even if they are wrong, the perception is there. I think the article should say "regarded as a Muslim".

I'd also like the article to address the dispute between those conservatives who assert Obama is not a Christian and other people who say Obama is a Christian. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:17, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Frankly, part of the reason for Obama being regarded as a Muslim is because of the erroneous and unsubstantiated reporting claiming him as one. [[User:CBrown|- CBrown]] 12:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== Talk page edits ==

I was just reading the Recent Changes page, and I noticed that RodWeathers deleted a talk page edit. Isn't this against the rules? I am as much against "liberal troublemaking" as you are, Rod, but I am also very much against censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 17:58, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:There's an enormous difference between censorship and removing liberal vandalism and senseless attacks against the editors of this site. What I removed was a baseless accusation against the editors of wilfull deceit of the public. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::Rod, please define censorship.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 18:07, 24 November 2008 (EST)
The talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. Comments that are not about ways to improve this article can be removed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:20, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Heroin

2008-11-20T04:04:27Z

Murray:

'''Heroin''' (Diacetylmorphine) is an illegal [[narcotic]] drug, manufactured from opium within the [[poppy]] plant as a semi-synthetic [[opioid]]. The opium poppy has been cultivated for its properties since at least 3400 BC (in [[Mesopotamia]]).

Heroin was briefly commercially marketed as a cough medicine for children, and as substitute for medicinal [[morphine]], having been erroneously believed to be less addictive.

Apart from medicinal use under strict control, heroin is illegal nearly worldwide, with harsh penalties for its possession, manufacture and trafficking, including the [[death penalty]] in many countries.

Administration of heroin is typically conducted intravenously (sometimes mixed with [[cocaine]], a combination known as a 'speedball'), insufflated, or smoked (referred to colloquially as 'chasing the dragon'). Large doses of heroin can be fatal, and the drug has often been used as a [[murder]] weapon.{{fact}}

[[Category:Illegal substances]]
[[Category:Illegal Drugs]]

Talk:Essay:Teaching Closed-Mindedness

2008-11-20T03:20:57Z

Murray: /* Any evidence for atheism resulting in mental illness? */

== "illogical, atheistic viewpoints result in mental problems" ==

By this statement do you mean all atheist viewpoints, atheist viewpoints not arrived at through rational inquiry, or something other? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:30, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
:Atheistic viewpoints ''are'' illogical, full stop. If you cannot see this, then you have a certain problem with logic yourself, Corry. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:32, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

::Easy now, no need to make personal attacks. I'm just asking if the statement means one thing or the other. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:36, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Based on the fact that the essay "Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?" was created eight days ago, I don't think it has gotten enough national traction yet for a central tenet of the "liberal agenda" to be denying "that illogical, atheistic viewpoints result in mental problems" when teaching public school children. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:44, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, really. Does an argument have to be a hundred years old to be valid? Come on, now. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:48, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::This essay is about a supposed liberal agenda of "inculcating an attitude of closed-mindedness" and that denying "that illogical, atheistic viewpoints result in mental problems" is one of the "basic tools of teaching closed-mindedness." In order for a nationwide liberal conspiracy to implement a plan of systemically denying something, that something would reasonably have to possess more nationwide exposure and credibility than Aschlafly's essay, which was penned eight days ago. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:57, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Corry, that just shows that it has not been challenged up to now. To you, CP may be a growing online encyclopaedia. You may not realise the worth of Conservapedia and its founder, Andrew Schlafly, in combatting [[Liberal]] intolerance and distortion. Among its - and his - successes have been the exposing of 'Professor' Richard Dawkins and the Lenski so-called 'proof of evolution', and these latest articles are just further bricks in this impressive edifice of achievement. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:05, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

:Well, if it hasn't been challenged yet, how can it be a central tenet of a liberal agenda? If said essay makes national headlines or by some other means influences popular thought and a liberal push against that thought follows, then you would have a point. As it stands, though, none of these things have happened, and hence it doesn't make sense to include this point in the essay. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:19, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

It didn't take long for a liberal (Corry) here to grasp for a [[conspiracy theory]]. Funny how liberals never accuse the same about Hillary Clinton (who complained about a "vast right-wing conspiracy") or Michael Moore (the ultimate conspiracy theorist).

It doesn't take a conspiracy to deny that illogical, atheistic viewpoints result in mental problems. Indeed, Corry seems to be denying it here all by himself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

:Your essay very strongly implies a conspiracy by liberals to push certain ideas on kids- I don't have to grasp for a conspiracy theory when you invent one in an essay. And I don't think that the couple of people who have argued with you regarding your essay is enough to be any kind of liberal agenda, conspiracy, or whatever. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:19, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The essay does not imply a "conspiracy" at all. Indeed, I'm going to add that as a point: accuse people who criticize you of being "conspiracy theorists." It's a common tactic by liberals to censor the other side. That does not imply they have a conspiracy to do so, but merely that such behavior flows from the belief system. Rest assured, there is no "conspiracy" to attend church either, even though tens of millions do so every week.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:58, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

:::You discuss the "liberal agenda." Doesn't a liberal agenda require coordination of more than one liberal? Wouldn't organization be required? And the church metaphor doesn't work- "conspiracy" implies something sinister, and I don't think that going to church is sinister at all. There is coordination, however- a bunch of people don't all randomly decide to show up at the same building at the same time with the common purpose if receiving communion, or morning prayers, or what have you. You, however, are implying that liberals are taking part in something that would require organization and coordination, and you obviously feel that the end is sinister. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 18:07, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

== Any evidence for atheism resulting in mental illness? ==

Is there any evidence / citation for the above comment? --[[User:BennettC|BennettC]] 16:33, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Not any real evidence, no. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: Yes. Go to the page [[Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?]] and the matter should be explained to your satisfaction. Best wishes, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:37, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I went there, and it doesn't really explain anything. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Also I have always thought that liberalism and atheism is about open mindedness. For example, atheists do not blindly believe in whatever is written in a book compiled 1400 years ago. Instead he uses the enquiring mind to find the truth about the universe. --[[User:BennettC|BennettC]] 16:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
:Atheistic minds are clamped firmly shut to the glory and wonderment of Creation. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:50, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

:: BennettC, you've undoubtedly been taught that it is somehow open-minded to be liberal and insist on censorship of criticism, demonizing of conservatives, and learn to ridicule and name-call those who point out the lack of logic in liberal theories. Once you realize how closedminded liberal censorship is, you're taken the first step towards freedom and full mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Is this to imply that liberals are mentally ill? Are you also implying that I am mentally ill? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I think it a fair possibility. Why? Do you see people with mental illnesses as in some way inferior? We know that [[Liberals]] are keen on [[eugenics]] - perhaps you feel the same way about the physically ill as well. Oh, wait - you guys support [[abortion]] for all kinds of 'reasons'. Enough said. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:40, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::You go too far. Accusing me of supporting eugenics is desperate and insulting. If you want to descend into such antics then there is no point of talking to you at all. Good day. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:44, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, one point in the essay is 'demonizing conservatives and misrepresenting their positions'. The above seems to be conservatives 'demonizing liberals and misrepresenting their positions'. Following this, by the points made by this very essay, this website teaches close-mindedness. As the Bible says, 'Judge not, lest ye be judged'. [[User:ANOther|ANOther]] 17:51, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

: We tell the truth about [[liberals]], and don't demonize them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::Only make them out to be fools by saying we all have a mental illness. And then hit us with the demon stick by saying ALL liberals want to censor conservatives. Then you come back again with the accustation of constant deception. Well, sir I testify here before you today to say; No I don't want censorship of prayer, I don't lie, I have no medically diagnosed mental illness or disorder. I wish to provide an environment in which a woman can give birth with out thinking about an abortion because she learned well enough to do the right things to avoid pregnancy or live in a land abundant enough for her to have that child. Knowing what I know about embryo development, the fertilized egg is not recognizable as a human being until the beginning of the 2nd trimester, anything after that is plain murder. In school, I don't want my teacher leading a prayer, as I would feel awkward not participating, even fearing that not participating could harm my grade or image; but if my classmate's faith dictates he should pray, more power to him. This shows he has true faith enough to overcome the peer pressure not to do it; and if you are going to have faith it might as well be a strong one. From now on I would like you to add "except Snotbowst; consult him on it as he is individual and one size does not fit all" to all further blanket statements. Better yet don't use blanket statments, or even better talk about why you are right, not why I am wrong, I will listen much more intently.--[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 19:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::: Forcing one's mind, or one's ''own'' mind, to accept contradictions and untruths predictably leads to mental illness. There have been prominent examples, such as [[Nietzsche]] going crazy.

::: Your long-winded, twisted explanation why you don't want censorship of prayer, but then do support it, illustrates the contradiction. I teach a large class and we begin with a prayer, which all or nearly all want. Do you want to censor it or not? You're living with a contradiction by simultaneously saying "yes" and "no".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 19 November 2008 (EST)

People generally refer to the society described in [[Orwell]]'s ''[[1984]]'' as crazy, with its consciously self-contradictory mottos such as War is Peace and Freedom is Slavery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:02, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-18T15:55:17Z

Murray: /* Reply */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

{{hide|- I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.}}{{unsigned|Rpond}}

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2008-07-14T17:30:46Z

Murray: /* Marginally significant */

Now, is this page a report over other people thinking Lenski's paper is flawed or is this Aschafly reporting about himself and putting it in the headline of the Front Page? And please specify by references which "two other" experiments are referenced, and explaing how you can see that the "historical contingency" is not true. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
And if you think you argue that well, why dont you submit it as a comment òn the paper to PNAS. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

:This article is seriously partisan. I see no outside or third party analysis of the paper in the references, just a bunch of cites to the article or conservapedia itself. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:34, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Folks, you're in the wrong place if you're more interested in who says what rather than determining the truth itself. A true wiki gets at the substantive truth rather than trying to rely on biased gatekeepers and filters of the truth.

The flaws in the statistical analysis in Lenski's paper are clearly set forth and well-referenced. If you're interested in the truth, then look at the paper and see the flaws yourself. If you're not interested in the truth and think you can distract people's attention from it by using other tactics, then you're wasting your time here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Aschlafly on this, there needs to be some kind of admission or response from Lenski but little has been forthcoming and conservapedia itself has taken it on. Notice how no-one, aside from conservapedia (and I think Creationwiki?) has asked such questions of Lenski? All the magazines etc have taken his study at face value without actually taking the time to critique his claims. Aside from the "peer reviewers" of course.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 00:47, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: The "peer reviewers" who spent somewhere between 0 and only 14 days looking at the paper, and missed an obvious contradiction between Figure 3 (specifying the "Historical contingency" hypothesis) and Table 1, Third Experiment. The statistical analysis in the paper appears so shoddy to me that I doubt anyone with real statistical knowledge or expertise even reviewed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have expertise in research and statistics and I'm just not seeing this shoddiness that you make reference to. You are allowed to have your doubts, but we should get a bunch of people familiar with such fields to examine the paper's statistical analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 01:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have the same problem. i hold a Dr.Rer.Nat title and did some statistics (although i am no expert on it) and fail to see the "shoddiness" please help my underdeveloped mind, Mr. Schafly and enlighten me. I it is so obvious it should be a one-liner to formulate it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Please try harder then. I've expanded the explanations a bit also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: At least now i can recongnize your statements more or less clearly. Yet i think (cite from the paper) ''We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and the result is extremely significant (P < 0.0001) whether or not the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one.'' has to be addressed more specifically than you do in order to discredit the statistics used --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 11:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Just for comparative purposes and a frame of reference, a P value that is less than the significance level of 0.05 is considered significant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 13:10, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I wonder, do the PNAS allow questions to raised and asked of the "peer reviewers" themselves? Are we able to find out who/what experience they themselves have? Perhaps that is an avenue that we could look at? I apologise in advance if this has already been asked or answered.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 01:07, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:Definitly not. Peer reviewers are anonymous and only known to the editor, for good reason. Having peer reviewers non-anonymous would cause reviewers to be very careful to step on nobodys foot to evade revenge. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, PNAS probably won't disclose who supposedly did the 14-days-or-less peer review on the [[Lenski]] paper. You're right that such disclosure could shed some light on the final product.

: "Wisdom89", your claim that you "have expertise" and don't see the flaws only makes me conclude that you don't really have the expertise that you claim. Judging by your silly user name, perhaps you've tried that approach before. We're not fooled by it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

(removed silly comment by person who has since been blocked for [[90/10 talk]] violation)

==Marginally significant==
In #1, that's not inconsistent. The figure makes it clear that, according to the hypothesis, the mutations should also occur earlier than 31,000, but should become more common at that point. 12/17 mutants occurred after 31,000. The point in #3 is not clear. What do you mean by ''weighting''? In #5, ''Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment...his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.'' Actually, '''marginally significant''' is clear. It means that the p-value is between .05 and .10 (in this case it's .08, table 2). It's a pretty standard phrase to describe an effect that falls into that range. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::Define "proper weighting". Are you referring to how they interpreted the sum of the work or to a specific analysis? You're right, I didn't cite any scientific authority. Here's one: Motulsky, H. (1995). ''Intuitive Biostatistics'', Oxford Univ. Press. Chapter 12. Also, try searching for the phrase in Google Scholar or PubMed, you'll find plenty of uses of it. It's a shorthand way of describing an effect that came close to the arbitrary threshold for statistical significance but did not reach it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:55, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::: You seem unwilling to accept that Point #1 identifies a clear mistake between the figure and the abstract in the paper, which requires correction by Lenski or PNAS. Given that unwillingness, I doubt it will productive discussing the other mistakes further with you. You're right that other usage of the dubious concept of "marginally significant" can be found on the internet, but the first link to such usage on my internet search for it returned the non-rigorous "Intuitive Biostatistics" and the second link returned a criticism of the concept similar to the criticism express here. [http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/49/1/93-a.pdf] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not a clear mistake in my mind. There does seem to be some confusion or contradiction in terms of the number of generations, but I haven't seen a clear explanation of why this is or is not a mistake. What seems like a contradiction is the abstract statement that no mutations occurred before 31,500, but it's not clear to me whether I'm misunderstanding that. ''I doubt it will productive discussing the other mistakes further with you. '' Of course you doubt it, because you are unlikely to be willing to concede anything no matter what anyone says. Why do you call the concept dubious? The procedure of determining whether an effect is significant requires the setting of an arbitrary threshold, which is usually .05. That means, in analyses of the sort in the Blount et al. paper, that there's less than a 5% chance that the findings are due to sampling error. When an effect comes close to the threshold it is worth noting, because of the problems inherent in significance testing, which itself is widely criticized in the statistical literature. I am not clear what you mean by weighting, as I mentioned before - in the interpretation or statistically? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:30, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the E. coli already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments.[3] Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Len ==

The author of the above statement must not have read the paper or the supplement carefully. Lenski took clones from those cultures that '''weren't Cit+'''. Careful reading of the paper or the supplement reveals that Cit+ mutants appeared at 750 generations or later into the replay experiment. The authors write: "New Cit+ variants emerged between 750 and 3,700 generations..."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:03, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your explanation is not convincing. Show us how Lenski proved that the samples did not have '''any''' Cit+ variants, if you really think he's claiming that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

== 1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented... ==

Again, more issues with comprehension: The authors did not know when the potentiating mutation first arose but they knew it was before generation 31,500. Figure 2 is merely figurative, being an illustration, and not quantitative. Their analyses suggested that the potentiating mutation did arise at about the 20,000 generation point or later. Their conclusion is that Cit+ mutation rate is low even in a potentiated background but apparently distinguishable from a low-incidence single, unpotentiated event.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:04, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

== Statistics101 package: ==

What does the author imply by writing: "...Lenski himself does not have any obvious expertise in statistics. In fact, Richard Lenski admits in his paper that he based his statistical conclusions on use of a website called "statistics101"?

From the web site:
''Professionals: Although it was originally developed to aid students, the Statistics101 program is suitable for all levels of statistical sophistication. It is especially useful for Monte Carlo, resampling, and bootstrap applications. It has been used by professionals in many fields. These include anthropology, biology, ecology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, marine biology, psychology, toxicology, veterinary pathology.''
It would appear that the package from the web site (not the web site itself) was used to perform the Monte Carlo resampling tests. Is there any evidence that the package produces incorrect results?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

==Formal Response to PNAS==

''I've moved this thread from the open section above since this page is being categorized.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think this article presents very sound arguments. Conservapedia should now take action, offering to publish a rebuttal of Lenski in the PNAS journal.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 11:31, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with JBoley in that if Conservapedia wants to present a formal, professional response to Professor Lenski's paper that questions specifics within his paper, then it should happen. That is the proper execution of the scientific method, and I'm certain that a professional response to PNAS would yield better results than vague "give us all the data " demands. Is a formal response to PNAS from Conservapedia in the works, or is this article the only place these questions/objections were intended to be raised? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: I don't know if PNAS would embarrass itself by printing a rebuttal, or whether it has the integrity to retract Lenski's paper. Conservapedia's audience is probably bigger than PNAS's, and we're certainly not going to suspend our exposure of the truth here in order to await correction by PNAS.

: PNAS publishes, quite easy to find Rules for "Rebuttals" (they call it "Letter"). It is specifically what you want. [http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml PNAS:Information for Authors] . I cite: ''Letters are brief online-only comments that contribute to the discussion of a PNAS research article published within the last 3 months. Letters may not include requests to cite the letter writer's work, accusations of misconduct, or personal comments to an author. Letters are limited to 250 words and no more than five references.'' --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:25, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

: In addition, Lenski has already demonstrated how he reads this site and he can certainly correct his own paper, and he should do so. Indeed, professionalism might support giving Lenski the time to correct it himself first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::I understand what you're saying, but there's nothing improper or unprofessional in submitting a formal request to PNAS to have the points in this article addressed by Professor Lenski and his team. To be frank, you've been adamant in your insistence that PNAS has been less than rigorous in the review of Lenski's paper, so if one of your intentions is to demonstrate this then having PNAS respond to a formally submitted response to the paper in public would serve that purpose. This can be done in addition to publishing these objections on Conservapedia--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:21, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::If not PNAS, then perhaps some other public forum? I know Andy Schlafly has appeared on television, effectively arguing against gardisal and other dangerous vaccines. Perhaps if a TV program were interested you could argue against Lenski? You could be the spokesperson against these false claims of evolution.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:24, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm not opposed to the above suggestions, but the future is here, folks. Lenski, PNAS editors and television producers have free will to reject or ignore the truth, and I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television. Lenski and his defenders can see the truth here, and they can decide for themselves whether to reject or admit it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::I agree with you about the dying nature of print (I don't think television is dying, merely changing). The problem is that information about the flaws in Lenski's study are not registering outside of sites like Conservapedia. In effect, Conservapedia is an echo chamber. People that come to this site already agree with its point of view. I encourage you to attempt to attract the attention of other forms of media, or Lenski's false claims will simply be accepted as fact by the public and even worse, by educators.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::While there's nothing wrong with taking one's message to various forums or outlets, I believe there's a specific value in submitting these objections as a formal response to PNAS. Conservapedia was established as a trustworthy resource for students, and in my mind all of it's actions should be done with the goal of informing and educating. The Lenski debate is over the findings published in a scientific journal after undergoing a peer-review process. The objections to this paper by the CP leadership are not just about its content, but to the process by which it was reviewed and published in the timeframe it was. Talking about these objections is fine, but it's more instructional to the students using Conservapedia, and a better example of the scientific method in action, to respond to a scientific paper published in a journal through the formal process by which such papers are either defended or corrected. In the end, Lenksi's work will either stand up as good science, or any errors will be addressed and the paper's conclusions modified accordingly, which is also good science. Seeing this process in action regarding a such a significant paper is a great learning opportunity, and the Conservapedia leadership would be remiss in not standing by their conviction in these objections and submitting them formally to PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

PNAS has a letters section available with the online edition. Many journals have a letters section for rebuttals or clarification. Legitimate corrections are welcome. Andy, have you run your list of 'flaws' past any biologists?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Funny, Argon, how you don't apply your demand of expertise to Lenski himself. What are Lenski's credentials with respect to statistical analysis? Has he even taken and passed an upper-class statistics course of any substance?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Schlafly, does your response above, "I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television", mean that you will not be submitting a response with these identified flaws directly to PNAS? As I mentioned above, it takes nothing away from the value of posting these statements here on CP to also submit them to PNAS, but the proper way to prompt a journal to review and correct an article is through a direct response, not publication on an unrelated website like CP. It's not proper for anyone but the author(s) of the objections in this article to make that submission, so I'm hoping they step up with the conviction of their beliefs and respond to PNAS directly. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:32, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Expertise in Statistics ==
I don’t mind admitting that I have none! The article states that Lenski combined the three trials incorrectly and that he doesn’t make the insignificance of the third clear. Now it may well be very clear to others but, unfortunately, the article doesn’t make clear to people like me what was wrong. Can someone expand on this point? Is anyone able to explain to a layman what Lenski should have done and the conclusions he should have reached? It's all getting a little technical for me. --[[User:Billd|Bill Dean]] 12:10, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2008-07-14T01:55:26Z

Murray:

Now, is this page a report over other people thinking Lenski's paper is flawed or is this Aschafly reporting about himself and putting it in the headline of the Front Page? And please specify by references which "two other" experiments are referenced, and explaing how you can see that the "historical contingency" is not true. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
And if you think you argue that well, why dont you submit it as a comment òn the paper to PNAS. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

:This article is seriously partisan. I see no outside or third party analysis of the paper in the references, just a bunch of cites to the article or conservapedia itself. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:34, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Folks, you're in the wrong place if you're more interested in who says what rather than determining the truth itself. A true wiki gets at the substantive truth rather than trying to rely on biased gatekeepers and filters of the truth.

The flaws in the statistical analysis in Lenski's paper are clearly set forth and well-referenced. If you're interested in the truth, then look at the paper and see the flaws yourself. If you're not interested in the truth and think you can distract people's attention from it by using other tactics, then you're wasting your time here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Aschlafly on this, there needs to be some kind of admission or response from Lenski but little has been forthcoming and conservapedia itself has taken it on. Notice how no-one, aside from conservapedia (and I think Creationwiki?) has asked such questions of Lenski? All the magazines etc have taken his study at face value without actually taking the time to critique his claims. Aside from the "peer reviewers" of course.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 00:47, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: The "peer reviewers" who spent somewhere between 0 and only 14 days looking at the paper, and missed an obvious contradiction between Figure 3 (specifying the "Historical contingency" hypothesis) and Table 1, Third Experiment. The statistical analysis in the paper appears so shoddy to me that I doubt anyone with real statistical knowledge or expertise even reviewed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have expertise in research and statistics and I'm just not seeing this shoddiness that you make reference to. You are allowed to have your doubts, but we should get a bunch of people familiar with such fields to examine the paper's statistical analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 01:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have the same problem. i hold a Dr.Rer.Nat title and did some statistics (although i am no expert on it) and fail to see the "shoddiness" please help my underdeveloped mind, Mr. Schafly and enlighten me. I it is so obvious it should be a one-liner to formulate it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Please try harder then. I've expanded the explanations a bit also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: At least now i can recongnize your statements more or less clearly. Yet i think (cite from the paper) ''We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and the result is extremely significant (P < 0.0001) whether or not the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one.'' has to be addressed more specifically than you do in order to discredit the statistics used --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 11:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Just for comparative purposes and a frame of reference, a P value that is less than the significance level of 0.05 is considered significant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 13:10, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I wonder, do the PNAS allow questions to raised and asked of the "peer reviewers" themselves? Are we able to find out who/what experience they themselves have? Perhaps that is an avenue that we could look at? I apologise in advance if this has already been asked or answered.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 01:07, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:Definitly not. Peer reviewers are anonymous and only known to the editor, for good reason. Having peer reviewers non-anonymous would cause reviewers to be very careful to step on nobodys foot to evade revenge. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, PNAS probably won't disclose who supposedly did the 14-days-or-less peer review on the [[Lenski]] paper. You're right that such disclosure could shed some light on the final product.

: "Wisdom89", your claim that you "have expertise" and don't see the flaws only makes me conclude that you don't really have the expertise that you claim. Judging by your silly user name, perhaps you've tried that approach before. We're not fooled by it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

(removed silly comment by person who has since been blocked for [[90/10 talk]] violation)

==Marginally significant==
In #1, that's not inconsistent. The figure makes it clear that, according to the hypothesis, the mutations should also occur earlier than 31,000, but should become more common at that point. 12/17 mutants occurred after 31,000. The point in #3 is not clear. What do you mean by ''weighting''? In #5, ''Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment...his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.'' Actually, '''marginally significant''' is clear. It means that the p-value is between .05 and .10 (in this case it's .08, table 2). It's a pretty standard phrase to describe an effect that falls into that range. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::Define "proper weighting". Are you referring to how they interpreted the sum of the work or to a specific analysis? You're right, I didn't cite any scientific authority. Here's one: Motulsky, H. (1995). ''Intuitive Biostatistics'', Oxford Univ. Press. Chapter 12. Also, try searching for the phrase in Google Scholar or PubMed, you'll find plenty of uses of it. It's a shorthand way of describing an effect that came close to the arbitrary threshold for statistical significance but did not reach it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:55, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
== Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the E. coli already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments.[3] Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Len ==

The author of the above statement must not have read the paper or the supplement carefully. Lenski took clones from those cultures that '''weren't Cit+'''. Careful reading of the paper or the supplement reveals that Cit+ mutants appeared at 750 generations or later into the replay experiment. The authors write: "New Cit+ variants emerged between 750 and 3,700 generations..."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:03, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your explanation is not convincing. Show us how Lenski proved that the samples did not have '''any''' Cit+ variants, if you really think he's claiming that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

== 1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented... ==

Again, more issues with comprehension: The authors did not know when the potentiating mutation first arose but they knew it was before generation 31,500. Figure 2 is merely figurative, being an illustration, and not quantitative. Their analyses suggested that the potentiating mutation did arise at about the 20,000 generation point or later. Their conclusion is that Cit+ mutation rate is low even in a potentiated background but apparently distinguishable from a low-incidence single, unpotentiated event.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:04, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

== Statistics101 package: ==

What does the author imply by writing: "...Lenski himself does not have any obvious expertise in statistics. In fact, Richard Lenski admits in his paper that he based his statistical conclusions on use of a website called "statistics101"?

From the web site:
''Professionals: Although it was originally developed to aid students, the Statistics101 program is suitable for all levels of statistical sophistication. It is especially useful for Monte Carlo, resampling, and bootstrap applications. It has been used by professionals in many fields. These include anthropology, biology, ecology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, marine biology, psychology, toxicology, veterinary pathology.''
It would appear that the package from the web site (not the web site itself) was used to perform the Monte Carlo resampling tests. Is there any evidence that the package produces incorrect results?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

==Formal Response to PNAS==

''I've moved this thread from the open section above since this page is being categorized.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think this article presents very sound arguments. Conservapedia should now take action, offering to publish a rebuttal of Lenski in the PNAS journal.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 11:31, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with JBoley in that if Conservapedia wants to present a formal, professional response to Professor Lenski's paper that questions specifics within his paper, then it should happen. That is the proper execution of the scientific method, and I'm certain that a professional response to PNAS would yield better results than vague "give us all the data " demands. Is a formal response to PNAS from Conservapedia in the works, or is this article the only place these questions/objections were intended to be raised? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: I don't know if PNAS would embarrass itself by printing a rebuttal, or whether it has the integrity to retract Lenski's paper. Conservapedia's audience is probably bigger than PNAS's, and we're certainly not going to suspend our exposure of the truth here in order to await correction by PNAS.

: In addition, Lenski has already demonstrated how he reads this site and he can certainly correct his own paper, and he should do so. Indeed, professionalism might support giving Lenski the time to correct it himself first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::I understand what you're saying, but there's nothing improper or unprofessional in submitting a formal request to PNAS to have the points in this article addressed by Professor Lenski and his team. To be frank, you've been adamant in your insistence that PNAS has been less than rigorous in the review of Lenski's paper, so if one of your intentions is to demonstrate this then having PNAS respond to a formally submitted response to the paper in public would serve that purpose. This can be done in addition to publishing these objections on Conservapedia--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:21, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::If not PNAS, then perhaps some other public forum? I know Andy Schlafly has appeared on television, effectively arguing against gardisal and other dangerous vaccines. Perhaps if a TV program were interested you could argue against Lenski? You could be the spokesperson against these false claims of evolution.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:24, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm not opposed to the above suggestions, but the future is here, folks. Lenski, PNAS editors and television producers have free will to reject or ignore the truth, and I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television. Lenski and his defenders can see the truth here, and they can decide for themselves whether to reject or admit it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::I agree with you about the dying nature of print (I don't think television is dying, merely changing). The problem is that information about the flaws in Lenski's study are not registering outside of sites like Conservapedia. In effect, Conservapedia is an echo chamber. People that come to this site already agree with its point of view. I encourage you to attempt to attract the attention of other forms of media, or Lenski's false claims will simply be accepted as fact by the public and even worse, by educators.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::While there's nothing wrong with taking one's message to various forums or outlets, I believe there's a specific value in submitting these objections as a formal response to PNAS. Conservapedia was established as a trustworthy resource for students, and in my mind all of it's actions should be done with the goal of informing and educating. The Lenski debate is over the findings published in a scientific journal after undergoing a peer-review process. The objections to this paper by the CP leadership are not just about its content, but to the process by which it was reviewed and published in the timeframe it was. Talking about these objections is fine, but it's more instructional to the students using Conservapedia, and a better example of the scientific method in action, to respond to a scientific paper published in a journal through the formal process by which such papers are either defended or corrected. In the end, Lenksi's work will either stand up as good science, or any errors will be addressed and the paper's conclusions modified accordingly, which is also good science. Seeing this process in action regarding a such a significant paper is a great learning opportunity, and the Conservapedia leadership would be remiss in not standing by their conviction in these objections and submitting them formally to PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

PNAS has a letters section available with the online edition. Many journals have a letters section for rebuttals or clarification. Legitimate corrections are welcome. Andy, have you run your list of 'flaws' past any biologists?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2008-07-13T18:19:57Z

Murray:

[[Richard Lenski]] rejected a request to release his data to the public,<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].</ref> but the following serious flaws are emerging about his work<ref>Blount et al., "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli'', 105 PNAS 7899-7906 (June 10, 2008).</ref> even without a full disclosure of the data. Note that the peer review on Lenski's paper took somewhere between 0 (non-existent) and at most 14 days (including administrative time), and Lenski himself does not have any obvious expertise in statistics. In fact, Richard Lenski admits in his paper that he based his statistical conclusions on use of a website called "statistics101".

1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented in the Third Experiment in Table 1 of his paper. Figure 3 proposes a step-up in mutation rate to Cit+ due to a historical contingency (potentiating mutation) occurring at about the 31,000th generation, yet the Third (and largest) Experiment in Table 1 shows Cit+ arising just as often before the 31,000th generation as after. The abstract, in further contradiction with Figure 3, suggests that the historical contingency (potentiating mutation) occurred prior to the 20,000th generation.

2. Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the ''E. coli'' already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments.<ref>Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations 31,500, 32,000 and 32,500.</ref> Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Lenski's hypothesis.

3. Lenski's largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to support his hypothesis with statistical significance. Even though this largest experiment was nearly ten times the size of his other experiments, Richard Lenski did not weight this largest experiment correctly in combining his results.

4. Lenski's two alternative hypotheses suggest a fixed mutation rate, but the failure of the mutations in his experiments to increase based on scale (number of samples) tends to disprove both of Lenski's alternative hypotheses. Yet Lenski's paper fails to address adequately this obvious flaw in the paper.

5. Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to confirm his hypothesis with statistical significance, even with the incorrect inclusion of the Cit+ variant generations. Instead, his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance. Other works published in PNAS are clear in defining statistical significance in the traditional way, which Lenski's Third Experiment (even with incorrect inclusion of the above-referenced generations) failed to satisfy.<ref>See, e.g., www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0701990104</ref>

6. The long lag time (over 12,000 generations) between the historical contingency (potentiating mutation) in the largest experiment disproves Lenski's implicit assumption that the potentiating mutation likely occurred in proximity with the occurrence of the Cit+ variant, and that the first occurrence of the Cit+ variant in the Third Experiment at the 20,000th generation somehow implies that a potentiating mutation occurred in its proximity.

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2008-07-13T17:41:26Z

Murray:

Sumer

2008-07-06T17:33:54Z

Murray:

'''Sumer''' was the land of [[Sumerians]] in southern [[Mesopotamia]], in present-day [[Iraq]]. [[Ur]] was the most important city. The Sumerians' greatest invention was [[cuneiform]] writing. They also invented the first codes of law, the first [[city-states]], the seed plow, the sailboat, and the potter’s wheel.

[[Category:Anthropology]]
[[Category:Ancient History]]

Liberal hate speech

2008-07-06T17:31:21Z

Murray: /* Liberal hate speech against African-Americans */ typo

'''Liberal hate speech''' is [[hate speech]] employed by [[liberals]] - "widely provocative speech to denigrate a legally protected class or group of citizens defined by legislation"<ref>Definition; see [[Hate speech]], Conservapedia</ref>. It is surprising considering liberal support of [[affirmative action]] and [[political correctness]], but indicates that true [[tolerance]] does not necessarily follow from these tenets.

==Liberal hate speech against persons with disabilities==
*Actor [[George Clooney]] is unapologetic about tasteless ridicule of an [[Alzheimer's]] sufferer:
:KURTZ: O'Reilly also criticized you for making a joke about [[Charlton Heston]], the former NRA chief, having Alzheimer's.

:CLOONEY: Yes.

:KURTZ: Was that in poor taste in retrospect?

:CLOONEY: Yes, oh, yes. It was in poor taste. It was a funny joke. It was in a room of 100 people. Yeah, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I have a lot of good friends who -- in fact, I have a very good friend who is dying of Alzheimer's. And it was just a funny joke. <ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/26/rs.00.html Interview With George Clooney], Transcript CNN Reliable Sources, October 26, 2003.</ref>

==Liberal hate speech against African-Americans==

*[[Colin Powell]] is a respected and popular Statesman who rejected offers to be drafted for President in 1996. In an interview, [[liberal activist]] Harry Belafonte, who is also African-American, stated, "there are those slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master to exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. That gave you privilege. Colin Powell is permitted to come into the house of the master, as long as he will serve the master according to the master's dictates." <ref>[http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/30/157217&mode=thread&tid=25 Interview with Harry Belefonte], ''Democracy Now'', January 30th, 2006.</ref>

*Former [[Vermont]] [[Governor]] and current DNC chairman, [[Howard Dean]] joked during a speech, “You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.” <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17718-2005Feb11.html], The Special-Interest Group Hug, Feb 12th, 2005 </ref>

==Liberal hate speech against Hispanics==
*[[Alberto Gonzales]]. The first Hispanic U.S. Attorney General, was consistently mocked on liberal websites as 'Alberto "Speedy" Gonzales' <ref>[http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800028910&start=0 ''Speedy Gonzales to Resign''], Aug 27, 2007. Retrieved from History.com message boards August 30, 2007.</ref> during his tenure. Speedy Gonzales is a reference to a disparaging stereotypical cartoon character of Hispanics that Hollywood attempted to popularize in the 1950s and 60s. Upon his retirement, ''[[NBC News]]'' anchor [[Matt Lauer]] called Gonzales "a piñata" for the Democrats. [http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/08/2007-08-28-NBC-TDYpinata.rm]

==Liberal hate speech against Jews==
*Rev. [[Jesse Jackson]] said on Jaunary 25, 1984, "all Hymie wants to talk about, is Israel; every time you go to Hymietown, that's all they want to talk about." <ref>[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=187440 Jesse and the Jews], Michael W. Hirschorn, ''The Harvard Crimson'', March 05, 1984.</ref>
*Anti-war activist [[Cindy Sheehan]] said "Casey was killed for lies and for a [[PNAC]] Neo-Con <ref>[http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-antisemitism&month=0304&week=&msg=4zdiWX1EuCVzeRLDdQySKA&user=&pw= 'Neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish], Dr. Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Institute, Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya, H-Net discussion April 6, 2003.</ref> agenda to benefit Israel", <ref>National Review, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2FjYjA3NDU2NThiZjI4YzFkYTdkZmViY2M5M2U4MTE= ''Dear Useful Idiot''], Catherine Seipp, May 26, 2006. </ref> accusing members of a vast right-wing Jewish conspiracy of being responsible for her sons death to benefit Israel.
*[[Richard Dawkins]] claimed that Jews "more or less monopolize American foreign policy." His comments have been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League as "classic Anti-Semitism."<ref>[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/134346 Dawkins: Jews Control US Policy], Israel National News, October 8, 2007.</ref>

==Liberal hate speech against people of faith==

*[[Radical]] [[extremist]] [[Katherine Yurica]] stated the [[Republican Party]] gained power through "[[Hitler]]ian tactics", [[evangelical]] leaders from [[Billy Graham]] to [[Jerry Falwell]] "had to have read Hitler’s [[Mein Kampf]]" and [[Christian]]s have "[[fascist]]ic tendencies."<ref>[http://www.ird-renew.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=494491&ct=928973 ''President Bush Called “Evil,” Evangelicals Equated With Nazis at NCC-Supported Conference''], John Lomperis, The Institute on Religion and Democracy. </ref><ref>[http://the-fourth-world.blogspot.com/2006/11/apocalypse-no-christian-fascism-and.html Apocalypse No! Christian Fascism and the Nazi Legacy], Apocalypse No! An Indigenist Perspective, by Juan Santos, November 01, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight#POV_editing Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pravknight/POV editing], Retrieved from Wikipedia October 22, 2007.</ref>

*[[Richard Dawkins]] in his 2006 book ''The God Delusion,'' states fundamentalist religion "saps the intellect,"<ref>[http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour2_100606.html Sciencefriday.com page on Dawkins]</ref> and refers to belief in [[God]] as a "mind-virus."<ref>[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath</ref>

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

==External links==
*[http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/PHS/PHS.php Bryan Henderson's attempts to balance socialist political science teacher], a civil libertarian come face to face with leftist hate.
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29414 Liberal hate speech], Judith Reisman, ''[[WorldNetDaily.com]]'', October 25, 2002.
*[http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ God Hates Fred Phelps], Retrieved from http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ October 25, 2007.

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Talk:Richard Lenski

2008-07-03T15:01:20Z

Murray: /* An Interesting Lenski Quote */

==Formatting==
I borrowed a template from another wiki which might make the data section a bit easier to comprehend. I will include it here pending approval of senior sysops. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Looks great. Please install in the entry as desired.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Okay, I've moved it. I've also cut it from this page for economy's sake. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 13:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::Actually it makes the article look amaturish. For starters you have written in capitals and you have not explained why the missing data is significant which is the point of the side-by-side template to do a full rebuttle. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. A discussion specifying what one expects from the 'missing' data and what usefulness such information would likely shed is necessary.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that it is necessary to establish exactly what is being asked for in the terse comments on the right hand side, sadly such a discussion could get the majority of the contributors banned for the 90/10 rule. I myself have not contributed much to this question recently as a result of this rule. Could the powers that be explicitly suspend this rule on this issue so that the question may be freely discussed? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Listing fields ==

I'm not a parodist, though I did make a mistake on what a CV is.

== Suggestion: Disagreements with E Coli paper should go to a new section? ==

Shouldn't this be a brief bio of Lenski, and a link to the controversy over the paper, including the discussions and the emails, be part of that page instead of here? It looks pretty bad putting it on the main page. 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
On the other hand, after doing some research, I don't think it's standard for faculty to put degree fields in a list of their degrees.

I googled "MSU biology", then went over the "Faculty List A-G". Here is what I found:

No list of degrees: 2
List with fields: 3
List without fields: 12

Finally, Oberlin is a liberal college, and they do focus mostly on liberal arts. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Template / formatting==
Out of interest, I help to administer a private wiki where I work, and think this template is quite nice. Might I ask where you found it, and what (if any) associated copyright restrictions there are on it? [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 15:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

: Really, "Henry8th"??? That's an amazing coincidence you describe: you just happen to administer a "private wiki" at "work". Before wasting people's time with your silliness, how about convincing us a bit more of the earnestness of comment, as in providing the wiki version number, the type of your employer and the location of your "work". I'm sure the wiki developers who freely donate their efforts for use by all would be thrilled to learn of your profitable use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: We run Mediawiki 1.6.7 (yes, I know we're incredibly out of date, but we can't upgrade to a newer one as that would require PHP5, whereas we need that server running PHP4 to support other older software). I make it a habit not to disclose too much personal information on the internet, I'm afraid, but I'm a PhD student at a UK university and I help to administer a wiki run by my research group. By "private" I mean "accessible only to people within my research group"; we find that a wiki is an efficient way for us to edit documents collaboratively. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 16:47, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: The copyright policy here says "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution".[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 11:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::However, since it was admitted above that the template is not CP's creation, it should first be established whether or not the template was used in a correct way (and if any attributions are needed) before others borrow it from here. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I would ask the same question as ZTak above. Firstly, from a legal point of view I would want to be absolutely sure that any code I might upload to a server at my university was properly licensed (we have regular software audits, of course). Secondly, from an ethical point of view I would like to make sure that I can properly credit the original author of the template. As someone whose work involves writing computer programs, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone took software I'd written and didn't attribute authorship correctly. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 14:36, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Fact checking could use some work on the omissions section ==

I strongly encourage editors to confirm that the topics on this entry's 'omissions' section page really refer to "data not provided" and do not reflect the lack of understanding of the research. At a bare minimum it is necessary to completely read the actual article. 'Skimming' it quickly is not fair to the goals of this wiki or Lenksi's lab. To at least be diligent, I recommend that the authors of the "omissions" section go to Lenksi's lab web page here (https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/), and peruse (read, not skim) the many papers related to the Long-Term Evolution project that are referenced in the current paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== I do not understand why my last edit was reversed ==

It seems to be common practice (and therefore not "odd") to not list what fields faculty majored in, and Oberlin is very liberal. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 12:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not certain what 'liberal' has to do with anything and "odd" has pejorative overtones. Rather than worry about 'oddness' why not investigate the degrees? In his graduate program Lenski studied insects and evolution and around 1983, worked with Bruce Levin, moving into the study of microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== This man is nothing but a farce ==

Why must we, the children of God, even acknowledge this liberal atheist (as if there is any other form of an atheist) on our glorious site? We are only feeding his overinflated ego by doing so. --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 12:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== A problem with: "Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study," ==

This recent study is but one of many papers by Lenksi ''et al'' regarding the evolution of bacterial populations in continuous culture. He is best known professionally for his ''in vitro'' experiments studying the population dynamics of genetic adaptations in bacteria and other studies in microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== don't clutter this entry with meaningless edits???? ==

The topic of the page is 'Richard Lenski'. I added additional bibliographic information about Lenski's professional awards and they are reversed as "meaningless edits"? And the 'odd' comment remains despite the fact that it's common to leave the subjects of the degrees out of web pages?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:43, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, various links to things such as [[data]] as well. I thought data was central to the question at hand? Why not link to it (such as it is)? And a mention of his work with virtual organisms seems relevant - especially as it's mentioned again at the end.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

And now I'm a "Lenski supporter"? Anyone who actually read the paper and referenced the pertinent section of the article that clearly specified the glucose concentration used is a supporter? I think that addition of 'Lenksi supporter' is needlessly inflammatory. Furthermore, with regard to the question: WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE? DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?", I also wrote: "A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment." and that got removed. Resubmitted.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== shouldn't we move the E Coli paper discussion to a separate page? ==

It looks really cheezy to have this right on Lenski's biography, very unprofessional.
Just have a link and move all that discussion to something like Lenski_E_Coli_controversy,
don't erase a thing. [[User:Encinocathy|Cathy]] 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wrong format for a debate ==

Ignoring all the other issues with this "article", the side-by-side table is really not made for a discussion. Maybe move that part to a debate page? It's quite silly to see an encyclopedia article doing a question-and-answer session with anonymous participants. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. It's silly to post the page without doing the basic research. Better to corral the innuendos into debate pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:20, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::Also, we have yet to discovere the proper attribution for the side-by-side table, and as such it should be taken down or it might constitute a violation of copyright. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:25, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Given that [[User:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] said she took the template from elsewhere, it would presumably be straightforward for her to tell us where she found it. Given that information I'd happily aid the project by checking out this other wiki's copyright policy before reporting back here. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 18:45, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:My issue is mostly about using a left/right table when the left side is basically just the intro section while the right side is suddenly filled with a weird pseudo-debate that goes back and forth. It would be better to do it like this:
==Visual Inspection==
===Lenski's Paper===
(quote)
===Discussion===
(back and forth; not as debate, but in more encyclopedic "A claims B, to which C points out D." style)

==Study Omissions==
(quote)
:And so on. It would make the article more readable. And it would have the added benefit of NOT USING SO MANY ALL-CAPS SENTENCES, BECAUSE DESPITE WHAT SOME SITES SAY, CAPSLOCK IS NOT THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 19:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

:Furthermore, it would help review the status of claims rather than deleting them outright: Here's a most recent example: ''(removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones)" Aschlafly. Revision as of 19:34, 30 June 2008''
:I think it is an important point in two senses: 1) If the level of glucose was not growth limiting then Cit+ mutants might not have been discovered. It is an important feature of the experiment in this instance. 2) It's clear that the glucose concentration was indeed disclosed. How about creating a section titled "Data someone repeatedly claimed was undisclosed but was actually found by looking" and move the deleted test there?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:24, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Atheist Lobbying Organization ==

Should this remain in the article, given that it was inserted by an identified (and subsequently banned) parodist? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

: Anything wrong with the cites for it? By the way, not every block is proper. If in error, and I don't know if this one was, the block is reversed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::There's nothing wrong with the cites, per se; they just don't quite cover the assertion. The cited sources do a good job of establishing that the PNAS is largely atheistic (something which is pretty well-known anyway.) They don't really cover any "lobbying" activities, though. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::: OK, based on what you said, how about taking out the "lobbying" reference only? As to the rest, it's informative: most people don't know how atheistic the PNAS is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Will do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Maybe need to add another section ==

It would probably be better to split the biographic information from the discussion of the letters exchanged with A. Schlafly. Perhaps a section titled: "Interactions with Andrew Schlafly" (or "site owner") would better hold that aspect.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== e-mail ==

For public interest, could we at CP view the e-mail regarding the template here? If the claim in the e-mail has merit and further measures are pursued, it does not seem fair that the whole site should be punished for one man's refusal to remove the template. Perhaps we could see the e-mail and discuss whether or not the claim is valid. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

==Professor?==
''Is'' Lenski an actual professor? I know there are plenty of people who exaggerate their status ad pretend they're something they're not. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he's one of them, given what we know of him so far. Have we seen his credentials? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:TonyT I was about to give you a serious response, but then I realized that you have to be joking so thanks for making me laugh. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 15:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::He has been blocked as a parodist already, so don't bother responding. I'm thinking of removing this nonesense. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 15:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::So has 'Rellik'. Isn't it sad to see two trolls having a conversation? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

==Digital Organisms==
Lenski is famous for two things. His work with his work E. coli and his work with digital organisms. The work with digital organisms is the work referred to in a somewhat unclear way at the bottom of the page. I have twice tried to mention this other important aspect of his work and twice been reverted. This time the edit was called "Liberal Claptrap"!! One would have thought that, in an article about Richard Lenski, mention of what he ''actually does'' would be important and not "Liberal Claptrap".--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:If I get no response, presumably I can assume it was reverted in error and I can put it back in?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::What did he do with [[E. coli]], and what is a "[[digital organism]]"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, I think British is talking about the twenty or so years Lenski has been experimenting with and growing up 12 E. coli cell lines. This last bit with the citrate mutation is one entry among twenty years. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::Richard Lenski is a well known scientist. He is well-known for his 20-year project on [[E. coli]]. (I must say that I don't know how to respond to Mr Poor's question, "What did he do with E. coli" as the entire Lenski debate has been about his work with E. coli.) He is '''also''' well known for his work with [[Digital organisms]]. The final part of the existing article sort of talks about this in a rather confusing manner. Given that he is well-known for '''both''' these two things and that the article is about him, I had thought it would be a good idea to mention them both.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 08:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Release data to other [[evolutionists]]? ==

The paper says that only two people analyzed the data: Lenski and a grad student whom I presume acts under his direction and control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

He says in his email that he will release the E. coli samples to a competent scientist who asks for them. How is that no agreeing to release the data to other evolutionists? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

:Lenski does say that in his email. He didn't say that he wouldn't release the data to a competent scientist that held creationist views. Really at this point a competent scientist with creationist credentials needs to step forward. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::Can we be more clear about "data" and "samples"? The point is whether anyone but his cronies has tried to [[replication of results|replicate]] his results, or even to check whether his data and methods are sound. [[Peer review]] is not enough; that just means his article is worth publication; it doesn't mean he has discovered something which now automatically goes into the standard biology textbooks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Peer review = check to see if his methods are sound. You may also note that the experiment took a while, and was published last month. It would be implausible for anyone to have tried to replicate the findings at this point. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:: I took a quick look and could not find any promise by Lenski that he would release his '''''data''''' (which the paper says he analyzed) to anyone. Can you quote where you think Lenski promises to release his "data"? As to releasing samples to a "competent" scientist, Lenski places so many conditions on that it is doubtful to me that he would view any potential critic as "competent". Regardless, it's clear to me that Lenski will not submit to public scrutiny of the data that the paper says he analyzed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Well lets take what you've said as a given Ed. The data and samples are still available to a competent scientist. I am going to contact this Bohlin guy from Probe Ministries to see if he is interested or can find someone who is. I'll report back. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: You're embarking on a fool's errand, MAnderson. It's clear to me that Lenski won't release his data to anyone independent. I'm not even sure Lenski has any meaningful data to support his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good to see that someone is actually trying, after a week or so of no action. Andy, with how many biologists have you discussed this paper's methodology?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Looks like someone likes this fool's errand of trying to persuade Lenski to turn over his federally funded data. But don't hold your breath, Argon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Think positive! Have you had any luck finding a microbiologist or similarly qualified researcher with whom you can discuss this paper as it is or the rest of Lenski's work? How about Doug Axe, with the DI's Biology Institute?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:47, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Note that the strains are the ultimate standard for reproducing the work. It would take less than a week for competent microbiologist to confirm that the strains have the markers specified. Sequencing of the specified regions could also be performed in about a week. In other words, all this could be accomplished in about half of the time this 'debate' has gone on. Running the strains through the replay experiments is also easy and would confirm the results. One can express an opinion about whether Lenski would share the strains as he says (a condition to which he is bound under the journal's rules), but that is pure speculation until someone actually makes the attempt.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Argon, I did ask Lenski to turn over the data, and so can you. He refused, and I'm confident he'll continue to say "no" to any independent scrutiny of his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::That misses the point. If you don't trust his report in the paper why would you trust the data he sends you? The *strains* are the key to the paper. They either are or aren't as he says they are. You can't fudge a strain that is supposed to have been grown in continuous culture with an established lineage. Reproducibility of the methods with the materials is what verifies this work. (Actually, so does the whole genome sequencing which is planned in the next stage of the research). The strains *are* available and the requirements Lenski set for sending them are standard for the field. There are thousands of labs that could meet the criteria.
:::::::As I mentioned earlier: Verification of the strain markers could be accomplished in a week. Add another week for sequencing. I'd suggest either finding a sympathetic researcher to give you some help or wait until the whole genome sequencing gets reported later.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::Maybe so, in any case I sent this email to Dr. Bohlin, a qualified biologist and creationist.

::Dear Mr. Bohlin,

::Some people at conservapedia.com are concerned that a paper published by Richard Lenski describing a beneficial mutation occurring in E.coli may deserve closer scrutiny. Mr. Lenski has said that he is willing to release his data and samples of the E. coli to a competent scientist for further research and review. You seem to have the proper credentials to make this request. Are you interested or are you aware of other scientist that are at your level and share your personal beliefs that might be interested? I think that everyone at conservapedia would appreciate your input.

::Sincerely,

::Mike Anderson
::Conservapedia contributor

::[[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't hurt to try, and your efforts deserve praise, MAnderson. I hope for a sensible result from your inquiry, but unfortunately do not expect it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Mike, aside from the question of whether you persuade Dr. Bohlin to request and analyze the raw data or strains, perhaps you might ask if he finds any irregularities with methods described.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]] ==

Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:Why? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

: Have you read his writing on a discussion about [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_and_religion.pdf science and religon] and [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_church_and_state.pdf on science, church and state]. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::I meant why is it relevant to his scientific work? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Lenski says that with better words than I can in the second pdf I linked above. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::::Clearly, he's not a 'Dawkins-ite'.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== An Interesting Lenski Quote ==

From the first of the two papers Rutm linked:

<blockquote>
I think the same facts of evolution--with the perpetual struggle for existence and genetic rewards for selfishness--could just as easily be used to support a religion that both Dr. Hefner and I would find repugnant.
</blockquote>

Is it me, or is Dr. Lenski admitting that evolution can be used to support some extremely nasty philosophies? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:I believe he's saying one could '''*attempt*''' to use it justify practically anything. But more likely, one would probably be committing something akin to a naturalistic fallacy in so doing.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== Statistical Significance ==
The 2 instances in the little table that imply that statistical significance or lack thereof should be reported look a bit silly. The first phrase refers to the statement by Blount et al. that "A number of Cit+ clones were isolated..." on p7900. Asking how many is all well and good. But it appears the researchers decided how many to isolate, and it is nonsensical to ask about significance. The second phrase refers to the end of the sentence: "all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected." It is potentially a bit more relevant here, but still doesn't make a lot of sense to simply ask generally about statistical significance - compared to what? Calculating significance is a way of testing the probability of sampling error, if that helps. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Richard Lenski

2008-07-02T23:28:52Z

Murray:

'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State [[University]]. He holds a [[doctorate]] from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from Oberlin College but does not disclose his fields for those degrees on his own biographical sketch.<ref>https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/</ref>

Lenski is best known for his questionable claim to have observed the [[theory of evolution]] in practice, saying that [[E. coli]] bacteria made minor changes in a long-term laboratory study, and insisting that it was not due to contamination. The 2008 paper he co-authored asserting these claims was [[peer review]]ed in a mere 14 days, sparking obvious questions<ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].</ref> about the thoroughness of the review.

When challenged, Lenski displayed several examples of irrational [[Professor values|behavior]], thrice referring to the challenges as [[slander]], yet has filed no [[lawsuit]] charging that (or [[libel]]). [[Truth]] offers total legal protection from accusations of libel. He has also displayed annoyance, arrogance, and [[elitism]] when asked to release the information.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog#Second_reply|Lenski's second reply to Andrew Schlafly]]</ref>

When Lenski received a public request for the [[data]] underlying for his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded. Lenski's refusal to provide the raw data even to fellow [[Darwinist]]s is telling, and makes it clear that he will not allow his claims to be tested by [[Creation science|open-minded scientists]].

Undisclosed data from the central claims in Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):<ref>For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.</ref><ref>A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.</ref>

<includeonly>
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}
</includeonly>
__NOTOC__
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10 cellpadding=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center>Undisclosed Data
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center>Our Questions about the missing data</TD></TR></table>

===Visual inspection===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. ...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data on these observations?

</TD></TR></table>

===Turbidity===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data? When and how many?
</TD></TR></table>

===Contaminants???===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of citrate in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.)
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data for when that occurred, and how often?

A Richard Lenski defender says, "If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data. Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process."

In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog#Second_Reply|second response]] was rude and insulting.
</TD></TR></table>

===The Numbers Please?===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Higher resolution data underlying figure not provided despite request.
</TD></TR></table>

===More missing Numbers===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
A number...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data? How many? Statistically significant?
</TD></TR></table>

===We're Professional Scientists===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data? How many? Statistically significant?
</TD></TR></table>

===Missing Characteristics===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data about these and other characteristics?

A Richard Lenski defender says, "Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics. It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers."

What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.
</TD></TR></table>

===DNA===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
DNA sequencing also showed...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA??

A Richard Lenski defender says, "The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper."

No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.
</TD></TR></table>

===More missing data===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, ...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data about these and other characteristics?

A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,
pykF <ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html "IHOP-pykF"]</ref> and
nadR <ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html "IHOP-nadR"]</ref>.

A Richard Lenski defender also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.<ref>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1</ref>.
</TD></TR></table>

===More missing data===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all the others (30).
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
Data distinguishing "This population from all the others"?
</TD></TR></table>

===Fast Tracked===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review | PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.
</TD></TR></table>

== ==
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards [[atheism]] and [[evolutionism]]. <ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp</ref>

Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also. In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled "The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features," he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology. In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:

:"Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ...."

Dr. William Dembski explained, "In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality."<ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf</ref>

==See Also==

*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy<ref>See [[Liberal style]] point 1</ref>)
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lenski, Richard}}

Talk:Richard Lenski

2008-07-02T22:09:26Z

Murray: /* Release data to other evolutionists? */ to ed

==Formatting==
I borrowed a template from another wiki which might make the data section a bit easier to comprehend. I will include it here pending approval of senior sysops. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Looks great. Please install in the entry as desired.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Okay, I've moved it. I've also cut it from this page for economy's sake. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 13:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::Actually it makes the article look amaturish. For starters you have written in capitals and you have not explained why the missing data is significant which is the point of the side-by-side template to do a full rebuttle. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. A discussion specifying what one expects from the 'missing' data and what usefulness such information would likely shed is necessary.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that it is necessary to establish exactly what is being asked for in the terse comments on the right hand side, sadly such a discussion could get the majority of the contributors banned for the 90/10 rule. I myself have not contributed much to this question recently as a result of this rule. Could the powers that be explicitly suspend this rule on this issue so that the question may be freely discussed? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Listing fields ==

I'm not a parodist, though I did make a mistake on what a CV is.

== Suggestion: Disagreements with E Coli paper should go to a new section? ==

Shouldn't this be a brief bio of Lenski, and a link to the controversy over the paper, including the discussions and the emails, be part of that page instead of here? It looks pretty bad putting it on the main page. 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
On the other hand, after doing some research, I don't think it's standard for faculty to put degree fields in a list of their degrees.

I googled "MSU biology", then went over the "Faculty List A-G". Here is what I found:

No list of degrees: 2
List with fields: 3
List without fields: 12

Finally, Oberlin is a liberal college, and they do focus mostly on liberal arts. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Template / formatting==
Out of interest, I help to administer a private wiki where I work, and think this template is quite nice. Might I ask where you found it, and what (if any) associated copyright restrictions there are on it? [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 15:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

: Really, "Henry8th"??? That's an amazing coincidence you describe: you just happen to administer a "private wiki" at "work". Before wasting people's time with your silliness, how about convincing us a bit more of the earnestness of comment, as in providing the wiki version number, the type of your employer and the location of your "work". I'm sure the wiki developers who freely donate their efforts for use by all would be thrilled to learn of your profitable use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: We run Mediawiki 1.6.7 (yes, I know we're incredibly out of date, but we can't upgrade to a newer one as that would require PHP5, whereas we need that server running PHP4 to support other older software). I make it a habit not to disclose too much personal information on the internet, I'm afraid, but I'm a PhD student at a UK university and I help to administer a wiki run by my research group. By "private" I mean "accessible only to people within my research group"; we find that a wiki is an efficient way for us to edit documents collaboratively. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 16:47, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: The copyright policy here says "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution".[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 11:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::However, since it was admitted above that the template is not CP's creation, it should first be established whether or not the template was used in a correct way (and if any attributions are needed) before others borrow it from here. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I would ask the same question as ZTak above. Firstly, from a legal point of view I would want to be absolutely sure that any code I might upload to a server at my university was properly licensed (we have regular software audits, of course). Secondly, from an ethical point of view I would like to make sure that I can properly credit the original author of the template. As someone whose work involves writing computer programs, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone took software I'd written and didn't attribute authorship correctly. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 14:36, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Fact checking could use some work on the omissions section ==

I strongly encourage editors to confirm that the topics on this entry's 'omissions' section page really refer to "data not provided" and do not reflect the lack of understanding of the research. At a bare minimum it is necessary to completely read the actual article. 'Skimming' it quickly is not fair to the goals of this wiki or Lenksi's lab. To at least be diligent, I recommend that the authors of the "omissions" section go to Lenksi's lab web page here (https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/), and peruse (read, not skim) the many papers related to the Long-Term Evolution project that are referenced in the current paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== I do not understand why my last edit was reversed ==

It seems to be common practice (and therefore not "odd") to not list what fields faculty majored in, and Oberlin is very liberal. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 12:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not certain what 'liberal' has to do with anything and "odd" has pejorative overtones. Rather than worry about 'oddness' why not investigate the degrees? In his graduate program Lenski studied insects and evolution and around 1983, worked with Bruce Levin, moving into the study of microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== This man is nothing but a farce ==

Why must we, the children of God, even acknowledge this liberal atheist (as if there is any other form of an atheist) on our glorious site? We are only feeding his overinflated ego by doing so. --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 12:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== A problem with: "Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study," ==

This recent study is but one of many papers by Lenksi ''et al'' regarding the evolution of bacterial populations in continuous culture. He is best known professionally for his ''in vitro'' experiments studying the population dynamics of genetic adaptations in bacteria and other studies in microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== don't clutter this entry with meaningless edits???? ==

The topic of the page is 'Richard Lenski'. I added additional bibliographic information about Lenski's professional awards and they are reversed as "meaningless edits"? And the 'odd' comment remains despite the fact that it's common to leave the subjects of the degrees out of web pages?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:43, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, various links to things such as [[data]] as well. I thought data was central to the question at hand? Why not link to it (such as it is)? And a mention of his work with virtual organisms seems relevant - especially as it's mentioned again at the end.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

And now I'm a "Lenski supporter"? Anyone who actually read the paper and referenced the pertinent section of the article that clearly specified the glucose concentration used is a supporter? I think that addition of 'Lenksi supporter' is needlessly inflammatory. Furthermore, with regard to the question: WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE? DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?", I also wrote: "A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment." and that got removed. Resubmitted.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== shouldn't we move the E Coli paper discussion to a separate page? ==

It looks really cheezy to have this right on Lenski's biography, very unprofessional.
Just have a link and move all that discussion to something like Lenski_E_Coli_controversy,
don't erase a thing. [[User:Encinocathy|Cathy]] 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wrong format for a debate ==

Ignoring all the other issues with this "article", the side-by-side table is really not made for a discussion. Maybe move that part to a debate page? It's quite silly to see an encyclopedia article doing a question-and-answer session with anonymous participants. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Agreed. It's silly to post the page without doing the basic research. Better to corral the innuendos into debate pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:20, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::Also, we have yet to discovere the proper attribution for the side-by-side table, and as such it should be taken down or it might constitute a violation of copyright. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:25, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Given that [[User:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] said she took the template from elsewhere, it would presumably be straightforward for her to tell us where she found it. Given that information I'd happily aid the project by checking out this other wiki's copyright policy before reporting back here. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 18:45, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:My issue is mostly about using a left/right table when the left side is basically just the intro section while the right side is suddenly filled with a weird pseudo-debate that goes back and forth. It would be better to do it like this:
==Visual Inspection==
===Lenski's Paper===
(quote)
===Discussion===
(back and forth; not as debate, but in more encyclopedic "A claims B, to which C points out D." style)

==Study Omissions==
(quote)
:And so on. It would make the article more readable. And it would have the added benefit of NOT USING SO MANY ALL-CAPS SENTENCES, BECAUSE DESPITE WHAT SOME SITES SAY, CAPSLOCK IS NOT THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 19:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

:Furthermore, it would help review the status of claims rather than deleting them outright: Here's a most recent example: ''(removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones)" Aschlafly. Revision as of 19:34, 30 June 2008''
:I think it is an important point in two senses: 1) If the level of glucose was not growth limiting then Cit+ mutants might not have been discovered. It is an important feature of the experiment in this instance. 2) It's clear that the glucose concentration was indeed disclosed. How about creating a section titled "Data someone repeatedly claimed was undisclosed but was actually found by looking" and move the deleted test there?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:24, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Atheist Lobbying Organization ==

Should this remain in the article, given that it was inserted by an identified (and subsequently banned) parodist? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

: Anything wrong with the cites for it? By the way, not every block is proper. If in error, and I don't know if this one was, the block is reversed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::There's nothing wrong with the cites, per se; they just don't quite cover the assertion. The cited sources do a good job of establishing that the PNAS is largely atheistic (something which is pretty well-known anyway.) They don't really cover any "lobbying" activities, though. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::: OK, based on what you said, how about taking out the "lobbying" reference only? As to the rest, it's informative: most people don't know how atheistic the PNAS is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Will do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Maybe need to add another section ==

It would probably be better to split the biographic information from the discussion of the letters exchanged with A. Schlafly. Perhaps a section titled: "Interactions with Andrew Schlafly" (or "site owner") would better hold that aspect.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== e-mail ==

For public interest, could we at CP view the e-mail regarding the template here? If the claim in the e-mail has merit and further measures are pursued, it does not seem fair that the whole site should be punished for one man's refusal to remove the template. Perhaps we could see the e-mail and discuss whether or not the claim is valid. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

==Professor?==
''Is'' Lenski an actual professor? I know there are plenty of people who exaggerate their status ad pretend they're something they're not. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he's one of them, given what we know of him so far. Have we seen his credentials? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:TonyT I was about to give you a serious response, but then I realized that you have to be joking so thanks for making me laugh. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 15:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::He has been blocked as a parodist already, so don't bother responding. I'm thinking of removing this nonesense. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 15:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:::So has 'Rellik'. Isn't it sad to see two trolls having a conversation? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

==Digital Organisms==
Lenski is famous for two things. His work with his work E. coli and his work with digital organisms. The work with digital organisms is the work referred to in a somewhat unclear way at the bottom of the page. I have twice tried to mention this other important aspect of his work and twice been reverted. This time the edit was called "Liberal Claptrap"!! One would have thought that, in an article about Richard Lenski, mention of what he ''actually does'' would be important and not "Liberal Claptrap".--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:If I get no response, presumably I can assume it was reverted in error and I can put it back in?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::What did he do with [[E. coli]], and what is a "[[digital organism]]"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, I think British is talking about the twenty or so years Lenski has been experimenting with and growing up 12 E. coli cell lines. This last bit with the citrate mutation is one entry among twenty years. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

== Release data to other [[evolutionists]]? ==

The paper says that only two people analyzed the data: Lenski and a grad student whom I presume acts under his direction and control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

He says in his email that he will release the E. coli samples to a competent scientist who asks for them. How is that no agreeing to release the data to other evolutionists? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

:Lenski does say that in his email. He didn't say that he wouldn't release the data to a competent scientist that held creationist views. Really at this point a competent scientist with creationist credentials needs to step forward. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::Can we be more clear about "data" and "samples"? The point is whether anyone but his cronies has tried to [[replication of results|replicate]] his results, or even to check whether his data and methods are sound. [[Peer review]] is not enough; that just means his article is worth publication; it doesn't mean he has discovered something which now automatically goes into the standard biology textbooks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Peer review = check to see if his methods are sound. You may also note that the experiment took a while, and was published last month. It would be implausible for anyone to have tried to replicate the findings at this point. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:: I took a quick look and could not find any promise by Lenski that he would release his '''''data''''' (which the paper says he analyzed) to anyone. Can you quote where you think Lenski promises to release his "data"? As to releasing samples to a "competent" scientist, Lenski places so many conditions on that it is doubtful to me that he would view any potential critic as "competent". Regardless, it's clear to me that Lenski will not submit to public scrutiny of the data that the paper says he analyzed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Well lets take what you've said as a given Ed. The data and samples are still available to a competent scientist. I am going to contact this Bohlin guy from Probe Ministries to see if he is interested or can find someone who is. I'll report back. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: You're embarking on a fool's errand, MAnderson. It's clear to me that Lenski won't release his data to anyone independent. I'm not even sure Lenski has any meaningful data to support his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::Maybe so, in any case I sent this email to Dr. Bohlin, a qualified biologist and creationist.

::Dear Mr. Bohlin,

::Some people at conservapedia.com are concerned that a paper published by Richard Lenski describing a beneficial mutation occurring in E.coli may deserve closer scrutiny. Mr. Lenski has said that he is willing to release his data and samples of the E. coli to a competent scientist for further research and review. You seem to have the proper credentials to make this request. Are you interested or are you aware of other scientist that are at your level and share your personal beliefs that might be interested? I think that everyone at conservapedia would appreciate your input.

::Sincerely,

::Mike Anderson
::Conservapedia contributor

::[[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't hurt to try, and your efforts deserve praise, MAnderson. I hope for a sensible result from your inquiry, but unfortunately do not expect it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

== Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]] ==

Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

:Why? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

: Have you read his writing on a discussion about [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_and_religion.pdf science and religon] and [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_church_and_state.pdf on science, church and state]. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

::I meant why is it relevant to his scientific work? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Horace Lurton

2008-06-24T03:45:51Z

Murray:

'''Horace Harmon Lurton''' (February 24, 1844 - July 12, 1914) was an [[Associate Justice]] of the [[United States Supreme Court]] from 1910 to 1914. He is notable as one of the oldest appointments to the Court, as a [[strict constructionist]], and as an unusual pick due to his party and Confederate service. In addition to his service on the Supreme Court, he also served as a Judge of the [[Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals]], Dean of [[Vanderbilt Law]], [[Chief Justice of Tennessee]], and Justice of the [[Tennessee Supreme Court]].
==Early Life==
The late Justice was born on February 24, 1844 in [[Newport, Kentucky]]. At an early age, Larmon moved with his parents to [[Clarksville, Tennessee]], a town that he always considered as home. He enrolled in [[Douglas University]] in [[Chicago]], however the [[American Civil War]] broke out before he could complete his studies.
==Service in the Civil War==
When the [[American Civil War]] began, Lurton enlisted in the [[Confederate States of America|Confederate Army]]. He is reported to have reenlisted twice; <ref>Hall, Kermit. “The Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court of the United States, Second Edition”. New York:Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN:978-0-19-534094-5. Pg 597</ref> after being [[Medical Discharge|medically discharged]], and after escaping from a [[Prisoner of war]] camp. While serving under [[General]] [[John Hunt Morgan]], Lurton was captured during a raid in [[Ohio]]. While information regarding his second incarceration is unavailable, it is believed that he was paroled by [[President]] [[Abraham Lincoln]].
==Law Career==
When the war came to an end, Lurton enrolled in [[Cumberland University]]’s [[law school|School of Law]], where he graduated from in 1867. The late Justice was admitted to the [[Tennessee]] [[Bar]] and practiced law until receiving election as a Chancellor in 1875. When his term ended in 1878, Lurton returned to legal practice.

In 1886, he was elected to the [[Tennessee Supreme Court]], the start of a lengthy judicial career. He was elevated to [[Chief Justice of Tennessee|Chief Justice]] in January of 1893. He held that office for several months until he was appointed to the [[Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals]] by President [[Grover Cleveland]]. While on the Sixth Circuit, Lurton met and developed a friendship with then Chief Judge and future President [[William Taft]].
==Supreme Court Service==
Lurton’s friendship with Taft led to his appointment to the Supreme Court, replacing the Honorable [[Rufus Peckham]] who had passed away in October of 1909. Lurton was sworn in on January 3, 1910 and served on the Court until his death in [[Atlantic City, New Jersey]] on July 12, 1914. After his memorial service, he was interred in Greenwood Cemetery in his hometown of [[Clarksville, Tennessee]]. He was replaced by [[James McReynolds]] on September 5, 1914.

Markos Moulitsas

2008-06-22T02:43:48Z

Murray:

'''Markos Moulitsas Zúniga''' (born 11 September 1971), often known by his [[username]] and former military nickname "Kos" (kōs), founded Daily Kos, a [[blog]] focusing on left wing politics. Moulitsas is the primary author of the blog, as well as contributing to [[Newsweek]] and [[The Hill]], a Washington, D.C. newspaper. He lives in [[Berkeley]], [[California]], with his wife and two children.

Moulitsas was born in [[Chicago]], [[Illinois]] but was raised in [[El Salvador]] until 1980, when the Salvadoran civil war caused his family to return to the U.S. He is a U.S. [[Army]] veteran who served from 1989 to 1992. In 2002 Moulitsas worked for the CIA for six months before starting Daily Kos.

[[category:political Activists]]

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-20T16:18:51Z

Murray: /* General Reply */

== Final Copy of Letter Sent Wednesday afternoon ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli''," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request access to the data that was made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and to the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper and referenced in your first reply to me. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review. Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue. Thank you.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.
 www.conservapedia.com
 cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

:That was disappointing. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't blame him if he doesn't respond. What is this about Aschafly wanting to review the information himself. I thought he said that he wouldn't understand it, or something to that effect.[[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I guess he didn't really need people to sign on with him, after all. Added to the project page.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Draft letter ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for the data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

This work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interested in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request that access to the data made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key data available for independent review. Thank you.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.

cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

:Given that he was very gracious in his last reply, you think maybe it would be a good idea to at least TRY not to sound like he's being accused of malfeasance? I'd suggest new wording but something much better is already available below. -Drek

== List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data ==

Schedule permitting, a better version of the draft letter below (which someone diluted) will be sent tomorrow to Lenski, noting support by others (unspecified whom) at Conservapedia. Obviously Conservapedia rejects the limits on access to data proposed by several below. Public access to data means access by all, not merely by people having certain preferred credentials or education.

This will be the second request for the data from Lenski. Given that the research was publicly funded and published in a Journal that has a policy of access to data, the expectation is that Lenski will release the data. But will he?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure that you've ever spelt out exactly what data you are expecting. Somebody mentioned on this page that we might be talking about terabytes of data. Is that what you are asking for? Or what?
: Also, I don't recall anybody actually said that the access to the data should be limited (and if you are talking about my comments and those of others that ''we'' should leave it to those who are qualified to see it, then I reject that we are proposing limits as such).
: Neither have you responded to my comments about how it will make creationists look.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I "diluted it. I thought it needed to be more specific and polite. Since it is neither again, I am hesitant to put my name to it. There's no need to be brusque, and every reason to be as polite as possible.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Current total of supporters: 7'''

*[[User:Aschlafly]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Conservative]]---[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Wait a second... if I put my name on this list, is it going to get attached to some combative email? I don't want to just agree, when you seem to be ignoring my attempts to help draft this email. What were you proposing to send, Andy? If you wouldn't mind, could you post the text here before I have to decide if I want to attach my good name to it?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::QFT. I likewise said earlier that I'd be happy to sign on, pending a review of the actual text to be sent. So long as the tone remains professional and polite I'm in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It will be polite and professional, of course. In fact, someone else can draft the text if he likes, as long as it simply requests '''public release of the data for public scrutiny''' and is free of any obfuscation like that displayed by some detractors on this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Provisionally willing, pending review of the finished draft. I make it a policy never to sign my name to anything I haven't read. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:

Dear Prof. Lenski,

Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf] has interested us greatly. Knowing PNAS policy of making data available, we were hoping you would accordingly oblige us with your recorded observations for a few key points.

We respectfully request the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony developed cit+; while we see excerpts in the paper, we were hoping to examine them in context. Your website[https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think we should probably be more specific, Andy. We're obviously not asking for twenty years' worth of notes, right? Or at least, I don't think we should ask for that.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I think it's reasonably obvious what the key claims are in the paper, and what the key data are underlying those claims. But, if you like, perhaps you can revise the above letter. The paper itself is not long and feel free to cite to it, if you think that is necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I just think it helps to be as specific as possible. But I have edited a bit with slightly more polite wording and more specificity. I hope it is acceptable?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::If we send that version, put my name on the list :) --[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll add my name to that version as well. It's encouraging to see what teamwork can achieve when we're all focused on the same goal. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

----

Is it acceptable for the people co-signing this letter to use their Conservapedia user names? I noticed earlier that Arizaphale did not want to use his real name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks, Philip. I'm also willing to sign with a generic "John Doe" or even an old-fashioned "X". Or, the letter could simply be signed "Members of the Conservapedia Community," since I'm feeling confident that two or more others aren't sporting their actual names on that list. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Right, that's no problem. We're polite and professional around here, and signing as "Members of the Conservapedia Community" is a good suggestion, with a number added.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'd be more comfortable with that, as well. You can't be too careful with putting personal information online nowadays. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== Recap ==

Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.

Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue. I think public scrutiny is excellent. I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make. It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff. If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.
:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't. Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request. Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::While I appreciate having my name removed from the top list because my position was acknowledged, it's pointless while Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines are still being represented in the way they are. I'm in agreement with them, and now Philip Rayment too, that simply asking "for all your data" is not only unscientific, but wasteful and disrespectful if there's no meaningful plan in place to use the data productively. None of these people are against disclosure or proper scientific review, so as long as that statement above remains you're continuing to make false statements about CP editors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I assure you, Andy, I do support it. I see no reason to think it isn't forthcoming, even though he didn't send all of the data to Some Internet Guy who demanded it offhand.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. Your version of "scrutiny", unlike scientific scrutiny, accomplishes nothing but to waste our tax dollars.

::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that your version of "scrutiny" be done. What will it be?

::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Although I support the public release of data, there is no way that I would ask for it or put my name to a request for it unless I first knew that someone was available to analyse it. I mentioned earlier (when this discussion was on Aschlafly's talk page) that creationists might not review Lenski's work because of lack of funding and numbers of creationary scientists available to do the work. Nevertheless, two creationary scientists have or are in the process of critiquing it (and I think an ID proponent has also). But the first (Don Batten) has apparently not seen the need to ask for all the data, and if either of the other two feel the need, they can ask for themselves. But given the aforementioned lack of funding and availability, it would be pointless asking for the data if there was nobody available to analyse it. Of course, if Conservapedia, or someone known to Conservapedia, is offering to fund the analysis, that might change things.
::::: Furthermore, most problems with evolutionary conclusions are not because of misrepresenting the data, but with the conclusions being based on the materialistic worldview. It is usually not necessary to analyse the (in this case) 20 years' worth of data in order to find this fault.
::::: I'm also concerned about the impression this will give of creationists. We cop enough criticism as it is simply by holding creationist views without giving our critics real reasons such as unreasonable demands for data that we will probably never use.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Finally. Someone who makes sense. I'll gladly join in an email requesting any relevant data from Lenski, as needed by an identified/funded creationist scientist for Conservapedia.

:::::: Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Unfortunately, Philip, you've proven to be right on this. If you google "schlafly lenski" there's plenty of criticism over the way this has been handled by CP, and the credibility of the latter. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of evolutionist fraud ==

I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of evolutionists fraud]]. In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?

: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions. This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data". What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want. This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll repeat my specific point. There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully. I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received. Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond? He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim." None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name.

:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it." If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it. Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise. I hope that's clear enough. The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers. If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply. So go ahead, make the request, and get the data. Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly. Time will tell. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data. You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it. Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::"Perhaps"? I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure? That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements. Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request. In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==

Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Another email? ==

Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?

"Dear Dr. Lenski,

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."

Or some such.

[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area.

::I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again. You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.

In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data. (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.) SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review. Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review. Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them. Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done.

First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works.

I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection.

It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”

Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before

For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly.
--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:Dear Aschlafly,

:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it. I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.

::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==

:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek

:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:
:::#Be able to understand any of it?
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air. I am not reassured by the withholding of data.

::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?

:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.

:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.

:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.

:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony. If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud.
::::::::::Is that correct?
::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable. If so, please stop. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Do not call Lenski or anyone else a fraud without good evidence. Evolution is impossible, but for Lenski to be a fraud he would have to be claiming something that he ''knows'' to be wrong, and you've provided no evidence of that, and I doubt that it exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)
::::::::::::: Not at all, Tony. I assume that anyone who is genuinely conservative is going to present a reasonable and rational demeanor, refrain from a priori reasoning, and generally engage in mature conduct. I assume that those who wish to promulgate a stereotype of conservatism with an eye to demonization is going to engage in name-calling, refuse to engage in rational discussion, and declare himself right without adequate support for the position. Such actions are entirely consistent with liberals masquerading as conservatives. If you resent being called a satirist, I would suggest attempting to conduct yourself in a manner becoming a conservative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from? Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim. He has produced some information on a website, but not that data. Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim. Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

'''(Unindent)'''

Certainly, Mr. Schlafly. What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate. It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you?

With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available. Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation. I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

----

I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.

Scientific scrutiny works like this: 
{| width="500px"
|-
|'''Scientist A''' publishes results. 
'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they? 
'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such. 
'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed? 
'''A''': ... 
'''B''': You fraud!

Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this: 

'''A''' publishes results. 
'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data! 
'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind? 
'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.
|-
|}

-- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==

I have. It pretty fairly lays out all the important data. Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get. I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail. Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::May I sign-with-qualifier? As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Something to note ==

From the AiG article:

"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."

Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom. Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims. Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.

{{unsigned|Benp}}

==Hypothetical==
Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Proposed Follow-up Email==
Since Andy wants to send a second email for some of the rest of us to sign as well, here is a space to work out the wording. I wonder if MainS and Carafe would help us write something that seems reasonable and polite, since you guys seem to have sufficient knowledge in the field to describe what we are looking to find out?

I would suggest something along these lines:

''Dear Professor Lenski''
''We are writing in regards to your recent experiment with cit+ development in observed E. coli populations. We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data from your observations during the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase. We are intensely curious about that information. If it will be made available through some other venue and you wish to direct us to that instead, then we would very much like to be made aware of that.''
''Thank you,''
''Andy Schlafly, Thomas Moore, etc.''

Is that a reasonable request? I am afraid biology protocol is quite beyond me, so some help would be appreciated.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Looks like a good start, Tom, but from the comments so far it seems like nothing short of the full set of observations is going to be satisfactory for some of the skeptics here. I'd suggest the following revision to the second and third sentences:
::''We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data for the full set of your observations for this population. We are intensely curious about the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase, but would like the complete set of observations instead of a subset to facilitate an independent analysis of the research.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It doesn't seem reasonable to demand twenty years' worth of observations, which would be the full set. Or at least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::It doesn't seem reasonable to me, either, which is why Professor Lenski's response pointed readers to the relevant subsets of data, and that would be sufficient for most reasonable people. I was just pointing out that unreasonable people here will consider anything less than all 20 years to be withholding data, so what's needed to satisfy the skeptics is a way for that full body of observations to be accessible. If the response is that it would take too much time and/or money to satisfy the request, then the burden of proof falls on the skeptics to justify why they can't start with the data already made available and only request additional data when they have specific questions that require it for an answer. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Well, maybe they will feel differently. I think this is the polite and reasonable approach, rather than asking for all twenty years. Other comments? Andy?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?==

One thing that keeps getting lost in the rhetoric - who is looking at the Lenski work on behalf of Conservapedia? More than a few people here, including a CP sysop, have pointed out that a proper scientific review can begin using the data already made available by Professor Lenski. If this review surfaces any questions or criticisms, then that would prompt an exchange with Lenski on the specifcs, and I'm sure the related data would be made available. While I see that there are reviews of the work being done by some creationist groups (who apparently see no need to have all the raw data first), the Conservapedia approach is more like a set of lawyers looking for discovery than a set of scientists looking for truth. Why can't CP review Lenski's work in a scientific manner like AiG instead? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

: The issue is '''public''' release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::No one investigating Lenski's work in a scientific manner is accusing him of withholding any data from them, or from the public. You're setting a new, and unprofessional, precedent in expecting a scientist to take the time to collect and send you decades of raw data on his research simply because you're asking him to, when you haven't even shown the courtesy of demonstrating why this effort is necessary. I repeat the question you keep avoiding - is this exercise going to be a waste of Lenski's time so you can make a point, or do you have a plan to use that raw data and a timetable for publishing your findings? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: DinsdaleP, it sounds like your name should be added back to the list of those who oppose public release and scrutiny of the data above. The questions you keep harping on are irrelevant to the issue of public release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Feel free to add me back to your ridiculous list, then. Anyone who can read knows where I stand, just as they can see your continued avoidance of my question. There is no plan, is there? I'll be glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How is asking about "scrutiny of the data" irrelevant to the issue of "public release and '''scrutiny of the data'''"? Color me confused!--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

You don't seem to understand the scientific method at all. There is a reason peer review is so called. It is a review of work by your peers, that is fellows engaged in similar fields of research. You are not a peer of Dr. Lenski. You don't even hold an undergraduate degree in a related field. You aren't even qualified to be a research assistant in his lab. You're a lawyer, and I'm sure you're good at your job and all, but don't try to pretend to qualifications you simply do not have to serve a political purpose.

Lets face it, the good doctor has been extremely kind to you thus far. I would not recommend pushing your luck. Had it been me, your email would have hit the bit bucket faster than you can say "plunk". As far as I can tell, you haven't even had the good grace to read the poor guy's paper as he suggested. I did, and I found it extremely accessible compared to the cryptography papers I'm used to reviewing. I believed I followed the bulk of it, and I'm sure you could too if you were so minded.

But of course, you aren't minded to. You're not at all interested in his findings, because you assume they're false before you even know the details. If he were correct, it would yet further discredit your young earth creationist beliefs. Here is research that gives the lie to the old "mutations never produce new information" talking point, while at the same time demonstrating how a feature that seems incredibly unlikely were it to happen in one big bang, can in fact become trivial via building up a "potentiated genome" as alluded to by Lenski in his email (see the section headed "Historical Contingency in the Evolution of Cit+" for details of the experiments they performed to confirm this.)

This experiment yet again confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution, while contradicting your own creation hypothesis (The capacity for citrate utilisation starts out weak and gets stronger over time, via additional mutations that out compete the peers they fissioned from.) This result scares you. You aren't interested at all in Dr. Lenski's data are you? All you want is to make an unreasonable request, and then when it is sensibly refused or ignored to trumpet that clearly the scientists working on LEE are attempting to hide something. Nobody is impressed by your transparent posturing. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Although some of your comments, such as those about peer review, are reasonable, the last half particularly is begging the question. His research is ''claimed to'' give the lie to the "mutations never produce new information" claim, but whether they ''actually'' do is one of the points that are in contention. Trying to make your point by assuming your point and simply restating it is not a valid form of argument. Further, although misunderstanding this is understandable, creationists have acknowledged that mutations might ''extremely rarely'' produce new genetic information by chance. Their argument is more that you can't use mutations as a source of new information, not because it never ever happens, but because it very rarely happens and would be swamped by all the information-losing mutations. So Lenski's claim, even if it turned out to be true (which seems unlikely: see creationist responses linked above), does not disprove creationism anyway, as ''one'' example of an information-gaining mutation is consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolution, which requires ''many'' such mutations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Ugh. Don't get me started on those "creationist responses." They're clearly written for a scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience. People who won't notice that the author's idea of a literature survey is to read and fail to understand an abstract, and then cite the paper in support of whatever gibberish they want to commit to paper. The AiG response is just talking points recycled for the occasion, which no meaningful content, while creation on the web is so intellectually dishonest it beggars belief. Take this wonderful paragraph:

{{cquote|Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.}}

:: Wrong, wrong, wrong. E. Coli is not, and has never been observed to be capable of utilising citrate natively. Any E. Coli that have this ability have it because it is coded for be invasive plasmids. That's the point of the paper the author cites. Lenski takes great pains to point out that the Cit+ and Cit- strains DO NOT possess these plasmids, since the issue of external contamination would be foremost in any reviewer's mind.

:: The whole creation on the web article is like this throughout. It takes parts of the paper out of context and uses them as an attack on the work. Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution. The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution." It's the most astonishingly asinine thing I've read this month, and only "died-in-the-wool" (sic) creationist would take it seriously.

:: So, here's the thing. Lets assume that Lenski's claims are false or exaggerated (and I don't think for a moment that is the case.) How exactly is Schlafly, a lawyer, going to show this regardless of how much raw data he has? He doesn't even know what to ask for, let alone what he's going to do with it once he has it. I don't believe it would be overly cynical to ascribe an ulterior motive to this request. At very best, he wants to pester a person doing productive research and force him to do extra work, unpaid, on his behalf. That would be fine if Schlafly was a peer of Lenski's seeking verification of the result. Defending one's work is part of the scientific process, but there have to be limits. If you really want to analyse the result, first find a working biologist with time and equipment to do the analysis, then and only then will I support the request for further data.

:: To all others supporting the request currently, I'd ask they withdraw their support until such time as this condition is fulfilled. I cannot believe that Schlafly seriously wants the data, simply that he wishes the request to be refused such that he can make outlandish claims about scientific transparency. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 08:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, I'm not requesting merely my personal review of the data (although certainly I will review it if Lenski produces it), but rather the ''public scrutiny'' of the data. Unless you think that Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge, you should agree that additional review of the data by others can yield additional insights, and possibly identify flaws.

::: Andrew Wiles is undeniably a bright mathematician, as are his friends who reviewed his claim to have proven Fermat's Last Theorem. But when he made his initial proof available more widely, others saw flaws in it that took a long time to repair. Obviously the same may be true about anyone's work ... including Lenski's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: [Edit conflict] Mr. Schlafly, given that Lenski is required to release the data to any scientist who asks, who exactly is preventing public scrutiny? A lawyer such as yourself quite simply does not have the training to understand the data, and you're quite unlikely to find a scientist sympathetic to your cause. Even if he releases twenty years worth of research to you, nothing changes. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Are you saying that only a "scientist" may see the data? I hold an engineering degree and worked at Bell Labs, but perhaps you have some special definition to limit access to the data as much as possible. If someone drops out of college, does that disqualify him from being able to look at the data? I certainly hope that isn't your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Andy, only someone with proper training in biology could hope to understand the raw data. You can look at it, yes, fine, but you won't understand it, and you'll quickly demand that Lenski release it in a "clear and comprehensive format", at which point you'll promptly be pointed right back to Paper 180. Your engineering degree doesn't help you here. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, one more bigoted derogatory comment like those in your first paragraph and the end of your third paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.
::: Now, to your specific claims regarding AiG and CMI:
::: * The articles are written for a lay audience, but that doesn't mean that they are written for a "scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience". On the contrary, they aim to make them scientifically accurate.
::: * The AiG article was clearly a preliminary response, so your derogatory comment about no meaningful content is unwarranted.
::: * "''Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution.''": Please back that claim with evidence or retract it.
::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''": On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?). It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Taciturn discredited himself, and probably won't even defend his behavior.

:::: But Philip, I have a question for you: do you support public release of the data to enable others (including creationists) to review it? It's hard for me to see how outside reviewers (including creationists) can do a thorough job without access to the data. Undeniably outside reviewers could do a better job if the data were public.

:::: I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: I've already given my answer to whether or not I support release of the data. Do a search of this page for a post with a timestamp of 09:34. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked: wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data? And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available? Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked. And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''. But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them. As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask. That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher who requested it.
:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data. They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results. Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information. Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such. But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence. So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Which would mean that it would not even be published in the journal, Andy. Your final claim is unfounded and, quite frankly, slanderous. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If the peer reviewers saw the data, then it is no problem to make that data publicly available. So where is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::In the paper, Andy. Everything that you could need to know about the experiment and much more is in the paper. If you don't believe me, you can ask Lenski for something extra, however general questions like the ones you've sent him so far will only get you pointed back to the paper. If you've got a specific part of the work you want, ask and I'm sure he'll happily throw the raw, incomprehensible data at you. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::This would seem to come down to a fundamental misunderstanding. Few biologists are going to want to see Lenski's raw data like this, because the observations will be relatively simple to make - or at least simple for a biologist. Instead, they will want to examine his methodology (which is already freely available) to see if they can find any flaws. For example, if he had stored them in a non-sterile environment or something, the colonies could have been contaminated, and it would invalidate his conclusions. They will also want to see the conclusions he draws from his observations, which might be unwarranted or otherwise explainable. For example, if they know as biologists that e. coli can use citrase under certain conditions (not the case, actually, but it's an example), they would call his conclusions into question. And of course some scientists are going to want to imitate his whole set-up to reproduce his result... although it will take a while. But because Prof. Lenski is a highly skilled and reputable scientist, few are going to demand to see his raw data, because there is little reason not to trust his integrity. That is generally just not how this science is done, to the best of my knowledge.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't believe I'm getting into this particular mess but, here goes: hypothetically, let's say that Andy contacts Lenski and Lenski graciously releases all of the raw data anyone could want. Let's further say that Andy manages to secure the services of a qualified analyst who has the time and training to properly analyze said data and that, further, that analyst confirms that Lenski's interpretations are correct. In other words, the analyst says that Lenski is- as far as anyone can tell- correct. What happens then? Will Andy or anyone else publicly acknowledge this to be the case, or will the story suddenly become that Lenski "falsified" his raw data? Because, really and truly folks, the "raw data" we keep talking about is not the same thing as actually having access to Lenski's samples. Moreover, Lenski is not about to release any part of his samples to folks who haven't the slightest idea how to store them, much less how to analyze. And I don't have imagination enough to think that Conservapedia is going to set up an adequately equipped and staffed research lab capable of taking possession of such samples, much less fund it long enough to replicate Lenski's research. As far as I can tell, this entire thing is a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately come to nothing (apologies Will). So what's with all the grandstanding, Andy? Okay, I've said my bit. I'll go back to editing statistics articles now. -Drek
::I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I've just posted above in a reply to Andy why I think a creationary scientist would ''not'' be interested. I'll add here that, according to Don Batten of CMI (link elsewhere on this page), it fits with what Behe has written about in his latest book, so there's no reason to think that this case would bother ID proponents either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::''"I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data."'' Yeah, but I was specifically referring to qualified analysts, so the ID/C.S. folks won't help. Snark aside, however, neither you nor anyone else has addressed the underlying issue: what happens if Lenski DOES provide the full database? It isn't like someone couldn't claim he faked that and the only way to confirm it would be to evaluate his samples. Look, I DO in fact support public availability of data derived from publicly funded research. That said, however, if we don't even have a plausible case for how we ourselves could verify output, much less carry out a replication, we're just being nuisances. Lenski's job is to do research, not bow to every request made of him by random unqualified amateurs. And even if he has tenure and that somehow made him utterly invulnerable to firing (oddly, failing to produce is one of those things that can kill tenure) he still has a responsibility to his Post-Docs and grad students. -Drek
::::: I've warned two others on this page about derogatory comments, and you've gone and added your own. For that you've earned yourself a block for the "snark". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Question==
I am going to make it clear that I am not willing to put my name on this. I whole-heartedly support the release of Professor Lenski's data, but not to a faceless group of individuals with no clear purpose for demanding the data. My question is, as Mr. Schlafly seems to be avoiding it, have you Mr. Schlafly read the paper that Professor Lenski directed you to? I hope that this request is more than an attempt to add Professor Lenski to the [[professor values]] list. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your argument is irrelevant to the ''public'' release of the data. I hadn't read Andrew Wiles' attempt to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, but I sure am glad that he publicized it so that people could identify serious flaws after Wiles' expert friends declared it to be complete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::You already emailed Professor Lenski, and he kindly took the time to respond. But you didn't even bother to read the answers he gave you. Sending him another email demanding even more information, without even reading the information he already gave you seems rude. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Now you're making up things about me. Perhaps you think you can distract attention from the simple issue of public release of the data. You failed if that was your goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::That never was my intention. I was simply trying to understand your reasoning behind this email. I am interested in something else at the moment actually. You seem to enjoy mentioning Andrew Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem. Who proved that Andrew Wiles was wrong. Was it a layperson, or a mathematician? [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: If you're trying to exclude people from looking at the data based on their education or credentials, then just say so. There are many bright people who never graduated from college, and I oppose making education or credentials a test for who can review the data. In Wiles' case, I don't know what the credentials were of the multiple people who found serious flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
== Two Questions for Aschlafly==

I have two questions for Aschlafly. Please answer them plainly and in brief as I've no use for obfuscation typical of what I've seen above. As you know, failing to answer is an answer of sorts. Here are my questions:
# Have you read Lenski's paper as he suggested?
# What do you plan to do with his "raw" data should you receive it?
The answers to these two questions will tell much about your intent and your character. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::So your answers are

# you "skimmed" it
# you won't do anythnig with the "raw data" should he send it to you
Thank you for your honesty. I hope your readership takes these answers in their full measure. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 19:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: I hope you recognize and admit to the benefits of public access. You haven't yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

=== Two Questions for Aschlafly: comments from others===
*I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:I know your question was not directed at me, but isn't the point of public release that it would be open to ''everyone'' to examine; ie - that this isn't solely about Aschlafly? I doubt if there is anyone on this site who would be capable of understanding Lenski's raw data, if it were to be made available, but that is not a reason to oppose the public release of the data ''per se'', is it? If released publicly, anyone capable of understanding it can see it for themselves, and those who cannot understand it will be unaffected. What's wrong with that?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I would encourage people to watch the movie of what the physical form of the raw data looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNaXlK_3Fik They tested 4 trillion cells.[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php] Assuming even a simple 'y/n' for the 'can metabolize citrate' that is about 4 terabytes of data. This doesn't go into the other genes that they have studied. Are you going to send him some hard drives to copy the data onto? Do you have the bandwidth to host that data for public scrutiny (at a full T1 speed with 100% utilization, if I did my math correctly, it would take about 2 years to download all of the data)? Granted, that is one extreme of the data but this could potentially be more than you can handle or host. And if he says its a terrabyte of data or so, will you host it? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:No, I wouldn't host it. If the data were made publicly available, I would have no interest in downloading it or reading it because I am not a biologist and wouldn't be able to understand it. But I am not opposed to the data - whatever size the files are - being made available for people who can understand it (and have sufficiently spacious hard drives). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::to clarify, I am not opposed to it '''in principle'''. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I did skim Lenski's paper, and saw that on multiple occasions he says the data are not shown. In addition, his figures and tables are oddly uninformative. I recall that one figure is complete speculation. After skimming his paper the need for public disclosure of the data became even more apparent.

What would I do with the raw data? I don't propose that access to it be limited based on education or credentials. I would expect many people, including folks just as bright as Lenski, to examine it and possibly identify flaws or make suggestions.

I repeat: does anyone here really think Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

)

:I don't think they have a monopoly on knowledge, and nobody's perfect. On the other hand, I do think the volume of data might prove to be a problem. If a response indicates that the complete data is simply too massive to be mailed/posted to a website, what's the next reasonable step? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is becoming clear that this campaign to release the data has more to do with your hope that Lenski won't and you can dismiss his claims on those grounds. I am sure the data is available to the people who need to see it and depending on the copyright restrictions that research unfortunatly comes with these day (usually through funding by non-government entities) it will be made available as publically as it can.

:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block. Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Really, ID theorist are scientist? [http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Look at the Discovery Institute's board members and fellows]. Cihak is a MD, every other person on that list either has a degree in history, political science or law. Behe use to be a fellow so that is one biochemist, Dempski(?) was a mathematician who use to be there once. Only one relevently qualified and two semi-qualified experts that is it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:02, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The Discovery Institute is not the only source of ID proponents. Just as with evolutionists, there are those that are qualified and those that are not, but still believe it, promote it, and etc. Your comment that I warned you about was ID theorists ''in general'', not DI board members and fellows specifically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::But go to an equivalent one evolution supporting organisation and it will be full of PhD's in biology. Can you name any of these ID theorists ''in general'', Behe is the only one that comes to my mind. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 00:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Really? I looked at the NCSE's staff list, and here's what I found.
:::::::* Glenn Branch: no PhD. MA in philosophy from (UCLA).
:::::::* Barbara Forrest: PhD in philosophy (Tulane University).
:::::::* Peter Hess: PhD in a theological field, Science and Religion, (Graduate Theological Union).
:::::::* Louise Mead: PhD in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (UMass).
:::::::* Eric Meikle: PhD in anthropology (Berkeley).
:::::::* Kevin Padian: PhD in vertebrate evolution (Yale).
:::::::* Andrew Petto: PhD in bioanthropology (UMass).
:::::::* Joshua Rosenau: PhD candidate, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (University of Kansas).
:::::::* Eugenie Scott: PhD in physical anthropology (University of Missouri).
:::::::* Susan Spath: PhD in history of science, MA in molecular and cell biology (Berkeley).
:::::::* Philip Spieth: PhD in genetics (University of Oregon).
::::::: Biologists, yes. "full of PhD's in biology"? No.
::::::: As for ID theorists, off the top of my head there's Michael Denton and Dean Kenyon. Not to mention the creationary scientists, such as Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Gary Parker, Jeff Downes, and many others.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:26, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I made some edits showing the location of where their graduate degrees were awarded (this is important for those who receive degrees from non-accredited schools). I would not cite NCSE anyway for they are only a PR group. I will point out that 9 out of the 11 are PhDs, that is pretty high (over 80%)(while one of the two non-PhDs is a PhD candidate). The question I might ask is how often do those of a non-related field write or evaluate a topic or paper? This should also be asked about CMI and such.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:58, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: So which is the DI nearest to? A scientific research lab or a PR group?
::::::::: Okay Able806, you implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the qualifications of creationists. So you now have a job: List, like I did and you expanded, the qualifications of the CMI staff ([http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/45/ here's] your starting point). And when you've done that, tell us how many of those are from non-accredited schools. Else you just might earn yourself a block for implicit accusations of dishonesty (that they are claiming to be something that they are not). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

: I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids.

I know that my post is getting long, but I just wanted to say that in addition to this that of course there is going to be a figure with some speculation when it is covering an alternate hypothesis. That is what a lot of science is really about; the scientist creates a battery of hypotheses, and through experimentation narrows down the field. Lenksi's paper, while not the most definite I've seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

==Detractor Lineup==

Ok, there seems to be some confusion about whether we are opposing the public release of information based on principle or practicality. So, let's make a list to make our position clear (please add a brief explanation and feel free to discuss in the comments section). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRINCIPLE'''

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRACTICALITY'''

* Because it is time consuming, costly (both in terms of money and resources) and the data is too big to be readily transfered. If we had a genuine reason to want the data and we were actually going to do something with it then it would be worth the effort (for example if we disputed a particular conclusion, in which case we could probably narrow down the data we wanted) however demanding a release based solely on principle is simply impractical and not going to happen. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:To illustrate that "big" means, a little ilustration from my own work. I work for the LOFAR project's future data proccesing center, we plan on recieving several dozen gigabits per second, or about a 60 meter stack of paper a second.. Now, I know biology research doesn't produce as much data as radiotelescopes do, but they've been working for 20 years.
:By demanding all the original data, you are asking for several shipping containers full of dvd's. It's just not acceptable to spend so much time and money on everyone who asks for it, especially when you have no real desire to reproduce anything. I do think you should be able to see the data, but you obviously have to be more specific in your questions for information.
:Again, I am not a biologist, but in astronomy when you want raw data, you request information about a specific part of measurements. You call someone and ask for data for 10 seconds from this-and-that time and of such-and-so area of sky. You do not send an open letter and demand "All research data". I think Richard Lenski was increadibly kind not to laugh in your face for such a demand, because it shows the asker has no idea how the scientific community functions.
[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 14:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Comments'''

StatsMsn, your objection is purely speculative and, frankly, implausible. Lenski has not asserted your claim and I doubt he will.

But if you're right about the key data, then that suggests the peer reviewers did not have access to it, and the conclusion is this: claims based on that data should not be published in a Journal that says the data will be made available. Instead, one could publish such claims in a Journal saying the data will not be made available, and we can all take the claims with a grain of salt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think it's more likely that Lanski hasn't released the information to you based on practicalities than a conspiracy to publish false results. Note that I did not say the peer reviewers did not have access to the raw data, only that you did not. If there was a genuine reason to provide the data to someone (that is, someone who had a genuine reason to have it, such as to confirm or dispute a conclusion) then I have no doubt that any ethical research team would work out a way to transmit it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, I stopped reading at your word "conspiracy". No is alleging a "conspiracy". Post in a rational manner and don't pollute this page. Apologize and clean up your edit or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry Mr. Schlafly, but you seem to be trying to say that Lenski fudged 20 years of work, and that is being hidden by the people reviewing his work. That sounds like a conspiracy. Perhaps you should apologize, or clarify your edits. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Has anyone considered the possiblility that some data was removed in the reviewing process? From my experience with journal publications (moderate at best) page numbers is important. Pages and pages of data and graphs are expensive to print. The reviewer would have seen it, the editor would look at it and thought it is too much and edit the paper so as to say the data is not presented. Ask for a preprint of the paper that will contain more data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== False Claim of a Bad motive ==

Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data. The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefor the theory of evolution. The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true. No amount of scientific data is going to change that. So why argue with him? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: You're clueless about my motivation and your account has been blocked for violating our [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow. I'm actually afraid to post my opinion now...Well, at the risk of being banned...Aschlafly: Was it really necessary to block MAnderson? I get the feeling (And this is simply an opinion based on personal observation) that the action taken against MAnderson was due more to the nature of his accusation of bias against you and not due to any violation of code, since bias is indeed a word that gets used around here often without reprimand. That being said I feel that the intended letter in question would severely discredit this website. Unless members of this site have the facilities necessary to conduct research into the validity of the Doctor's claims then we have no reason to request such massive documentation. Furthermore, the purpose of such counter-research should always be with the intent to ultimately strengthen a proposed line of research, even if it is by bringing to light flaws in the original findings. The purpose of peer review is not to discredit, but to strengthen through careful examination and criticism. If the originals researchers conclusions are eventually found to be flawed beyond renovation then the entire thing is thrown out, strengthening our scientific pool of knowledge as a whole by protecting it against faulty findings. It is my belief that a peer-reviewer should always have a most critical eye, but should also ultimately have the best at heart for the purported research. I do not believe such a mindset exists in this case. The letter itself seems to indicate a specific desire and hope of discrediting the E-coli findings, which should never be the purpose of peer review. To seek discredit simply for the sake of discredit is the very anti-thesis of why the peer-review system exists IMO. And it is my opinion that the intended letter gives the impression that discredit is the goal. In my opinion. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 13:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:There's a difference between expressing your thoughts on a matter and saying of someone else "here is why you did it" and then make statements that are derogatory and degrading. The one at least expresses opinion. The other just makes things up with the followup assumption being now you must defend yourself against what I just made up. That's inappropriate and was handled as being inappropriate.

:That being said, what you wrote is a different matter. I see no difficulty in the form of your speech, or the expression of your ideas. Do not equate your writings to what was put above by MAnderson; they are not the same. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria "evolved" novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of "potentiated genotypes", from which the traits could be "reëvolved" using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't "potentiated" by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these "potentiated genotypes" originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved ''E. coli'' colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won't be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 20:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:'Dr. Paley', that's about the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard yet. I'm not going to even dignify that kind of nonsense with a response. But I will suggest, generally, that if you are that convinced there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy to perpretate fraud by hiding 'the potentiating hand of the creator', then there's nothing I could say to you anyway.

:But I have this question for Andy and the rest of the supporters of the 'public access to data' line: if it is the ''principle'' of public access to data that you are fighting for--and this is not some kind of publicity stunt, as many have suggested--then why are you picking on this one experiment, and not the ''tens of thousands'' of scientific papers that have been published just, say, in the last decade? After all, Lenski's paper is no different than any scientific paper, in that is summarizes, but does not publish, the raw data on which it was based. So shouldn't you be asking every scientist who has published a paper in which raw data has not been published to present that data? Why just Lenski? Aren't there potentially ''thousands'' of 'new insights' that could be produced from public scrutiny of this data?

:I think your motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves. [[User:porkchop]]

:: (Note porkchop's use of [[Liberal tools]] #11 and #13.) Anyway, if Prof. Lenski has no fraud to hide, then he won't mind allowing other researchers access to the physical data. Again, it is simply a matter of keeping tax-funded activities honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 21:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, Richard. I guess you need your stupidity spelled out for you: no laboratory in the world is going to send ''the actual biological samples they worked on'' to a bunch of faceless internet nuts or anyone else. Even if such a request were possible (i.e. transport could be arranged safely and at no expense to Lenski, he could spare the material, etc.) what on earth would the 'scientists' at Conservapedia ''do'' with it? Keep it in Andy's refrigerator and look at it under his Kid Scientist microscope?

:::And I'm waiting to hear whether anyone has a response to my question about the selective targeting of Lenski. [[User:porkchop]]

:::: Taxpayers paid for Lenski's work, he published it in a journal that claims its authors will make underlying data available, his research claims were publicized in New Scientist, yet he hasn't complied with a request for his data. If that's true of others also as you suggest, then please give examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::What is your response to the view that Lenski has not released the data because it is too big to simply send to someone? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: That "view" is without any basis and, by the way, the suggestion is that Lenski post it rather than send it. Are you suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data available to the peer reviewers on his paper?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Someone said above that considering just one variable would result 4 terabytes worth of data, this is a ridiculous and costly amount of data to host (to put it in perspective, it's about 200 full DVD's). And yes it pretty much is all key (to ensure the mutations were not due to an environmental factor, to ensure that they were inherited, to ensure that they were not simply repressed genes which had previously appearing in the colonies etc). I am not suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data avaliable to peer reviewers, I'm fairly sure that had they wished to view it they could have done so (possibly by physically visiting his labs to access it, or by using a dedicated stream). Perhaps it's something you could ask in the email you send him, and while you're at it perhaps you could ask if researchers such as yourself or others would be able to access the data on request (this is essentially public access so long as nobody is turned away for ideological reasons). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: So you're suggesting that the peer reviewers could only access the data by physically visiting Lenski's labs or by using "a dedicated stream"? That's tantamount to suggesting that the peer reviewers did not practically have access to the data, which creates an even bigger cloud of doubt about the claimed results. If that's the case, then obviously that should have been disclosed to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

<- No, I was offering a couple of options. It's is equally (or even more likely) that Lenski's team spent a bit of money and transferred the data onto physical media and sent it to them. That is a question that you can ask in your email, lest we be accused of jumping to conclusions. Peer reviewers aside, the point remains that the reason Lenski has not published the data is due to its size and the cost of posting it, not their opposition to the public release of data. Again this will only be answered through a reply to your email, perhaps you could ask if it would be possible for you (and other researchers) to access the data, rather than demanding he post it on the internet or send it to you. This would overcome any refusal based on practicality, but still allow the public access to data. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: StatsMsn, note that:

:* Lenski replied once and did not himself raise the objection you suggest
:* the objection you suggest has no factual basis
:* the objection you suggest would make it impossible to peer review the paper, or most types of collaborative work

: At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::I'm more than happy to admit that Lenski is preventing public access to his data, if there was some solid evidence for it. At the moment he has not refused to allow public access to it.

::*Correct
::*How so? People have already stated how large the raw data you are requesting is and how impractical it would be to host it. Where do you believe the factual error is, on the estimates of the size or the ability to make it readily avaliable to the general public?
::*No, as measures could be taken to allow the peer reviewers access to the data if they required it.

::The reason I keep arguing is because I know how difficult it is to transmit data to the general public. The university where I study originally provided a number of high resolution pictures to the general public via a ftp stream, however as each individual picture grew in size and the number of pictures grew the university had to cut off access, first to the general public and then to students, despite our internet connection greatly increasing in speed at the same time. At present the only way to access the images is either to physically enter the premises or request images via DVD (with a small cost for material and administration charges). Everyone including the general public is still able to access the images, however they cannot be made readily avaliable for reasons of practicality.

::If the statistics above are correct then the size of the raw data you are requesting is much larger than the combined size of all our image files, it is highly impractical to simply request someone send it to you or post it on the internet. And yes I am willing to admit that this discussion is unproductive, that's why I'm going to send Lenski an email myself and request information on how the raw data can be accessed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: You haven't yet admitted the possibility I describe, which suggests you may not yet have an open mind about this. If so, this discussion is unproductive, but please do feel free to contact Lenski directly with your theory about the data. I bet you do not receive a clear answer.

::: I'm confident that Lenski has the data in a manageable form that enables him and his fellow researchers to access and examine it. If not, then frankly that raises even bigger questions about the reliability and verifiability of the claimed results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

<- I'm more than willing to admit the possibility that the peer reviewers have not had access to the raw data, it is entierly possible and we still see it happening when commercial interests become entangled with science (for instance, many pharamacological companies will not release negative studies concerning their products). In this case there is a need for further review in order to confirm the results, and if it is shown that Lenski skewed his results then appropriate action must be taken.

Now, are you willing to admit the possibility that I describe?

And I too am confident that Lenski has his data in a manageable form, what we disagree on is whether this data can be readily made avaliable to the public (like by hosting 4 terabytes on the internet) or to people who request it out of the blue. I am fairly confident that if you or another researcher requested access to the data and had a genuine reason for doing so then you would be provided with access to the data, either by physically accessing it on site or by arranging an appropriate means of transfer (with costs considered). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: I admit the possibility that all the data is too voluminous to transfer easily, which is why my letter addressed that and requested the data made available to peer reviewers. By definition, that data cannot be too voluminous to transfer.

: You said you would ask Lenski. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::Read below, and I have emailed him. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

----

[Edit Conflict] I just read the paper for a second time, paying particular attention to the results section. There is an adequate summary of the data provided for peer reviewers. I admit that I was wrong with my terminology above (I'm having a late night and my brain's shutting down), the peer reviewers of the paper are not sent the raw data, they rely on the facts presented. Any subsequent reviews could have access to the raw data if necessary.

Right now we have 4 possible scenarios that could be proposed:

* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct and the conclusion drawn is correct
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct but the conclusion drawn is incorrect
* The summary of the data is wrong due to unintentional mistakes
* The summary of the data is wrong due to a deliberate attempt to skew results

If the first is correct we have nothing to argue about. If the second is correct then you do not need access to the raw data in order to prove your results. If the third is correct then access to the raw data would be essential, however it would call into question the integrity of Lenski's laboratory and quite frankly I do not believe you have the resources to do better (let alone detect any irregularities). If the fourth is correct then you are accusing Lenski of academic dishonesty, a libelous claim that you would need solid evidence to support.

Andy, could you please outline why you want to have access to the raw data when the summary provided in the paper is more than adequate to draw a conclusion. Do you believe that there has been a mistake made in the organisation of the data, or is this just to prove that you can (or cannot) gain access to the data, even though this is not at all required. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Failure to supply data? ==

Aschlafly, you say above that Lenski "hasn't complied with a request for his data." Where did he do that? In his reply to your original letter he bends over backwards to accommodate your requests and answer your questions, and he's hardly had time to reply to the second letter! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Piltdown All Over Again ==

The [[Piltdown Man | Piltdown hoax]] was possible precisely because the physical data was kept under lock-and-key and away from the eyes of unbiased non-Darwinians, who, if given the chance, would have spotted that the bones were unrelated right away. Even if Prof. Lenski were to provide the public with digital versions of the data, what assurances would we have that the data wasn't doctored? If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data? On the other hand, it would be impossible for Prof. Lenski to falsify the physical data residing in the actual bacteria, as that would require a massive program of genetic engineering. Only by allowing unbiased conservative scientists access to samples of the bacteria colonies can we assure that we aren't witnessing another Piltdown hoax, as the Darwinian community has a reputation for perpetrating them.

As to the practicality of this, only scrapings of the cultures would be needed for reculturing, not the entire original petri dish as "porkchop" implies above. These can be stored in standard cryogenic ampules that take up very little space. The Discovery Institute surely has cryogenic facilities in their labs and would be willing to host the collection under the auspices of Conservapedia. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:Excellent idea! Go for it. Send off a third letter at once! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:Until Lenksi himself states that "no I will not give you the data, you crazy conservatives", in no way can you compare this to Piltdown. To do so is to further your own agenda of discrediting a scientific experiment that makes the minor point that traits can evolve. I believe that Lenski has provided enough data for all of you to examine and make claims about his research; honestly, what would you possibly do with scrapings of cultures? "Ok, Culture #95324 is Cit-, had me #95325"? I doubt that you people would even do that. Chances are, you would glance at the mountain of raw data Lenski would send, and then summarily dismiss it based on your own desire to see it fail. This is disgusting. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

::''This is disgusting'' What is disgusting is that you are doing to Andy precisely what you suppose he will do to the data if and when it comes - that is, use it to back up a preconceived idea. You do not know how he or other Conservapedians will treat the data. Do not criticise him for something he hasn't done but which you assume he will do. To do so is arrant hypocricy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::That is a fair point, Bugler. I'm just frustrated by the serious bias already lined up against Lenski's research, even before raw data has been seen. --Aaronp

:: Well put, Bugler. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Aaronp, either you're naive or you're engaging in bullying if you maintain that Lenski plans to release his raw data soon for independent, public review. I asked him last Friday to release it, and his reply declined to do so. I asked him again yesterday, and he predictably has not replied. It now seems to me to be likely that the peer reviewers for his paper did not even see the raw data. I think it's likely that only Lenski and his grad student have seen the raw data underlying that paper (note its footnote). Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: My understanding is that peer reviewers do not normally see raw data. Absent reason to believe otherwise, they assume data is correctly reported in the submitted paper. But I could be wrong about this. Why do you think reviewers would normally be shown raw data? Also, I do not have a good idea what the data would look like? Do you have an opinion of what it looks like and what form it is in? -divaricatum 13:04, 19 June 2008 (PDT)

::::: Data should be made available to peer reviewers. If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy.

::::: The raw data have to already be in a form that allows collaborative work, so I don't see that as much of an obstacle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

[unidenting] You did not really respond to my points. I asked whether, according to your understanding, peer reviewers are normally shown raw data. I said my understanding was they were not. You say "data should be made available..." Is that your opinion, or are you describing actual practice? Second, the usable data is in the paper, as far as I can tell. The graphs do not permit knowing exact value, but you do not seem to be asking for the exact figures used to generate the graph. Look at, for example, figure 1: X axis is generation, Y axis is Optical Density. The caption says:

: Population expansion during evolution of the Cit+ phenotype. Samples frozen at various times in the history of population Ara-3 were revived, and three DM25 cultures were established for each generation. Optical density (OD) at 420 nm was measured for each culture at 24 h. Error bars show the range of three values measured for each generation.

The graph shows a dramatic rise around generation 33000, from less than 0.05 to about .25. What additional data would you like? There are presumably lab books with 33000+ OD measurements (or some multiple of that) but in what sense is the data not available? What exactly regarding this graph would you like to see?

Finally, in the second letter you talk about instances where it is noted that data is not shown. I found 3 such instances:

: page 3 Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit� mutant of E. coli (42, 43).

: page 3 After depleting the glucose in DM25, the earliest Cit+ clones grow almost imperceptibly, if at all, for many hours before they begin efficiently using the citrate (data not shown), whereas later Cit+ cones switch to growth on citrate almost immediately (Fig. 2).

: page 6 These differences were also evident when we monitored the intraday dynamics of mixtures of Cit+ and Cit- cells (data not shown).

In no case do the data seem relevant to the main point of the paper (in the first case, there may be data in the references; in the second case, he is simply noting that early clones grow slowly, but the point is later clones grow fast, for which data are shown; and the third case -- discussing utilization of glucose -- is again tangential to the main conclusion). Why are you interested in these data? -divaricatum 14:21 June 19, 2008 (PDT)

Lenski has "predictably" not replied? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're so biased against him purely because you don't agree with the subject of his work. I would be frustrated in the same way if you were doing this with any research paper, not just Lenski's. "Predictably" he hasn't replied... maybe that is because he is a busy man who was kind enough to respond to your first email, but now simply does not want to (or have to) cater to the whims of some random hyper-conservative blogger who is asking him to release 20 years of raw data that the blogger does not have the knowledge set to critique! God forbid the man takes a week to respond to your email; if after two are three days of no answer are you going to condemn him by saying "he's obviously not talking to me because he's hiding something"? --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

"''If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data?''": Whilst it is true that Darwinism and atheism provide no basis for morals, hence honesty, it does not follow that individual Darwinists and atheists have no morals. In most cases, they have adopted a form of the morality held to by their society, which (in the case of western countries) has its basis in Christianity. So there is no reason to assume that Lenski would be dishonest with the data itself. The comparison with Piltdown has no basis.

Peer review, as I understand it, is not meant as a check on all the research of a scientist, but merely as a basic check that the scientist has used suitable methodology, that his conclusions can be justified from his data, that he has explained the research clearly enough for the readers to understand, and so forth. Therefore all the detailed data would not normally be provided to the reviewers, although they may (I'm not certain) be able to request it if they are not satisfied by the data provided. Certainly they could reject the paper if they weren't satisfied, or request that more data be included in the paper if they felt that not enough was.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== General Reply ==

Lenski has essentially refused my request that he make his underlying data available for public scrutiny, despite his use of public funding. Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review.

It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data. I wonder if PNAS violated its own stated policies by publishing Lenski's paper, and I'm going to email its Editor-in-Chief to request an explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: How long does peer review normally take? And what PNAS policies do you think may have been violated? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Other articles in the same issue of PNAS:

Effective tumor treatment targeting a melanoma/melanocyte-associated antigen triggers severe ocular autoimmunity approved April 14, 2008 (received for review November 18, 2007)

Localized and extended deformations of elastic shells
approved March 11, 2008 (received for review August 7, 2007)

Characterization of the structure–function relationship at the ligament-to-bone interface approved April 11, 2008 (received for review December 28, 2007)

Mutations in the telomerase component NHP2 cause the premature ageing syndrome dyskeratosis congenita approved April 14, 2008 (received for review January 3, 2008)

Experimental evidence for negative selection in the evolution of a Yersinia pestis pseudogene approved April 15, 2008 (received for review February 13, 2008)
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

The average length of peer review for PNAS, based on a sample, is over 120 days. Lenski's paper was accepted within only 14 days of submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:53, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I'm not sure there's sufficient reason to claim that it probably didn't get a meaningful peer review. 2 weeks is certainly enough time for reviewers to read and critique the article. You may have noticed that Blount et al.'s article is identified as part of a special series, which could explain why it was reviewed more quickly than usual. I hope you will post the editor's reply here. Incidentally, in light of your view on this page of the importance of allowing research to be scrutinized by others, I would like to re-open my request for you to share your methodology on the hollywood breast cancer mystery page. Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Aggrieved

2008-06-14T23:09:44Z

Murray:

{{Welcome}} -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 11:39, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

:The topic of the debate was "Which is worse?". Your comments appeared unrelated. If you want to complain that you (or your sock) isn't allowed to post "relevant information", the burden of proof is on you to establish its relevance. This is not an opinion blog. Try everything2 if that's what you want.

:Or start a debate like "[[Conservapedia:Is Expelled fair?|Is Expelled fair?]]" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:49, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Guantanamo Bay releasees ==

Sir, you just called me a liar with regard to released Gitmo prisoners going right back to the battlefield and doing the exact same thing all over again that they landed at Gitmo for in the first place: killing Americans.

You had better do one of three things:

# Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them.
# Retract your last comment and apologize to me.
# Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration.

No need for you to reply on my talk page; I shall set a watch on this one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ok, Terry, if you want to take such a combative tone, let's get more specific - what you said was that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", yes? I take it you have proof of this, yes?

:Now, why is it '''I''' who has to prove an allegation? You prove yours first. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 18:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::When my life is at stake, you can repose one hundred percent confidence that I will be combative.

::You show me an ironclad reference about someone who landed at Gitmo for longer than a couple of years, got out, and did not go right back to doing the thing whereof he stood accused, and we'll go from there.

::And mind your tone when you talk to me. I'm an administrator and you're not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Deghayes
:::You might want to apologize for threatening to block him now. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:01, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, and if you have some free time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Guantanamo_detainees_known_to_have_been_released
::::Happy researching! [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:06, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

<- Murat Kurnaz [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's a story (from Fox News no less) that says 7% of the 500 released are "confirmed or suspected" by the Pentagon of returning to the war [http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/08/is-gitmo-turning-sheep-herders-into-jihadists/]. As I understand it, the original claim on main page talk was that released prisoners aren't typically going back, although in the list above the demand is for a citation that they're innocent. Presumably the former is the issue, and this ought to resolve it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Irish Republican Army

2008-06-10T16:28:03Z

Murray: /* Anglo-Irish War */

[[Image:IRA3.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]

The term IRA is used to refer to two different, historically linked organisations; the Provisional IRA and the Official IRA. The former were formed in 1969 and have been more active since then with a particuarly high profile from their terrorist campaign. The Provisional IRA was formed as a reaction to percieved inactivity of the Offical IRA, who were formed in 1919, but whose profile dropped since the end of the [[Irish Civil War]].

The Provisional IRA, also known as the '''The Irish Republican Army''', '''PIRA''', '''Provos''', or '''IRA''' (Óglaigh na hÉireann in Irish Gaelic) is a republican [[terrorist]] organisation that fought against the [[British]] in [[Northern Ireland]], claiming to represent the largely [[Catholic]] nationalist community in Northern Ireland.

The organisation is associated with the political party [[Sinn Féin]] (also known as Provisional Sinn Fein), although a direct association is offically denied. In 1981 an IRA prisoner serving a life sentence, Bobby Sands, was elected to the UK parliament while on Hunger Strike in the infamous [[Maze Prison]]. He died shortly after the election, but this was the beginning of a new strategy of Armalite and Ballot Box, combining politics with the "armed struggle" ([[terrorist]] campaign). The policy of violence was gradually undermined by increased faith in politics together with a number of peace initiatives and a loss of support for a violent program - the conciliatory handling of the situation first by [[John Major]] and later by [[Tony Blair]] is often held up as an example of an effective approach to counter-terrorism.

IRA terrorists have since been caught helping [[FARC]] terrorists in [[Colombia]]<ref>http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1563119.stm</ref>.

Two small factions within the IRA broke away from the main organisation to protest its participation in the peace process: these are known as the Real IRA (RIRA), which carried out the Omagh bombing in 1998, the bloodiest single incident in the Troubles (29 people were killed), and the Continuity IRA (CIRA).

== History ==
===Origins===
The IRA was first formed in 1919 from members of the [[Irish Volunteers]], an armed group formed in 1914 to promote self government in Ireland, which was then part of the [[United Kingdom]], and in response to the formation of the armed Ulster Volunteers, which sought to force exclusion of Ulster from any Home Rule agreement. While the British parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act in 1914, providing limited powers of self government to the Irish, its implementation was postponed by the outbreak of [[World War I]]. The majority of the approximately 100,000 Irish Volunteers accepted British promises that the act would go into force following the war, and many joined the British Army to fight. However, approximately 12,000 did not accept the delay. This group retained the name Irish Volunteers. They were largely controlled by the secretive [[Irish Republican Brotherhood]], or IRB, which had been seeking to instigate rebellion against British rule since the mid-19th century.

On April 24, 1916, the [[Easter Rising]] broke out when a significant portion of Volunteers seized Dublin's General Post Office (where their leader Padraig Pearse read a proclamation of Irish independence) and other points in Dublin. The limited nature of the rising is accounted for by splits in the leadership of the Volunteers and the issuing of orders countermanding the rising. The rebels managed to hold out for a week, but were defeated by British forces, who surrounded and isolated the rebel outpoosts and reduced them using artillery in many cases. The Rising had initially been unpopular among the Irish people, but this changed when the British executed 16 of its leaders following court-martials in Dublin.

===Anglo-Irish War===
In 1917, those who had participated in the Rising, as well as many who had been converted to their cause, organized the Irish Republican Army, dedicated to using force to attain independence. The [[Irish War of Independence|Anglo-Irish War]] began with the killing of two Royal Irish Constabulary men in January 1919. The IRA was organized into "flying columns" of 20-30 men who attacked British bases and ambushed military and police forces, as well as smaller units carrying out killings of police, army and government personnel. In July 1921, the IRA and the British agreed to a truce, which was followed by the negotiations for what became the [[Anglo-Irish Treaty]]. By the treaty provisions, Ireland was to become a dominion of the [[United Kingdom]], and the British were to retain possession of several ports on the Irish coastline. Additionally, members of the Irish Parliament (or Dáil Eireann) were required to swear an oath of loyalty to the British Crown. The treaty also led to the partition of the island, as six northern counties (Armagh, Antrim, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Down, Derry) opted to remain part of the UK and became the new state entity of [[Northern Ireland]].

===Civil War===
The IRA leadership as well as its rank and file were deeply divided by the treaty. Pro-treaty members believed that it was a stepping stone to the independence they had sought, while anti-treaty members felt the treaty was a betrayal of the ideals that had motivated them to fight. These divisions ultimately led to a split in the IRA and civil war. The pro-treaty faction was reorganized as the Irish National Army, while the anti-treaty group retained the IRA label. The split ultimately led to a bloody civil war that ended in 1923 with the pro-treaty forces victorious.

===World War II===
During the period between the Irish Civil War and [[World War II]], the IRA was largely engaged in social issues, which they approached from a left-wing perspective. While a number of IRA men joined the socialist and communist [[International Brigades]] in the [[Spanish Civil War]], they engaged in generally non-violent protest in Ireland. This approach was unpopular, partially due to the influence of the conservative Catholic Church in Ireland, and IRA membership dwindled.

In 1938, the IRA began preparing plans to return to war with a bombing campaign in England. The IRA also sought German assistance with the campaign, but in the end the Germans provided little assistance. The IRA campaign had little effect, largely due to repressive measures taken by the UK and Irish governments. IRA members were interned without trial in both countries, and several were executed.

===Border Campaign===
In the early 1950s the IRA began planning for a new campaign, which was intended to reunite [[Northern Ireland]] with the remainder of the island. The Border Campaign began in 1956 and lasted until 1962. IRA groups attacked military installations and attempted to disrupt the workings of the Northern Ireland state by damaging its infrastructure. The governments once again responded by introducing internment, which severely inhibited IRA operations. Ultimately the Border Campaign ended with an IRA admission that it did not have sufficient popular support to maintain its activities.

===The Troubles===
During the early 1960s, the IRA again came under socialist and Marxist influences. This led to a lack of emphasis on military aspects of the organization. When violent rioting broke out in Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland, in 1969, the IRA was ill-prepared to assist the Catholic/Nationalist community, to the extent that mocking jokes held that the abbreviation 'IRA' stood for "I Ran Away". The lack of focus on defense led to divisions within the IRA between those who favored a movement focused on class issues and those who were motivated to defend their community by armed force, and by extension, use armed struggle to bring about a united Ireland. The organization split along these lines in 1969, and the group focused on defense and armed struggle against the British became known as the Provisional IRA (PIRA). The remaining group was referred to as the Official IRA (OIRA).

OIRA engaged in some military activity during the early years of the Troubles before calling a ceasefire in 1972. They have since transformed into a political party, currently known as The Workers’ Party, contesting elections largely in the [[Republic of Ireland]]. PIRA, on the other hand, launched a 30-year campaign of violence against British control of Northern Ireland. PIRA violence was responsible for approximately 1,800 of the 3,000 deaths during the Troubles. The PIRA campaign came to an end with a ceasefire in 1997 as a result of the [[Irish Peace Process]], which culminated in the [[Belfast Agreement]], sometimes known as the [[Good Friday Agreement]], in 1998. In 2005, the IRA officially announced an end to its campaign and decommissioned much of its arms under international supervision.

The PIRA's terror campaign was largely funded from overseas. Two significant sources were the Libyan government and sympathisers in the United States. <ref>http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1563119.stm</ref><ref>http://members.lycos.co.uk/inac/myth.html</ref>

[[Noraid]] is an American fund-raising organisation claiming to support the peaceful campaign for a united Ireland. Set up at the beginning of the Troubles, it was often accused by the British, Irish and US governments of being a front for the supply of military hardware to the PIRA. Coupled with vocal support for Irish republicanism by certain US elected representatives and the refusal to extradite IRA suspects by members of the US judiciary, this caused many in the UK to suspect that Americans were anti-British and caused resentment of United States policy by many Britons.

[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category:Northern Ireland]]

==References==
<references/>

Narcissism

2008-06-10T02:28:08Z

Murray:

'''Narcissism''' is excessive [[love]] of oneself. The word is based on the [[Greek]] myth of [[Narcissus]], who resisted the advances of a nymph and was consequently made to fall in love with his own reflection. In psychology, extreme narcissism is a symptom of [[Narcissistic personality disorder]], in which a person overestimates his own abilities and attractiveness, at the expense of concern for the needs and feelings of others. However, it has been argued that a moderate amount of narcissism is healthy.<ref>Morrison, A. (1997). ''Shame: The Underside of Narcissism.'' New York: Analytic Press.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Narcissus]]
[[category:psychology]]

== References ==
<references />

The Creationist Society

2008-06-10T02:20:46Z

Murray:

'''The Creationist Society of America''' was an association founded by Prof. [[Arthur Pierson Kelley]] with the specific purpose of combating what the founder believe to be 'fundamentalism' of the [[Theory of Evolution]] in both science and society in the [[United States]] beginning in the 1930's. The Creationist Society was modelled on its [[British]] counterpart the [[Anti-evolution Movement]] which had become active two decades earlier. Kelley believed that a slightly modified version would eventually find fertile ground and willing listeners in [[America]].

This indeed turned out to be the case, but only after the death of the founder and the Creationist Society having become defunct. Many of the ideological and philosophical writings of Prof. Kelley have been utilized in the founding of similar organizations from the 1980's.

== References and Further Reading ==

* Everest, F. Alton, "The American Scientific Affiliation - The First Decade " JASA 3 (September 1951): 33-38

[[category:evolution]]
[[category:creationism]]
[[category:organizations]]

Viceroy

2008-06-10T02:04:37Z

Murray:

A [[viceroy]] (from [[Latin]] ''vice-'' <nowiki>[in the place of]</nowiki> and [[France|French]] ''roi'' <nowiki>[a king]</nowiki>) is the ranking officer of a kingdom who governs a province of that kingdom, or even the entire kingdom, in the name of the regnant king and as if he ''were'' the king. It is the highest office, other than the actual kingship, to which any officer can aspire.

A '''vicereine''' is any woman holding that office, or the wife of a male viceroy.

The actual title of ''viceroy'' dates back to 14th-century [[Spain]] and the [[Spanish Empire]] in [[Latin America]]. At least two officers of the [[Commonwealth of Nations]] were viceroys. But the office itself, with all its prerogatives, was frequently held in ancient times. Some of the most powerful kings of [[Israel]] and elsewhere in the [[Middle East]] once served as viceroys. [[Joseph]] was a viceroy in all but name in ancient [[Egypt]] for eighty years.

== Notes==
This is a dual submission of a work of sole authorship. (''See hidden comment for details'')

[[Category:History]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-08T01:44:29Z

Murray: /* huh? */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Theobald Wolfe Tone

2008-06-07T17:13:50Z

Murray: New page: '''Theobald Wolfe Tone''' (June 20, 1763 - November 19, 1798) was a leader of the United Irishmen movement, and is regarded as having initiated Irish republicanism. Tone committed...

'''Theobald Wolfe Tone''' (June 20, 1763 - November 19, 1798) was a leader of the [[United Irishmen]] movement, and is regarded as having initiated [[Irish republicanism]]. Tone committed suicide in jail after being sentenced to death following the Irish rebellion of 1798.

== Early political activity ==
Tone was born in [[Dublin]] and studied law at [[Trinity College]]. In the early 1790s, there was much enthusiasm for republicanism, spurred by the [[French Revolution]]. Among the key principles was the dis-establishment of religious discrimination. While some supported political reform within the context of maintaining the link with [[England]], Tone and others sought to establish an independent Irish republic. In September 1791, Tone wrote ''The Northern Whig'', an essay emphasizing these differences.

In October 1791, Tone and several others founded the Society of the United Irishmen. Unlike Tone, most of the Society's members initially sought political reform; however, most eventually came to believe that this was unattainable by peaceful means and supported armed rebellion.

== France ==
In 1794, the United Irishmen concluded that seeking military assistance from [[France]] offered the best hope for the political change they sought, and began to negotiate with the French committee of public safety. The British discovered the existence of the negotiations, and arrested a number of United Irishmen. As Tone had not been directly involved in the negotiations, the government allowed him to emigrate to the [[United States]] in 1795, with the agreement that he would no longer conspire against them. On [[Belfast|Belfast's]] Cave Hill prior to his departure, Tone and two other United Irishmen, Thomas Russell and Henry Joy McCracken, made a famous vow to "never desist in our efforts until we subvert the authority of England over our country and assert our independence." Despite his agreement with the British, Tone traveled to [[Paris]] in February 1796 to seek a French invasion of Ireland. He was commissioned as an Adjutant-General in the French army.

== 1796 and 1798 rebellion ==
In December 1796, an expedition of 14,000 men, including Tone, sailed from France under [[Louis Hoche]]. However, the fleet was unable to land due to high winds, and after several days of waiting offshore returned to France. Ultimately rebellion broke out in Ireland in 1798, and Tone sought to persuade [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] to launch a new expedition to support it. Napoleon was unenthusiastic, and merely send a number of small raiding parties. One such party including Tone, surrendered to the British in October 1798.

Tone was recognized and court-martialed in November. He was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging, despite his request to be shot. Before the sentence could be carried out, Tone killed himself by slitting his throat.

Martin McGuinness

2008-06-07T16:48:48Z

Murray:

'''Martin McGuiness''' (born May 23, 1950), is the deputy First Minister of [[Northern Ireland]]. He is a member of the [[Sinn Fein|Sinn Féin]] party and a former chief of staff of the [[Irish Republican Army]].<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/oct/07/northernireland.northernireland ''The Guardian'']</ref> McGuiness is the [[United Kingdom]] [[Member of Parliament|MP]] and member of the Northern Ireland Assembly (MLA), both for the mid-[[Ulster]] constituency. McGuinness abstains from attendance at the [[House of Commons]], per Sinn Féin policy. He previously served as Minister for Education in Northern Ireland from 1999-2002.

== IRA activities ==
McGuiness was born in [[Londonderry]], Northern Ireland, and joined the IRA in 1970. He quickly rose in the ranks, and participated in the 1972 negotiations between the IRA and the British government. McGuinness was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for IRA membership by the [[Republic of Ireland]] Special Criminal Court in January 1973.<ref>English, Richard (2003). ''Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA'''. Oxford University Press, p.162.</ref> Following his release, he became more involved in political activity, negotiating directly and indirectly with the British in the 1980s and 1990s.<ref>[http://www.sinnfein.ie/gaelic/peace/document/80 Sinn Féin statement]</ref>. Journalists<ref>Taylor, Peter. ''Age of Terror'', BBC, April 21, 2008</ref> and politicians<ref>Adams and McGuinness named as IRA leaders, ''Daily Telegraph'', February 21, 2005</ref> have stated that McGuinness continued to play a leading role in the IRA's terrorist activity during this time.

== Sinn Féin ==
McGuinness was first elected MP for mid-Ulster in 1997. He was Sinn Féin's lead negotiator in the talks for the [[Good Friday Agreement]].

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Politicians]]

Eugene Terre'Blanche

2008-06-06T15:16:11Z

Murray: /* Bophuthatswana */

'''Eugene Ney Terre'Blanche''' (Born January 31, 1941) is a South African White seperatist, Boer nationalist and leader of the [[AWB]], a White political movement in [[South Africa]].
He was, in June 2004, released from prison after serving 3 years for assaulting a gas station attendant and for the attempted murder of one of his employees.

==Early life==

Terre'Blanche was born in the Western Transvaal town of Ventersdorp in 1941, reportedly to a conservative, Calvinist Afrikaner family. His father was a Lieutenant-Colonel in the South African Defense Force and his grandfather a General in the [[Anglo-Boer War|Boer War]].

Terre'Blanche excelled at school and was Chairman of a debating societ whilst at school in Ventersdorp, he also acheived well in sports. He was captain of his school's first rugby team. He also founded a cultural organisation whilst at school

From 1985 until 2004 Terre'Blanche, in addition to his political and commercial responsibilities, ran his family's farm in Ventersdorp, which he, in 1985, inherited from his father.

==Police==

In the 1960s Terre'Blanche joined the South African Police, he was assigned to the Special Guard Unit, which was tasked with protecting VIPs and Cabinet Ministers. Rumours abounded that he was Prime Minister John Vorster's bodyguard, but this is untrue.

He attained the rank of Warrant Officer and, in 1968, was employed at the police recruitment offices in [[Pretoria]], where he met Jan Groenewald. Groenewald was applying to the police at the time, he was accepted and Terre'Blanche and he became close friends. It was against this backdrop that Terre'Blanche became a right-winger, Groenewald persuaded him that the reforms to Apartheid that Prime Minister Vorster was making were damaging to Whites.

In the early 1970s Terre'Blanche briefly worked at Rondalia, a holiday resort association. Then he went to work for the Herstigte Nasionale Party (HNP. English= Re-constituted National Party), a right-wing party which opposed the ruling National Party's reforms to Apartheid. Terre'Blanche was an organiser until the HNP Deputy Leader, Jaap Marais, expelled him and Groenewald from the party (Groenewald too was a HNP organiser).

==AWB==

In the 1970 General election the HNP failed to win any seats in parliament, in fact Terre'Blanche himself was a candidate in the eastern Transvaal. So, in 1973, Terre'Blanche, Groenewald and 5 other Afrikaners founded the AWB (Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging/Afrikaner Resistance Movement).

When the HNP leadership found out that Terre'Blanche and Groenewald had secretly founded a new organisation they were both expelled and fired from their jobs as organisers.

Terre'Blanche worked as an insurance salesman in the town of Brits, Transvaal.

==Early Militancy==

In 1977 the South African government announced it was considering opening the Breyten Theatre, Pretoria, to all races. This angered Whites who believed that apartheid was appropriate. The Administrator of the Transvaal announced that opening public facilities (such as the state-owned Breyten Theatre) to all races was contradictory to the racial laws of the [[Apartheid]] regime.

A group of liberal White actors and actresses began to petition the government to open the theatre to all races. As they circulated their petition to the White public at a Pretoria shopping mall, Eugene Terre'Blanche and 35 other AWB members confronted them.
The two groups exchanged a few angry words. Terre'Blanche and his posse then proceeded to rip all of the petition papers into tiny pieces. It was captured on film and became known as the first "militant" action undertaken by the AWB.

==Incident at the UNISA==

On March 28th 1979 Terre'Blanche and 40 other AWB members tarred and feathered a History Professor, Floors Van Jaarsveld, as he gave a lecture at the University of South Africa. Van Jaarsveld had upset the AWB by disputing the relevance of the Day of the Vow (a Christian [[Afrikaner]] holiday) in a modern society.

Terre'Blanche received a 600 Rand fine or 300 days imprisonment, and opted to pay the fine. An additional 9 men were also punished for assault and libel (known as crimen injuria in South African law), as well as two counts of damage to property (relating to the clothes of Van Jaarsveld and the carpet of the University of South Africa).

==Arms trial==

On December 11th 1982 Terre'Blanche and 8 other AWB members were arrested by the Security Branch of the South African Police and held under the terms of the Internal Security Act (section 27 of the Act allowed for the indefinite detention without trial and was most often used for ANC operatives). A police press statement was issued saying that arms, ammunition and explosives had been confiscated.

Several automatic firearms, hidden in waterproof containers and buried in maize fields, were recovered when the police used metal detectors and ploughed maize fields which they suspected had been used for the purposes of hiding illegal firearms.

Two of the original eight detainees were released, but Terre'Blanche and five others appeared, on December 24th 1982, at Pretoria Regional Court, charged under the Arms and Ammunition Act for illegal possession of weapons and explosives. The six men were granted bail of 1000 Rand each and released on January 21 1983.

The trial was postponed until March 24 1983, when the 6 men all plead not guilty to the following charges:

1.Possession of four AK-47 rifles and associated parts and possession of 17 R1 rifle magazines

2.Possession of a Makarov pistol

3.Possession of ammunition for the Marakov pistol

4.Possession of explosives (including one smoke grenade and a large quantity of tetriel explosive)

5.Possession of three tear gas cannisters

On July 11 1983 the trial was held, Major Nel of the Security Branch of the police testified that trunks containing AK-47 parts, camoflage uniforms (illegal for private possesion in [[Apartheid]] South Africa) and ammunition on a farm belonging to Eugene Terre'Blanche's brother, Andries Terre'Blanche.

On November 4 1983 the Judge passed sentence on the men, all of whom were convicted. Terre'Blanche was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for five years. The other men received sentences of three years and four years, all of the custodial sentences were suspended for five years.

The presiding Judge, Mr Van Dyck, remarked that the "community does not expect that such civilized, proper people as the accused be sent for a prison term".

In an earlier trial, also relating to illegal possession of arms and ammunition, Terre'Blanche and another man (who was already serving 15 years on yet another arms and ammunition conviction) were found guilty.

Magistrate E.D. Wythe, of Klerksdorp Regional Court, sentenced Terre'Blanche to 1 year's imprisonment for illegal possession of an AK-47 and to six months imprisonment for possession of 362 rounds of ammunition, both sentences were suspended for five years.

In addition Terre'Blanche was fined 300 Rand for possession of a Gecado .22 revolver.

In 1999 Terre'Blanche received amnesty for all of the above crimes [http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990615259p1001.htm].

==1980s==

In the 1980s the AWB, often under the direct leadership of Terre'Blanche, disrupted rallies and meetings held by the National Party across the northern Transvaal and Orange Free State. In one such incident police used teargas to evict 5000 violent AWB supporters from a meeting hall in Pietersburg (now Polokwane).

In 1988 AWB membership, and support, peaked. Estimates range from 5000 to 70000 members, Terre'Blanche claims that the actual peak in membership was in 1994 and that, by then, the AWB had 80000 active members. Between 1978 and 1994 a total of 104000 applications for membership were made.

==Ventersdorp==

Terre'Blanche and 2000 AWB supporters led a march on a National Party meeting being addresed by President DeKlerk on August 9 1991 in Ventersdorp. In an ensuing gunfight 7 policemen were shot, 43 AWB members wounded (3 killed) and 15 innocent bystanders injured.

==Bophuthatswana==

In 1994 the AWB were criticized in the international media for supporting the regime of [[Apartheid|Bantustan]] leader Lucas Mangope. It was alleged that the 750 AWB paramilitary members who went into Bophuthatswana shot and killed 5 or more innocent Black civilians.

==Amnesty==

In 1998 Terre'Blanche, and ex-AWB Deputy Leader Piet Rudolph, were granted amnesty for the tarring and feathering of Professor Van Jaarsveld, the illegal possession of arms and ammunition in 1982 and the Battle of Ventersdorp.

In an affidavit submitted to the Truth and Reconcilliation Commision Terre'Blanche said he felt responsible, personally, for the bombings commited by AWB members.

==Jail sentence==

In 2000 Terre'Blanche was jailed for two attacks on an employee of his, who worked on his farm, and a gas station attendant in 1996. According to the gas station attendant, John Ndizma (who was interviewed for the documentary His Big White Self), Terre'Blanche made his dog attack him because John had told the police that a White youth had broken into the gas station pharmacy.

Terre'Blanche, allegedly drunk at the time, severely assaulted Paul Motshabe, an employee who worked on his farm, leaving his permanently paralysed.

There was big discrepancies in Motshabe's version of events. In the 2006 documentary ''His Big White Self'', Motshabe's sister claimed that Terre'Blanche hit her brother with a revolver and then slammed his head in the door of a truck, while in court he claimed Terre'Blanche hit him with a metal pipe.

Terre'Blanche was, in March 2000, jailed for 7 years (1 year for the assault on John Ndizma and 6 years for the attempted murder of Paul Motshabe). Whilst incarcerated he was apparently a "model prisoner"[http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1327919,00.html] and was, accordingly, paroled in June 2004.

According to a senior aide to Terre'Blanche, Andre Visage, the legal system discriminated against Terre'Blanche while he was incarcerated. Another man, who was also a "model prisoner, convicted of similar crimes to Terre'Blanche was paroled after serving 50% of his sentence[http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1327919,00.html]. As such Terre'Blanche's 2003 parole application should have been accepted.

Due to financial pressure his wife sold his farm to cover legal costs.

==Change of opinion==

Following his release from jail, where he became a born-again [[Christian]], Terre'Blanche reported that he had "moderated" his more extreme views. His lawyer issued a press statement saying that he was "no longer racist, more of a xenophobe who prefers his own kind". [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/10/southafrica.rorycarroll]

==Reactivation of the AWB==

In early 2008 Terre'Blanche announced he was intending to re-launch the AWB (which had very few members in post-Apartheid South Africa) due to pleas from Whites who were scared, due to South Africa's crime rate.

==Sources==

*Victory or Violence:Story of the AWB of South Africa by Arthur Kemp (2nd edition. March 2008)
*[http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990615259p1001.htm]-Amnesty application (1998)
*http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/media/1996/9611/s961119g.htm
*http://www.namibian.com.na/Netstories/2000/June/News/00892E6FC4.html
*http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=Leonard_Veenendaal

Eugene Terre'Blanche

2008-06-06T15:15:31Z

Murray: /* Battle of Ventersdorp */

'''Eugene Ney Terre'Blanche''' (Born January 31, 1941) is a South African White seperatist, Boer nationalist and leader of the [[AWB]], a White political movement in [[South Africa]].
He was, in June 2004, released from prison after serving 3 years for assaulting a gas station attendant and for the attempted murder of one of his employees.

==Early life==

Terre'Blanche was born in the Western Transvaal town of Ventersdorp in 1941, reportedly to a conservative, Calvinist Afrikaner family. His father was a Lieutenant-Colonel in the South African Defense Force and his grandfather a General in the [[Anglo-Boer War|Boer War]].

Terre'Blanche excelled at school and was Chairman of a debating societ whilst at school in Ventersdorp, he also acheived well in sports. He was captain of his school's first rugby team. He also founded a cultural organisation whilst at school

From 1985 until 2004 Terre'Blanche, in addition to his political and commercial responsibilities, ran his family's farm in Ventersdorp, which he, in 1985, inherited from his father.

==Police==

In the 1960s Terre'Blanche joined the South African Police, he was assigned to the Special Guard Unit, which was tasked with protecting VIPs and Cabinet Ministers. Rumours abounded that he was Prime Minister John Vorster's bodyguard, but this is untrue.

He attained the rank of Warrant Officer and, in 1968, was employed at the police recruitment offices in [[Pretoria]], where he met Jan Groenewald. Groenewald was applying to the police at the time, he was accepted and Terre'Blanche and he became close friends. It was against this backdrop that Terre'Blanche became a right-winger, Groenewald persuaded him that the reforms to Apartheid that Prime Minister Vorster was making were damaging to Whites.

In the early 1970s Terre'Blanche briefly worked at Rondalia, a holiday resort association. Then he went to work for the Herstigte Nasionale Party (HNP. English= Re-constituted National Party), a right-wing party which opposed the ruling National Party's reforms to Apartheid. Terre'Blanche was an organiser until the HNP Deputy Leader, Jaap Marais, expelled him and Groenewald from the party (Groenewald too was a HNP organiser).

==AWB==

In the 1970 General election the HNP failed to win any seats in parliament, in fact Terre'Blanche himself was a candidate in the eastern Transvaal. So, in 1973, Terre'Blanche, Groenewald and 5 other Afrikaners founded the AWB (Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging/Afrikaner Resistance Movement).

When the HNP leadership found out that Terre'Blanche and Groenewald had secretly founded a new organisation they were both expelled and fired from their jobs as organisers.

Terre'Blanche worked as an insurance salesman in the town of Brits, Transvaal.

==Early Militancy==

In 1977 the South African government announced it was considering opening the Breyten Theatre, Pretoria, to all races. This angered Whites who believed that apartheid was appropriate. The Administrator of the Transvaal announced that opening public facilities (such as the state-owned Breyten Theatre) to all races was contradictory to the racial laws of the [[Apartheid]] regime.

A group of liberal White actors and actresses began to petition the government to open the theatre to all races. As they circulated their petition to the White public at a Pretoria shopping mall, Eugene Terre'Blanche and 35 other AWB members confronted them.
The two groups exchanged a few angry words. Terre'Blanche and his posse then proceeded to rip all of the petition papers into tiny pieces. It was captured on film and became known as the first "militant" action undertaken by the AWB.

==Incident at the UNISA==

On March 28th 1979 Terre'Blanche and 40 other AWB members tarred and feathered a History Professor, Floors Van Jaarsveld, as he gave a lecture at the University of South Africa. Van Jaarsveld had upset the AWB by disputing the relevance of the Day of the Vow (a Christian [[Afrikaner]] holiday) in a modern society.

Terre'Blanche received a 600 Rand fine or 300 days imprisonment, and opted to pay the fine. An additional 9 men were also punished for assault and libel (known as crimen injuria in South African law), as well as two counts of damage to property (relating to the clothes of Van Jaarsveld and the carpet of the University of South Africa).

==Arms trial==

On December 11th 1982 Terre'Blanche and 8 other AWB members were arrested by the Security Branch of the South African Police and held under the terms of the Internal Security Act (section 27 of the Act allowed for the indefinite detention without trial and was most often used for ANC operatives). A police press statement was issued saying that arms, ammunition and explosives had been confiscated.

Several automatic firearms, hidden in waterproof containers and buried in maize fields, were recovered when the police used metal detectors and ploughed maize fields which they suspected had been used for the purposes of hiding illegal firearms.

Two of the original eight detainees were released, but Terre'Blanche and five others appeared, on December 24th 1982, at Pretoria Regional Court, charged under the Arms and Ammunition Act for illegal possession of weapons and explosives. The six men were granted bail of 1000 Rand each and released on January 21 1983.

The trial was postponed until March 24 1983, when the 6 men all plead not guilty to the following charges:

1.Possession of four AK-47 rifles and associated parts and possession of 17 R1 rifle magazines

2.Possession of a Makarov pistol

3.Possession of ammunition for the Marakov pistol

4.Possession of explosives (including one smoke grenade and a large quantity of tetriel explosive)

5.Possession of three tear gas cannisters

On July 11 1983 the trial was held, Major Nel of the Security Branch of the police testified that trunks containing AK-47 parts, camoflage uniforms (illegal for private possesion in [[Apartheid]] South Africa) and ammunition on a farm belonging to Eugene Terre'Blanche's brother, Andries Terre'Blanche.

On November 4 1983 the Judge passed sentence on the men, all of whom were convicted. Terre'Blanche was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for five years. The other men received sentences of three years and four years, all of the custodial sentences were suspended for five years.

The presiding Judge, Mr Van Dyck, remarked that the "community does not expect that such civilized, proper people as the accused be sent for a prison term".

In an earlier trial, also relating to illegal possession of arms and ammunition, Terre'Blanche and another man (who was already serving 15 years on yet another arms and ammunition conviction) were found guilty.

Magistrate E.D. Wythe, of Klerksdorp Regional Court, sentenced Terre'Blanche to 1 year's imprisonment for illegal possession of an AK-47 and to six months imprisonment for possession of 362 rounds of ammunition, both sentences were suspended for five years.

In addition Terre'Blanche was fined 300 Rand for possession of a Gecado .22 revolver.

In 1999 Terre'Blanche received amnesty for all of the above crimes [http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990615259p1001.htm].

==1980s==

In the 1980s the AWB, often under the direct leadership of Terre'Blanche, disrupted rallies and meetings held by the National Party across the northern Transvaal and Orange Free State. In one such incident police used teargas to evict 5000 violent AWB supporters from a meeting hall in Pietersburg (now Polokwane).

In 1988 AWB membership, and support, peaked. Estimates range from 5000 to 70000 members, Terre'Blanche claims that the actual peak in membership was in 1994 and that, by then, the AWB had 80000 active members. Between 1978 and 1994 a total of 104000 applications for membership were made.

==Ventersdorp==

Terre'Blanche and 2000 AWB supporters led a march on a National Party meeting being addresed by President DeKlerk on August 9 1991 in Ventersdorp. In an ensuing gunfight 7 policemen were shot, 43 AWB members wounded (3 killed) and 15 innocent bystanders injured.

==Bophuthatswana==

In 1994 the AWB were the victim of an international media hate campaign after they propped up the supposed dictatorship of [[Apartheid|Bantustan]] leader Lucas Mangope.

It was alleged that the 750 AWB paramilitary members who went into Bophuthatswana shot and killed 5 or more innocent Black civilians. Although no prosectuions were ever brought so the truth of the matter is unknown.

==Amnesty==

In 1998 Terre'Blanche, and ex-AWB Deputy Leader Piet Rudolph, were granted amnesty for the tarring and feathering of Professor Van Jaarsveld, the illegal possession of arms and ammunition in 1982 and the Battle of Ventersdorp.

In an affidavit submitted to the Truth and Reconcilliation Commision Terre'Blanche said he felt responsible, personally, for the bombings commited by AWB members.

==Jail sentence==

In 2000 Terre'Blanche was jailed for two attacks on an employee of his, who worked on his farm, and a gas station attendant in 1996. According to the gas station attendant, John Ndizma (who was interviewed for the documentary His Big White Self), Terre'Blanche made his dog attack him because John had told the police that a White youth had broken into the gas station pharmacy.

Terre'Blanche, allegedly drunk at the time, severely assaulted Paul Motshabe, an employee who worked on his farm, leaving his permanently paralysed.

There was big discrepancies in Motshabe's version of events. In the 2006 documentary ''His Big White Self'', Motshabe's sister claimed that Terre'Blanche hit her brother with a revolver and then slammed his head in the door of a truck, while in court he claimed Terre'Blanche hit him with a metal pipe.

Terre'Blanche was, in March 2000, jailed for 7 years (1 year for the assault on John Ndizma and 6 years for the attempted murder of Paul Motshabe). Whilst incarcerated he was apparently a "model prisoner"[http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1327919,00.html] and was, accordingly, paroled in June 2004.

According to a senior aide to Terre'Blanche, Andre Visage, the legal system discriminated against Terre'Blanche while he was incarcerated. Another man, who was also a "model prisoner, convicted of similar crimes to Terre'Blanche was paroled after serving 50% of his sentence[http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1327919,00.html]. As such Terre'Blanche's 2003 parole application should have been accepted.

Due to financial pressure his wife sold his farm to cover legal costs.

==Change of opinion==

Following his release from jail, where he became a born-again [[Christian]], Terre'Blanche reported that he had "moderated" his more extreme views. His lawyer issued a press statement saying that he was "no longer racist, more of a xenophobe who prefers his own kind". [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/10/southafrica.rorycarroll]

==Reactivation of the AWB==

In early 2008 Terre'Blanche announced he was intending to re-launch the AWB (which had very few members in post-Apartheid South Africa) due to pleas from Whites who were scared, due to South Africa's crime rate.

==Sources==

*Victory or Violence:Story of the AWB of South Africa by Arthur Kemp (2nd edition. March 2008)
*[http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990615259p1001.htm]-Amnesty application (1998)
*http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/media/1996/9611/s961119g.htm
*http://www.namibian.com.na/Netstories/2000/June/News/00892E6FC4.html
*http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=Leonard_Veenendaal

Eugene Terre'Blanche

2008-06-06T15:14:47Z

Murray: /* Incident at the UNISA */

'''Eugene Ney Terre'Blanche''' (Born January 31, 1941) is a South African White seperatist, Boer nationalist and leader of the [[AWB]], a White political movement in [[South Africa]].
He was, in June 2004, released from prison after serving 3 years for assaulting a gas station attendant and for the attempted murder of one of his employees.

==Early life==

Terre'Blanche was born in the Western Transvaal town of Ventersdorp in 1941, reportedly to a conservative, Calvinist Afrikaner family. His father was a Lieutenant-Colonel in the South African Defense Force and his grandfather a General in the [[Anglo-Boer War|Boer War]].

Terre'Blanche excelled at school and was Chairman of a debating societ whilst at school in Ventersdorp, he also acheived well in sports. He was captain of his school's first rugby team. He also founded a cultural organisation whilst at school

From 1985 until 2004 Terre'Blanche, in addition to his political and commercial responsibilities, ran his family's farm in Ventersdorp, which he, in 1985, inherited from his father.

==Police==

In the 1960s Terre'Blanche joined the South African Police, he was assigned to the Special Guard Unit, which was tasked with protecting VIPs and Cabinet Ministers. Rumours abounded that he was Prime Minister John Vorster's bodyguard, but this is untrue.

He attained the rank of Warrant Officer and, in 1968, was employed at the police recruitment offices in [[Pretoria]], where he met Jan Groenewald. Groenewald was applying to the police at the time, he was accepted and Terre'Blanche and he became close friends. It was against this backdrop that Terre'Blanche became a right-winger, Groenewald persuaded him that the reforms to Apartheid that Prime Minister Vorster was making were damaging to Whites.

In the early 1970s Terre'Blanche briefly worked at Rondalia, a holiday resort association. Then he went to work for the Herstigte Nasionale Party (HNP. English= Re-constituted National Party), a right-wing party which opposed the ruling National Party's reforms to Apartheid. Terre'Blanche was an organiser until the HNP Deputy Leader, Jaap Marais, expelled him and Groenewald from the party (Groenewald too was a HNP organiser).

==AWB==

In the 1970 General election the HNP failed to win any seats in parliament, in fact Terre'Blanche himself was a candidate in the eastern Transvaal. So, in 1973, Terre'Blanche, Groenewald and 5 other Afrikaners founded the AWB (Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging/Afrikaner Resistance Movement).

When the HNP leadership found out that Terre'Blanche and Groenewald had secretly founded a new organisation they were both expelled and fired from their jobs as organisers.

Terre'Blanche worked as an insurance salesman in the town of Brits, Transvaal.

==Early Militancy==

In 1977 the South African government announced it was considering opening the Breyten Theatre, Pretoria, to all races. This angered Whites who believed that apartheid was appropriate. The Administrator of the Transvaal announced that opening public facilities (such as the state-owned Breyten Theatre) to all races was contradictory to the racial laws of the [[Apartheid]] regime.

A group of liberal White actors and actresses began to petition the government to open the theatre to all races. As they circulated their petition to the White public at a Pretoria shopping mall, Eugene Terre'Blanche and 35 other AWB members confronted them.
The two groups exchanged a few angry words. Terre'Blanche and his posse then proceeded to rip all of the petition papers into tiny pieces. It was captured on film and became known as the first "militant" action undertaken by the AWB.

==Incident at the UNISA==

On March 28th 1979 Terre'Blanche and 40 other AWB members tarred and feathered a History Professor, Floors Van Jaarsveld, as he gave a lecture at the University of South Africa. Van Jaarsveld had upset the AWB by disputing the relevance of the Day of the Vow (a Christian [[Afrikaner]] holiday) in a modern society.

Terre'Blanche received a 600 Rand fine or 300 days imprisonment, and opted to pay the fine. An additional 9 men were also punished for assault and libel (known as crimen injuria in South African law), as well as two counts of damage to property (relating to the clothes of Van Jaarsveld and the carpet of the University of South Africa).

==Arms trial==

On December 11th 1982 Terre'Blanche and 8 other AWB members were arrested by the Security Branch of the South African Police and held under the terms of the Internal Security Act (section 27 of the Act allowed for the indefinite detention without trial and was most often used for ANC operatives). A police press statement was issued saying that arms, ammunition and explosives had been confiscated.

Several automatic firearms, hidden in waterproof containers and buried in maize fields, were recovered when the police used metal detectors and ploughed maize fields which they suspected had been used for the purposes of hiding illegal firearms.

Two of the original eight detainees were released, but Terre'Blanche and five others appeared, on December 24th 1982, at Pretoria Regional Court, charged under the Arms and Ammunition Act for illegal possession of weapons and explosives. The six men were granted bail of 1000 Rand each and released on January 21 1983.

The trial was postponed until March 24 1983, when the 6 men all plead not guilty to the following charges:

1.Possession of four AK-47 rifles and associated parts and possession of 17 R1 rifle magazines

2.Possession of a Makarov pistol

3.Possession of ammunition for the Marakov pistol

4.Possession of explosives (including one smoke grenade and a large quantity of tetriel explosive)

5.Possession of three tear gas cannisters

On July 11 1983 the trial was held, Major Nel of the Security Branch of the police testified that trunks containing AK-47 parts, camoflage uniforms (illegal for private possesion in [[Apartheid]] South Africa) and ammunition on a farm belonging to Eugene Terre'Blanche's brother, Andries Terre'Blanche.

On November 4 1983 the Judge passed sentence on the men, all of whom were convicted. Terre'Blanche was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for five years. The other men received sentences of three years and four years, all of the custodial sentences were suspended for five years.

The presiding Judge, Mr Van Dyck, remarked that the "community does not expect that such civilized, proper people as the accused be sent for a prison term".

In an earlier trial, also relating to illegal possession of arms and ammunition, Terre'Blanche and another man (who was already serving 15 years on yet another arms and ammunition conviction) were found guilty.

Magistrate E.D. Wythe, of Klerksdorp Regional Court, sentenced Terre'Blanche to 1 year's imprisonment for illegal possession of an AK-47 and to six months imprisonment for possession of 362 rounds of ammunition, both sentences were suspended for five years.

In addition Terre'Blanche was fined 300 Rand for possession of a Gecado .22 revolver.

In 1999 Terre'Blanche received amnesty for all of the above crimes [http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990615259p1001.htm].

==1980s==

In the 1980s the AWB, often under the direct leadership of Terre'Blanche, disrupted rallies and meetings held by the National Party across the northern Transvaal and Orange Free State. In one such incident police used teargas to evict 5000 violent AWB supporters from a meeting hall in Pietersburg (now Polokwane).

In 1988 AWB membership, and support, peaked. Estimates range from 5000 to 70000 members, Terre'Blanche claims that the actual peak in membership was in 1994 and that, by then, the AWB had 80000 active members. Between 1978 and 1994 a total of 104000 applications for membership were made.

==Battle of Ventersdorp==

Terre'Blanche and 2000 AWB supporters led a march on a National Party meeting being addresed by President DeKlerk on August 9 1991 in Ventersdorp. In an ensuing gunfight 7 policemen were shot, 43 AWB members wounded (3 killed) and 15 innocent bystanders injured.

==Bophuthatswana==

In 1994 the AWB were the victim of an international media hate campaign after they propped up the supposed dictatorship of [[Apartheid|Bantustan]] leader Lucas Mangope.

It was alleged that the 750 AWB paramilitary members who went into Bophuthatswana shot and killed 5 or more innocent Black civilians. Although no prosectuions were ever brought so the truth of the matter is unknown.

==Amnesty==

In 1998 Terre'Blanche, and ex-AWB Deputy Leader Piet Rudolph, were granted amnesty for the tarring and feathering of Professor Van Jaarsveld, the illegal possession of arms and ammunition in 1982 and the Battle of Ventersdorp.

In an affidavit submitted to the Truth and Reconcilliation Commision Terre'Blanche said he felt responsible, personally, for the bombings commited by AWB members.

==Jail sentence==

In 2000 Terre'Blanche was jailed for two attacks on an employee of his, who worked on his farm, and a gas station attendant in 1996. According to the gas station attendant, John Ndizma (who was interviewed for the documentary His Big White Self), Terre'Blanche made his dog attack him because John had told the police that a White youth had broken into the gas station pharmacy.

Terre'Blanche, allegedly drunk at the time, severely assaulted Paul Motshabe, an employee who worked on his farm, leaving his permanently paralysed.

There was big discrepancies in Motshabe's version of events. In the 2006 documentary ''His Big White Self'', Motshabe's sister claimed that Terre'Blanche hit her brother with a revolver and then slammed his head in the door of a truck, while in court he claimed Terre'Blanche hit him with a metal pipe.

Terre'Blanche was, in March 2000, jailed for 7 years (1 year for the assault on John Ndizma and 6 years for the attempted murder of Paul Motshabe). Whilst incarcerated he was apparently a "model prisoner"[http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1327919,00.html] and was, accordingly, paroled in June 2004.

According to a senior aide to Terre'Blanche, Andre Visage, the legal system discriminated against Terre'Blanche while he was incarcerated. Another man, who was also a "model prisoner, convicted of similar crimes to Terre'Blanche was paroled after serving 50% of his sentence[http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1327919,00.html]. As such Terre'Blanche's 2003 parole application should have been accepted.

Due to financial pressure his wife sold his farm to cover legal costs.

==Change of opinion==

Following his release from jail, where he became a born-again [[Christian]], Terre'Blanche reported that he had "moderated" his more extreme views. His lawyer issued a press statement saying that he was "no longer racist, more of a xenophobe who prefers his own kind". [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/10/southafrica.rorycarroll]

==Reactivation of the AWB==

In early 2008 Terre'Blanche announced he was intending to re-launch the AWB (which had very few members in post-Apartheid South Africa) due to pleas from Whites who were scared, due to South Africa's crime rate.

==Sources==

*Victory or Violence:Story of the AWB of South Africa by Arthur Kemp (2nd edition. March 2008)
*[http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990615259p1001.htm]-Amnesty application (1998)
*http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/media/1996/9611/s961119g.htm
*http://www.namibian.com.na/Netstories/2000/June/News/00892E6FC4.html
*http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=Leonard_Veenendaal

Eugene Terre'Blanche

2008-06-06T15:13:54Z

Murray: /* Early Militancy */

'''Eugene Ney Terre'Blanche''' (Born January 31, 1941) is a South African White seperatist, Boer nationalist and leader of the [[AWB]], a White political movement in [[South Africa]].
He was, in June 2004, released from prison after serving 3 years for assaulting a gas station attendant and for the attempted murder of one of his employees.

==Early life==

Terre'Blanche was born in the Western Transvaal town of Ventersdorp in 1941, reportedly to a conservative, Calvinist Afrikaner family. His father was a Lieutenant-Colonel in the South African Defense Force and his grandfather a General in the [[Anglo-Boer War|Boer War]].

Terre'Blanche excelled at school and was Chairman of a debating societ whilst at school in Ventersdorp, he also acheived well in sports. He was captain of his school's first rugby team. He also founded a cultural organisation whilst at school

From 1985 until 2004 Terre'Blanche, in addition to his political and commercial responsibilities, ran his family's farm in Ventersdorp, which he, in 1985, inherited from his father.

==Police==

In the 1960s Terre'Blanche joined the South African Police, he was assigned to the Special Guard Unit, which was tasked with protecting VIPs and Cabinet Ministers. Rumours abounded that he was Prime Minister John Vorster's bodyguard, but this is untrue.

He attained the rank of Warrant Officer and, in 1968, was employed at the police recruitment offices in [[Pretoria]], where he met Jan Groenewald. Groenewald was applying to the police at the time, he was accepted and Terre'Blanche and he became close friends. It was against this backdrop that Terre'Blanche became a right-winger, Groenewald persuaded him that the reforms to Apartheid that Prime Minister Vorster was making were damaging to Whites.

In the early 1970s Terre'Blanche briefly worked at Rondalia, a holiday resort association. Then he went to work for the Herstigte Nasionale Party (HNP. English= Re-constituted National Party), a right-wing party which opposed the ruling National Party's reforms to Apartheid. Terre'Blanche was an organiser until the HNP Deputy Leader, Jaap Marais, expelled him and Groenewald from the party (Groenewald too was a HNP organiser).

==AWB==

In the 1970 General election the HNP failed to win any seats in parliament, in fact Terre'Blanche himself was a candidate in the eastern Transvaal. So, in 1973, Terre'Blanche, Groenewald and 5 other Afrikaners founded the AWB (Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging/Afrikaner Resistance Movement).

When the HNP leadership found out that Terre'Blanche and Groenewald had secretly founded a new organisation they were both expelled and fired from their jobs as organisers.

Terre'Blanche worked as an insurance salesman in the town of Brits, Transvaal.

==Early Militancy==

In 1977 the South African government announced it was considering opening the Breyten Theatre, Pretoria, to all races. This angered Whites who believed that apartheid was appropriate. The Administrator of the Transvaal announced that opening public facilities (such as the state-owned Breyten Theatre) to all races was contradictory to the racial laws of the [[Apartheid]] regime.

A group of liberal White actors and actresses began to petition the government to open the theatre to all races. As they circulated their petition to the White public at a Pretoria shopping mall, Eugene Terre'Blanche and 35 other AWB members confronted them.
The two groups exchanged a few angry words. Terre'Blanche and his posse then proceeded to rip all of the petition papers into tiny pieces. It was captured on film and became known as the first "militant" action undertaken by the AWB.

==Incident at the UNISA==

On March 28th 1979 Terre'Blanche and 40 other AWB members tarred and feathered a History Professor, Floors Van Jaarsveld, as he gave a lecture at the University of South Africa. Van Jaarsveld had upset the AWB by disputing the relevance of the Day of the Vow (a sacred Christian [[Afrikaner]] date) in a modern society.

Terre'Blanche received a 600 Rand fine or 300 days imprisonment, he paid the fine. An additional 9 men were also punished for assault (ie tarring and feathering) and libel (known as crimen injuria in South African law), as well as two counts of damage to property (relating to the clothes of Van Jaarsveld and the carpet of the University of South Africa).

==Arms trial==

On December 11th 1982 Terre'Blanche and 8 other AWB members were arrested by the Security Branch of the South African Police and held under the terms of the Internal Security Act (section 27 of the Act allowed for the indefinite detention without trial and was most often used for ANC operatives). A police press statement was issued saying that arms, ammunition and explosives had been confiscated.

Several automatic firearms, hidden in waterproof containers and buried in maize fields, were recovered when the police used metal detectors and ploughed maize fields which they suspected had been used for the purposes of hiding illegal firearms.

Two of the original eight detainees were released, but Terre'Blanche and five others appeared, on December 24th 1982, at Pretoria Regional Court, charged under the Arms and Ammunition Act for illegal possession of weapons and explosives. The six men were granted bail of 1000 Rand each and released on January 21 1983.

The trial was postponed until March 24 1983, when the 6 men all plead not guilty to the following charges:

1.Possession of four AK-47 rifles and associated parts and possession of 17 R1 rifle magazines

2.Possession of a Makarov pistol

3.Possession of ammunition for the Marakov pistol

4.Possession of explosives (including one smoke grenade and a large quantity of tetriel explosive)

5.Possession of three tear gas cannisters

On July 11 1983 the trial was held, Major Nel of the Security Branch of the police testified that trunks containing AK-47 parts, camoflage uniforms (illegal for private possesion in [[Apartheid]] South Africa) and ammunition on a farm belonging to Eugene Terre'Blanche's brother, Andries Terre'Blanche.

On November 4 1983 the Judge passed sentence on the men, all of whom were convicted. Terre'Blanche was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for five years. The other men received sentences of three years and four years, all of the custodial sentences were suspended for five years.

The presiding Judge, Mr Van Dyck, remarked that the "community does not expect that such civilized, proper people as the accused be sent for a prison term".

In an earlier trial, also relating to illegal possession of arms and ammunition, Terre'Blanche and another man (who was already serving 15 years on yet another arms and ammunition conviction) were found guilty.

Magistrate E.D. Wythe, of Klerksdorp Regional Court, sentenced Terre'Blanche to 1 year's imprisonment for illegal possession of an AK-47 and to six months imprisonment for possession of 362 rounds of ammunition, both sentences were suspended for five years.

In addition Terre'Blanche was fined 300 Rand for possession of a Gecado .22 revolver.

In 1999 Terre'Blanche received amnesty for all of the above crimes [http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990615259p1001.htm].

==1980s==

In the 1980s the AWB, often under the direct leadership of Terre'Blanche, disrupted rallies and meetings held by the National Party across the northern Transvaal and Orange Free State. In one such incident police used teargas to evict 5000 violent AWB supporters from a meeting hall in Pietersburg (now Polokwane).

In 1988 AWB membership, and support, peaked. Estimates range from 5000 to 70000 members, Terre'Blanche claims that the actual peak in membership was in 1994 and that, by then, the AWB had 80000 active members. Between 1978 and 1994 a total of 104000 applications for membership were made.

==Battle of Ventersdorp==

Terre'Blanche and 2000 AWB supporters led a march on a National Party meeting being addresed by President DeKlerk on August 9 1991 in Ventersdorp. In an ensuing gunfight 7 policemen were shot, 43 AWB members wounded (3 killed) and 15 innocent bystanders injured.

==Bophuthatswana==

In 1994 the AWB were the victim of an international media hate campaign after they propped up the supposed dictatorship of [[Apartheid|Bantustan]] leader Lucas Mangope.

It was alleged that the 750 AWB paramilitary members who went into Bophuthatswana shot and killed 5 or more innocent Black civilians. Although no prosectuions were ever brought so the truth of the matter is unknown.

==Amnesty==

In 1998 Terre'Blanche, and ex-AWB Deputy Leader Piet Rudolph, were granted amnesty for the tarring and feathering of Professor Van Jaarsveld, the illegal possession of arms and ammunition in 1982 and the Battle of Ventersdorp.

In an affidavit submitted to the Truth and Reconcilliation Commision Terre'Blanche said he felt responsible, personally, for the bombings commited by AWB members.

==Jail sentence==

In 2000 Terre'Blanche was jailed for two attacks on an employee of his, who worked on his farm, and a gas station attendant in 1996. According to the gas station attendant, John Ndizma (who was interviewed for the documentary His Big White Self), Terre'Blanche made his dog attack him because John had told the police that a White youth had broken into the gas station pharmacy.

Terre'Blanche, allegedly drunk at the time, severely assaulted Paul Motshabe, an employee who worked on his farm, leaving his permanently paralysed.

There was big discrepancies in Motshabe's version of events. In the 2006 documentary ''His Big White Self'', Motshabe's sister claimed that Terre'Blanche hit her brother with a revolver and then slammed his head in the door of a truck, while in court he claimed Terre'Blanche hit him with a metal pipe.

Terre'Blanche was, in March 2000, jailed for 7 years (1 year for the assault on John Ndizma and 6 years for the attempted murder of Paul Motshabe). Whilst incarcerated he was apparently a "model prisoner"[http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1327919,00.html] and was, accordingly, paroled in June 2004.

According to a senior aide to Terre'Blanche, Andre Visage, the legal system discriminated against Terre'Blanche while he was incarcerated. Another man, who was also a "model prisoner, convicted of similar crimes to Terre'Blanche was paroled after serving 50% of his sentence[http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1327919,00.html]. As such Terre'Blanche's 2003 parole application should have been accepted.

Due to financial pressure his wife sold his farm to cover legal costs.

==Change of opinion==

Following his release from jail, where he became a born-again [[Christian]], Terre'Blanche reported that he had "moderated" his more extreme views. His lawyer issued a press statement saying that he was "no longer racist, more of a xenophobe who prefers his own kind". [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/10/southafrica.rorycarroll]

==Reactivation of the AWB==

In early 2008 Terre'Blanche announced he was intending to re-launch the AWB (which had very few members in post-Apartheid South Africa) due to pleas from Whites who were scared, due to South Africa's crime rate.

==Sources==

*Victory or Violence:Story of the AWB of South Africa by Arthur Kemp (2nd edition. March 2008)
*[http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990615259p1001.htm]-Amnesty application (1998)
*http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/media/1996/9611/s961119g.htm
*http://www.namibian.com.na/Netstories/2000/June/News/00892E6FC4.html
*http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=Leonard_Veenendaal

Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging

2008-06-06T15:05:12Z

Murray: citations missing template

The Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB; English: Afrikaner Resistance Movement) is a White separatist movement founded in 1973 by seven conservative Afrikaners. Since its inception, the AWB has attracted criticism from both the National Party (who ruled [[South Africa]] under [[Apartheid]]), as well as liberal anti-Apartheid activists.

The AWB’s founding members were [[Eugene Terre’Blanche]] (who subsequently occupied the post of leader and has remained leader to the present day), Jan Groenewald, JJ Jordaan, DJ Jordaan, Renier Oosthuizen and Piet Preller. All 7 men founded the group in the garage of Eugene Terre’Blanche’s home in Heidelberg in July 1973.

The AWB’s origins lie in an earlier right-wing party, the Herstigte Nasionale Party (Re-constituted National Party), which vehemently opposed the reforms of the Apartheid government from 1966 onwards. The HNP, by the May 1981 general election attracted moderate support from within the White electorate, winning approximately one third of the Afrikaner vote (but only 16% of the overall White vote).

==Early years==
Until 1978 the AWB existed in a nominal way, with no membership lists or cards (as part of an effort to avoid detection by the infamous secret service of the Apartheid government). However in 1979 a wealthy AWB member, Albert Hertzog, began to fund the rent of an office in [[Pretoria]] which began to serve as an AWB headquarters. The early 1980s witnessed tremendous growth amongst the right-wing of White South Africa, as President [[P.W. Botha]] warned that Afrikaners must “adapt or die”, which effectively signaled the commencement of a series of reforms which lead to the dismantling of Apartheid in 1990. The AWB grew rapidly and soon had an active membership in the thousands.

==Early Militancy==
In 1977 35 AWB members, under the leadership of Eugene Terre'Blanche, tore up petitions being circulated by a group of liberal White actors at a shopping mall in Pretoria. The actors were petitioning for the Breyten Theatre, a state-owned theatre in Pretoria, to be opened to non-Whites.

==Militant Action==
In the mid 1980s the AWB developed a tradition of disrupting National Party meetings held in the Transvaal and Orange Free State (the two most conservative provinces of South Africa). As early as 1979 the AWB had heckled National Party speakers at meetings, including future Conservative Party leader Dr. Andries Treurnicht (who became sufficiently disillusioned with the reforms of the National Party that, in 1982, he and 18 other MPs formed the Conservative Party).
On March 28th 1979 a group of 40 AWB members, including AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche, bluffed their way into a lecture at the University of South Africa. The lecture was being given by Professor Floors Van Jaarsveld, a noted liberal who the AWB claimed had insulted an Afrikaner Christian celebration (the Day of the Vow). Van Jaarsveld was made an example by the AWB, who publicly tarred and feathered him.

By 1988 the AWB enjoyed a large support base and membership, with estimates ranging from 5000 members to 70000. However, despite the efforts of the AWB, and other like-minded South Africans, in 1989 the newly inaugurated President De Klerk announced that Apartheid (a system of segregating South Africans by race; for example, non-Whites had severely restricted voting rights) was to end.

==Paramilitaries==
Throughout its history the AWB had a series of paramilitary wings, with their origins in a motorcycle gang called the "Stormvalke" (Afrikaans for Storm Falcons).

In 1990 the Aquila Guard was replaced by the Wenkommando (Victorious Commandos), named after a Boer commando which defeated the Zulu army during the Great Trek (1835-1840). The Wenkommando, according to a South African government report issued in 1992, numbered some 15,000 men, divided into 250 units across South Africa.

The Wenkommando was comprised of six different "wings" or "sections", including the Brandwagte (Sentinels) who were in charge of communicating any information on ANC or communist guerillas entering South Africa back to the AWB, as well as the Ystergarde (Iron Guard) who were tasked with defending senior AWB members at meetings and rallies.

The Wenkommando also included the Boerejeug (Boer Youth), the AWB's youth movement.

==The BVP==
In October 1979 the AWB registered a political party (intended, initially, to contest seats in parliament during elections) with the Department of the Interior. The party was called the '''Blanke Volkstaat Party''' (BVP) which, translates in English as, the White People's State party.

The BVP had four express purposes:
#To guarantee freedom (as the AWB saw it)
#To establish a ''Volkstaat'' (People's State, exclusively for Whites)
#Never to be "activated" against any other right-wing party
#To provide a legal front from which the AWB could raise fund

In the 1989 general election (the last Whites-only election) the BVP was intending to contest elections, and Eugene Terre'Blanche addressed meetings across the [[Transvaal]] and [[Orange Free State]] in his capacity as BVP party leader. However the BVP never did participate in any elections.

==Terrorist activities==
''Namibia''. In 1989 the territory of South West Africa (renamed [[Namibia]] in 1990) was still under South African occupation. It had been given to the Union of South Africa under a League of Nations mandate after the First World War, it had previously been a German colony. In 1989 the South African government agreed to hold multi-racial elections there. The AWB had offices in the Namibian capital city, Windhoek, and a large following amongst the White population of Namibia.

In the run-up to the elections the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) had established stations there to govern the territory during the period of transition from White rule to SWAPO (South West African People's Organisation) rule. Five AWB members, under the leadership of the AWB's Johannesburg leader, Leonard Veenendaal, attacked an UNTAG base in Outjo, northern Namibia. Phosphorous grenades were thrown and it was riddled with machine gun fire. One UNTAG guard, Michael Hoaseb, was killed in the attack.

The men were apprehended and sent, on December 4th, to Outjo district court to stand trial. En route they escaped, and in the processes killed one of the policemen escorting them, Constable Van Wyck (who was shot in the stomach by Veenendaal). The men escaped to South Africa and, in 1997, before the South African government could deport them to stand trial in Namibia had fled to Britain. The Namibian government, with the assistance of [[Interpol]], are still trying to have the two men, who are in Britain, extradited to stand trial.

''Goedgevonden Farm''. On May 11th 1991 some 2000 White farmers clashed with a contingent of the South African Police at a state-owned farm, named Goedgevonden, situated some 11 miles from Ventersdorp. The farm was nestled between a number of privately owned White farms, in 1991 (as part of the government's reform program for Apartheid) the Land Acts were repealed. The Land Acts had previously given Whites exclusive rights to buy land in farming areas.

Due to the repeal a number of Blacks moved onto Goedgevonden farm. In the months following this White farmers nearby began to experience stock thefts, they asked the government to help, but the government didn't respond.

The AWB threatened, in late April 1991, that unless the government evicted the Blacks the AWB would do it. The government said the Blacks would be protected against the AWB. On the evening of May 10th some 2000 White farmers went to Goedgevonden to remove the Blacks. The police had established cordons around the perimeter of the camp. Even so, at 1.45 am on May 11th 1991 some 25 AWB men, on horseback, charged into the camp and began tearing down the makeshift houses.

Commercial vehicles were then used by the White farmers to punch a hole through the police cordon. At 3.30 am the farmers poured into the camp and destroyed what was left of it after the attack at 1.45 am. They were then routed by the police. At this point the police unexpectedly opened fire on the White farmers, injuring 4 (two of them sustained serious injuries).

''Ventersdorp''. Terre'Blanche and 2000 AWB supporters led a march on a National Party meeting being addresed by President De Klerk on August 9 1991 in Ventersdorp. In an ensuing gunfight 7 policemen were shot, 43 AWB supporters wounded (3 killed) and 15 innocent bystanders injured.

Terre'Blanche and 6 other AWB members were arrested and fined for commiting public violence. One AWB supporter was forensically linked to a bullet fired at the police and was jailed for 5 years. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission later granted Eugene Terre'Blanche and then AWB Deputy Leader Piet Rudolph amnesty for their actions at Ventersdorp.

''Bophuthatswana''. In 1994 the AWB were the heavily criticized in the international media hate campaign after they propped up the regime of [[Apartheid|Bantustan]] leader Lucas Mangope. It was alleged that the 750 AWB paramilitary members who went into Bophuthatswana shot and killed 5 or more innocent Black civilians.

==1990-1994==
AWB membership plummeted following De Klerk’s announcement that Apartheid would end, falling continuously until 1994 when it constituted only a few hundred members. However splinter groups of the AWB, namely the Orde Boerevolk (Order of the Boer Nation), were involved in the execution of large scale bombing campaigns against left-wing targets (with Black trade union offices and National Party offices being favourite targets).

In 1991 De Klerk, against the advice of senior policemen, held a meeting in the right-wing stronghold of Ventersdorp (where the AWB had its headquarters from 1989 onwards). In the ensuing chaos, as AWB members attempted to hand a petition to DeKlerk, 3 AWB members were killed and some 43 injured as the police and AWB exchanged gunfire.

In the days leading up to the democratic South African elections of 1994, dozens of explosions rocked numerous locations across South Africa (including Jan Smuts airport in Johannesburg). A total of 21 people were killed and 176 injured in the AWB’s pre-election bombing campaign.

==Assasination of Chris Hani==
On April 10, 1993 Christopher Hani, leader of the South African Communist Party and [[Umkhonto We Sizwe]] leader (Umkhonto We Sizwe was the ANC's armed wing) was gunned down in the driveway of his Boksburg, Transvaal, home. The gunman was [[Polish]] anti-communist zealot and AWB member Janusz Walus. Walus had been provided with a list of names and addresses of leading liberals (including Hani, [[Nelson Mandela|Mandela]] and President FW De Klerk) and was preparing to kill them.

Walus pulled up outside Hani's home and called his name, Hani turned around, Waluz shot him once before walking to his body and shooting him again. Hani's neighbour, Retha Harmse, noted down what she thought was the killer's license plate (it was wrong by one character). Police on patrol in Boksburg city centre noticed Walus's car fitted the description, they pulled him over and found a pistol and silencer in the vehicle.

Initially Walus denied that he was the killer and said he didn't know how the pistol or silencer came to be in his possession. He made a confidential confession to a policeman he assumed was sympathetic, but the officer told the investigating officer that Walus had confessed.

Waluz implicated one man, Clive Derby-Lewis, a Conservative Party councillor. Derby-Lewis had arranged for the silencer to be fitted to a gun and then given it to Waluz, as well as obtaining Hani's address. Derby-Lewis' wife gave him Hani's address, she had obtained it from Arthur Kemp [http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_Politics&set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=vn20080410054544212C223121](who authored a book on the AWB) who was at that time a journalist for The Citizen newspaper. However Kemp was a former Sergeant in the Security Branch of the police and allegedly used this priveledge to obtain the list of addresses.

Waluz and Derby-Lewis were jailed for life (they may be paroled in 2010), while Arthur Kemp denied knowledge of helping to organise the murder, claiming that he had given the list of addresses to Clive Derby-Lewis' wife without knowledge of why she wanted them. The murder of Hani, arguably the second most popular Black South African politician, sparked mass riots.

==In the New South Africa==

Until recently the AWB had largely collapsed following the advent of democratic rule in South Africa, with a dwindling membership and with 30 AWB members jailed for organising and executing the pre-election bombing campaign. In 1997 AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche was tried for allegedly assaulting a gas station attendant in 1996 and for allegedly pistol whipping a disobedient employee of his farm. The AWB has dismissed the allegations as part of a left-wing conspiracy against the AWB. However in 2000 Eugene Terre’Blanche was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for one count of assault and one count of attempted murder. Terre’Blanche was paroled on June 11th 2004.

However in light of what they claim is genocide of White farmers in South Africa [http://www.stopboergenocide.com] the AWB has re-activated and is now holding meetings the across South Africa (with two meetings attracting 500 visitors).[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/2059457/South-Africa-AWB-leader-Terre'Blanche-rallys-Boers-again.html]

==Volkstaat Concept==
Initially the AWB regarded the entirety of South Africa (except for the Bantustans which were designated Black countries) as belonging to "the White man". However as it became apparent that some concessions would need to be made to appease the international community and non-Whites in South Africa, the AWB favoured a 'Volkstaat' (People's State) solution.

The AWB proposed that the lands occupied by the Boer people, which were the Transvaal, Orange Free State and Northern Natal, be made into a Volkstaat, with an AWB government. The AWB agreed to concede the Cape province to the 4 million or so Cape Coloureds (descendants of slaves imported into South Africa by Dutch settlers). The AWB later reduced its "proposal" to an AWB state consisting only of the Transvaal and Orange Free State.

However the plan was flawed on several levels. Firstly the National Party government refused to hold a referendum on the issue of a Volkstaat; more importantly, there were some 18 million Blacks in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. The AWB did not intend to consult the Black people living in the Orange Free State or Transvaal.

==Boer claims to Transvaal and Orange Free State==
The AWB claims to represent the "Boer nation", and also claims that the Boers have historical rights to the Transvaal and Orange Free State. The basis for this claim is the Sand River Convention (1852), in which Queen Victoria of Britain acquiesced to Boer demands and agreed that they should be allowed to rule the Transvaal as a republic. Queen Victoria also agreed to allow the Boers run the Orange Free State under the terms of the Orange River Convention (also known as the Bloemfontein Convention), signed in 1854.

==Flag controversy==
The AWB’s flag is a Triple Sevens with a red and white background, the 3 sevens represent the 777 of God (in direct conflict with the 666 of Satan), the white represents the supposed purity of the AWB’s ideals and the red represents the blood of Jesus Christ.
Some journalists have described the AWB as “neo-nazi”, although the AWB claims to no longer be anti-semitic (as of the revised Program of Principles, released in 1988). The AWB has only three requirements for membership (as laid out in its first Program of Principles), that members must be White, Christian and proficient in [[Afrikaans]]. The early AWB flag was simply a four pointed star (opposing the five pointed star of Zionism and the five pointed star of communism, both of whom the AWB were decided enemies).
{{citations missing | article}}
== Sources ==

*Victory or Violence:Story of the AWB of South Africa by Arthur Kemp (2nd edition. March 2008)
*[http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990615259p1001.htm]-Amnesty application (1998)
*[http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/media/1996/9611/s961119g.htm]
*[http://www.namibian.com.na/Netstories/2000/June/News/00892E6FC4.html]
*[http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=Leonard_Veenendaal]

Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging

2008-06-06T15:01:10Z

Murray: /* Terrorist activities */

The Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB; English: Afrikaner Resistance Movement) is a White separatist movement founded in 1973 by seven conservative Afrikaners. Since its inception, the AWB has attracted criticism from both the National Party (who ruled [[South Africa]] under [[Apartheid]]), as well as liberal anti-Apartheid activists.

The AWB’s founding members were [[Eugene Terre’Blanche]] (who subsequently occupied the post of leader and has remained leader to the present day), Jan Groenewald, JJ Jordaan, DJ Jordaan, Renier Oosthuizen and Piet Preller. All 7 men founded the group in the garage of Eugene Terre’Blanche’s home in Heidelberg in July 1973.

The AWB’s origins lie in an earlier right-wing party, the Herstigte Nasionale Party (Re-constituted National Party), which vehemently opposed the reforms of the Apartheid government from 1966 onwards. The HNP, by the May 1981 general election attracted moderate support from within the White electorate, winning approximately one third of the Afrikaner vote (but only 16% of the overall White vote).

==Early years==
Until 1978 the AWB existed in a nominal way, with no membership lists or cards (as part of an effort to avoid detection by the infamous secret service of the Apartheid government). However in 1979 a wealthy AWB member, Albert Hertzog, began to fund the rent of an office in [[Pretoria]] which began to serve as an AWB headquarters. The early 1980s witnessed tremendous growth amongst the right-wing of White South Africa, as President [[P.W. Botha]] warned that Afrikaners must “adapt or die”, which effectively signaled the commencement of a series of reforms which lead to the dismantling of Apartheid in 1990. The AWB grew rapidly and soon had an active membership in the thousands{fact}.

==Early Militancy==
In 1977 35 AWB members, under the leadership of Eugene Terre'Blanche, tore up petitions being circulated by a group of liberal White actors at a shopping mall in Pretoria. The actors were petitioning for the Breyten Theatre, a state-owned theatre in Pretoria, to be opened to non-Whites.

==Militant Action==
In the mid 1980s the AWB developed a tradition of disrupting National Party meetings held in the Transvaal and Orange Free State (the two most conservative provinces of South Africa). As early as 1979 the AWB had heckled National Party speakers at meetings, including future Conservative Party leader Dr. Andries Treurnicht (who became sufficiently disillusioned with the reforms of the National Party that, in 1982, he and 18 other MPs formed the Conservative Party).
On March 28th 1979 a group of 40 AWB members, including AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche, bluffed their way into a lecture at the University of South Africa. The lecture was being given by Professor Floors Van Jaarsveld, a noted liberal who the AWB claimed had insulted an Afrikaner Christian celebration (the Day of the Vow). Van Jaarsveld was made an example by the AWB, who publicly tarred and feathered him.

By 1988 the AWB enjoyed a large support base and membership, with estimates ranging from 5000 members to 70000{fact}. However, despite the efforts of the AWB, and other like-minded South Africans, in 1989 the newly inaugurated President De Klerk announced that Apartheid (a system of segregating South Africans by race; for example, non-Whites had severely restricted voting rights) was to end.

==Paramilitaries==
Throughout its history the AWB had a series of paramilitary wings, with their origins in a motorcycle gang called the "Stormvalke" (Afrikaans for Storm Falcons).

In 1990 the Aquila Guard was replaced by the Wenkommando (Victorious Commandos), named after a Boer commando which defeated the Zulu army during the Great Trek (1835-1840). The Wenkommando, according to a South African government report issued in 1992, numbered some 15,000 men, divided into 250 units across South Africa{fact}.

The Wenkommando was comprised of six different "wings" or "sections", including the Brandwagte (Sentinels) who were in charge of communicating any information on ANC or communist guerillas entering South Africa back to the AWB, as well as the Ystergarde (Iron Guard) who were tasked with defending senior AWB members at meetings and rallies.

The Wenkommando also included the Boerejeug (Boer Youth), the AWB's youth movement.

==The BVP==
In October 1979 the AWB registered a political party (intended, initially, to contest seats in parliament during elections) with the Department of the Interior. The party was called the '''Blanke Volkstaat Party''' (BVP) which, translates in English as, the White People's State party.

The BVP had four express purposes:{fact}
#To guarantee freedom (as the AWB saw it)
#To establish a ''Volkstaat'' (People's State, exclusively for Whites)
#Never to be "activated" against any other right-wing party
#To provide a legal front from which the AWB could raise fund

In the 1989 general election (the last Whites-only election) the BVP was intending to contest elections, and Eugene Terre'Blanche addressed meetings across the [[Transvaal]] and [[Orange Free State]] in his capacity as BVP party leader. However the BVP never did participate in any elections.

==Terrorist activities==
''Namibia''. In 1989 the territory of South West Africa (renamed [[Namibia]] in 1990) was still under South African occupation. It had been given to the Union of South Africa under a League of Nations mandate after the First World War, it had previously been a German colony. In 1989 the South African government agreed to hold multi-racial elections there. The AWB had offices in the Namibian capital city, Windhoek, and a large following amongst the White population of Namibia.

In the run-up to the elections the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) had established stations there to govern the territory during the period of transition from White rule to SWAPO (South West African People's Organisation) rule. Five AWB members, under the leadership of the AWB's Johannesburg leader, Leonard Veenendaal, attacked an UNTAG base in Outjo, northern Namibia. Phosphorous grenades were thrown and it was riddled with machine gun fire. One UNTAG guard, Michael Hoaseb, was killed in the attack.

The men were apprehended and sent, on December 4th, to Outjo district court to stand trial. En route they escaped, and in the processes killed one of the policemen escorting them, Constable Van Wyck (who was shot in the stomach by Veenendaal). The men escaped to South Africa and, in 1997, before the South African government could deport them to stand trial in Namibia had fled to Britain. The Namibian government, with the assistance of [[Interpol]], are still trying to have the two men, who are in Britain, extradited to stand trial.

''Goedgevonden Farm''. On May 11th 1991 some 2000 White farmers clashed with a contingent of the South African Police at a state-owned farm, named Goedgevonden, situated some 11 miles from Ventersdorp. The farm was nestled between a number of privately owned White farms, in 1991 (as part of the government's reform program for Apartheid) the Land Acts were repealed. The Land Acts had previously given Whites exclusive rights to buy land in farming areas.

Due to the repeal a number of Blacks moved onto Goedgevonden farm. In the months following this White farmers nearby began to experience stock thefts{fact}, they asked the government to help, but the government didn't respond.

The AWB threatened, in late April 1991, that unless the government evicted the Blacks the AWB would do it. The government said the Blacks would be protected against the AWB. On the evening of May 10th some 2000 White farmers went to Goedgevonden to remove the Blacks. The police had established cordons around the perimeter of the camp. Even so, at 1.45 am on May 11th 1991 some 25 AWB men, on horseback, charged into the camp and began tearing down the makeshift houses.

Commercial vehicles were then used by the White farmers to punch a hole through the police cordon. At 3.30 am the farmers poured into the camp and destroyed what was left of it after the attack at 1.45 am. They were then routed by the police. At this point the police unexpectedly opened fire on the White farmers, injuring 4 (two of them sustained serious injuries){fact}.

''Ventersdorp''. Terre'Blanche and 2000 AWB supporters led a march on a National Party meeting being addresed by President De Klerk on August 9 1991 in Ventersdorp. In an ensuing gunfight 7 policemen were shot, 43 AWB supporters wounded (3 killed) and 15 innocent bystanders injured.

Terre'Blanche and 6 other AWB members were arrested and fined for commiting public violence. One AWB supporter was forensically linked to a bullet fired at the police and was jailed for 5 years. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission later granted Eugene Terre'Blanche and then AWB Deputy Leader Piet Rudolph amnesty for their actions at Ventersdorp.

''Bophuthatswana''. In 1994 the AWB were the heavily criticized in the international media hate campaign after they propped up the regime of [[Apartheid|Bantustan]] leader Lucas Mangope. It was alleged that the 750 AWB paramilitary members who went into Bophuthatswana shot and killed 5 or more innocent Black civilians.{fact}

==1990-1994==
AWB membership plummeted following De Klerk’s announcement that Apartheid would end, falling continuously until 1994 when it constituted only a few hundred members. However splinter groups of the AWB, namely the Orde Boerevolk (Order of the Boer Nation), were involved in the execution of large scale bombing campaigns against left-wing targets (with Black trade union offices and National Party offices being favourite targets).

In 1991 De Klerk, against the advice of senior policemen, held a meeting in the right-wing stronghold of Ventersdorp (where the AWB had its headquarters from 1989 onwards). In the ensuing chaos, as AWB members attempted to hand a petition to DeKlerk, 3 AWB members were killed and some 43 injured as the police and AWB exchanged gunfire.

In the days leading up to the democratic South African elections of 1994, dozens of explosions rocked numerous locations across South Africa (including Jan Smuts airport in Johannesburg). A total of 21 people were killed and 176 injured in the AWB’s pre-election bombing campaign.

==Assasination of Chris Hani==
On April 10, 1993 Christopher Hani, leader of the South African Communist Party and [[Umkhonto We Sizwe]] leader (Umkhonto We Sizwe was the ANC's armed wing) was gunned down in the driveway of his Boksburg, Transvaal, home. The gunman was [[Polish]] anti-communist zealot and AWB member Janusz Walus. Walus had been provided with a list of names and addresses of leading liberals (including Hani, [[Nelson Mandela|Mandela]] and President FW De Klerk) and was preparing to kill them.

Walus pulled up outside Hani's home and called his name, Hani turned around, Waluz shot him once before walking to his body and shooting him again. Hani's neighbour, Retha Harmse, noted down what she thought was the killer's license plate (it was wrong by one character). Police on patrol in Boksburg city centre noticed Walus's car fitted the description, they pulled him over and found a pistol and silencer in the vehicle.

Initially Walus denied that he was the killer and said he didn't know how the pistol or silencer came to be in his possession. He made a confidential confession to a policeman he assumed was sympathetic, but the officer told the investigating officer that Walus had confessed.

Waluz implicated one man, Clive Derby-Lewis, a Conservative Party councillor. Derby-Lewis had arranged for the silencer to be fitted to a gun and then given it to Waluz, as well as obtaining Hani's address. Derby-Lewis' wife gave him Hani's address, she had obtained it from Arthur Kemp [http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_Politics&set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=vn20080410054544212C223121](who authored a book on the AWB) who was at that time a journalist for The Citizen newspaper. However Kemp was a former Sergeant in the Security Branch of the police and allegedly used this priveledge to obtain the list of addresses.

Waluz and Derby-Lewis were jailed for life (they may be paroled in 2010), while Arthur Kemp denied knowledge of helping to organise the murder, claiming that he had given the list of addresses to Clive Derby-Lewis' wife without knowledge of why she wanted them. The murder of Hani, arguably the second most popular Black South African politician, sparked mass riots.

==In the New South Africa==

Until recently the AWB had largely collapsed following the advent of democratic rule in South Africa, with a dwindling membership and with 30 AWB members jailed for organising and executing the pre-election bombing campaign. In 1997 AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche was tried for allegedly assaulting a gas station attendant in 1996 and for allegedly pistol whipping a disobedient employee of his farm. The AWB has dismissed the allegations as part of a left-wing conspiracy against the AWB. However in 2000 Eugene Terre’Blanche was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for one count of assault and one count of attempted murder. Terre’Blanche was paroled on June 11th 2004.

However in light of what they claim is genocide of White farmers in South Africa [http://www.stopboergenocide.com] the AWB has re-activated and is now holding meetings the across South Africa (with two meetings attracting 500 visitors).[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/2059457/South-Africa-AWB-leader-Terre'Blanche-rallys-Boers-again.html]

==Volkstaat Concept==
Initially the AWB regarded the entirety of South Africa (except for the Bantustans which were designated Black countries) as belonging to "the White man". However as it became apparent that some concessions would need to be made to appease the international community and non-Whites in South Africa, the AWB favoured a 'Volkstaat' (People's State) solution.

The AWB proposed that the lands occupied by the Boer people, which were the Transvaal, Orange Free State and Northern Natal, be made into a Volkstaat, with an AWB government. The AWB agreed to concede the Cape province to the 4 million or so Cape Coloureds (descendants of slaves imported into South Africa by Dutch settlers). The AWB later reduced its "proposal" to an AWB state consisting only of the Transvaal and Orange Free State.

However the plan was flawed on several levels. Firstly the National Party government refused to hold a referendum on the issue of a Volkstaat; more importantly, there were some 18 million Blacks in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. The AWB did not intend to consult the Black people living in the Orange Free State or Transvaal.

==Boer claims to Transvaal and Orange Free State==
The AWB claims to represent the "Boer nation", and also claims that the Boers have historical rights to the Transvaal and Orange Free State. The basis for this claim is the Sand River Convention (1852), in which Queen Victoria of Britain acquiesced to Boer demands and agreed that they should be allowed to rule the Transvaal as a republic. Queen Victoria also agreed to allow the Boers run the Orange Free State under the terms of the Orange River Convention (also known as the Bloemfontein Convention), signed in 1854.

==Flag controversy==
The AWB’s flag is a Triple Sevens with a red and white background, the 3 sevens represent the 777 of God (in direct conflict with the 666 of Satan), the white represents the supposed purity of the AWB’s ideals and the red represents the blood of Jesus Christ.
Some journalists have described the AWB as “neo-nazi”, although the AWB claims to no longer be anti-semitic (as of the revised Program of Principles, released in 1988). The AWB has only three requirements for membership (as laid out in its first Program of Principles), that members must be White, Christian and proficient in [[Afrikaans]]. The early AWB flag was simply a four pointed star (opposing the five pointed star of Zionism and the five pointed star of communism, both of whom the AWB were decided enemies).

== Sources ==

*Victory or Violence:Story of the AWB of South Africa by Arthur Kemp (2nd edition. March 2008)
*[http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990615259p1001.htm]-Amnesty application (1998)
*[http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/media/1996/9611/s961119g.htm]
*[http://www.namibian.com.na/Netstories/2000/June/News/00892E6FC4.html]
*[http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=Leonard_Veenendaal]

Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging

2008-06-06T15:00:20Z

Murray: Undo revision 467592 by Special:Contributions/Alfred123 (User talk:Alfred123) bye bye racism again

The Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB; English: Afrikaner Resistance Movement) is a White separatist movement founded in 1973 by seven conservative Afrikaners. Since its inception, the AWB has attracted criticism from both the National Party (who ruled [[South Africa]] under [[Apartheid]]), as well as liberal anti-Apartheid activists.

The AWB’s founding members were [[Eugene Terre’Blanche]] (who subsequently occupied the post of leader and has remained leader to the present day), Jan Groenewald, JJ Jordaan, DJ Jordaan, Renier Oosthuizen and Piet Preller. All 7 men founded the group in the garage of Eugene Terre’Blanche’s home in Heidelberg in July 1973.

The AWB’s origins lie in an earlier right-wing party, the Herstigte Nasionale Party (Re-constituted National Party), which vehemently opposed the reforms of the Apartheid government from 1966 onwards. The HNP, by the May 1981 general election attracted moderate support from within the White electorate, winning approximately one third of the Afrikaner vote (but only 16% of the overall White vote).

==Early years==
Until 1978 the AWB existed in a nominal way, with no membership lists or cards (as part of an effort to avoid detection by the infamous secret service of the Apartheid government). However in 1979 a wealthy AWB member, Albert Hertzog, began to fund the rent of an office in [[Pretoria]] which began to serve as an AWB headquarters. The early 1980s witnessed tremendous growth amongst the right-wing of White South Africa, as President [[P.W. Botha]] warned that Afrikaners must “adapt or die”, which effectively signaled the commencement of a series of reforms which lead to the dismantling of Apartheid in 1990. The AWB grew rapidly and soon had an active membership in the thousands{fact}.

==Early Militancy==
In 1977 35 AWB members, under the leadership of Eugene Terre'Blanche, tore up petitions being circulated by a group of liberal White actors at a shopping mall in Pretoria. The actors were petitioning for the Breyten Theatre, a state-owned theatre in Pretoria, to be opened to non-Whites.

==Militant Action==
In the mid 1980s the AWB developed a tradition of disrupting National Party meetings held in the Transvaal and Orange Free State (the two most conservative provinces of South Africa). As early as 1979 the AWB had heckled National Party speakers at meetings, including future Conservative Party leader Dr. Andries Treurnicht (who became sufficiently disillusioned with the reforms of the National Party that, in 1982, he and 18 other MPs formed the Conservative Party).
On March 28th 1979 a group of 40 AWB members, including AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche, bluffed their way into a lecture at the University of South Africa. The lecture was being given by Professor Floors Van Jaarsveld, a noted liberal who the AWB claimed had insulted an Afrikaner Christian celebration (the Day of the Vow). Van Jaarsveld was made an example by the AWB, who publicly tarred and feathered him.

By 1988 the AWB enjoyed a large support base and membership, with estimates ranging from 5000 members to 70000{fact}. However, despite the efforts of the AWB, and other like-minded South Africans, in 1989 the newly inaugurated President De Klerk announced that Apartheid (a system of segregating South Africans by race; for example, non-Whites had severely restricted voting rights) was to end.

==Paramilitaries==
Throughout its history the AWB had a series of paramilitary wings, with their origins in a motorcycle gang called the "Stormvalke" (Afrikaans for Storm Falcons).

In 1990 the Aquila Guard was replaced by the Wenkommando (Victorious Commandos), named after a Boer commando which defeated the Zulu army during the Great Trek (1835-1840). The Wenkommando, according to a South African government report issued in 1992, numbered some 15,000 men, divided into 250 units across South Africa{fact}.

The Wenkommando was comprised of six different "wings" or "sections", including the Brandwagte (Sentinels) who were in charge of communicating any information on ANC or communist guerillas entering South Africa back to the AWB, as well as the Ystergarde (Iron Guard) who were tasked with defending senior AWB members at meetings and rallies.

The Wenkommando also included the Boerejeug (Boer Youth), the AWB's youth movement.

==The BVP==
In October 1979 the AWB registered a political party (intended, initially, to contest seats in parliament during elections) with the Department of the Interior. The party was called the '''Blanke Volkstaat Party''' (BVP) which, translates in English as, the White People's State party.

The BVP had four express purposes:{fact}
#To guarantee freedom (as the AWB saw it)
#To establish a ''Volkstaat'' (People's State, exclusively for Whites)
#Never to be "activated" against any other right-wing party
#To provide a legal front from which the AWB could raise fund

In the 1989 general election (the last Whites-only election) the BVP was intending to contest elections, and Eugene Terre'Blanche addressed meetings across the [[Transvaal]] and [[Orange Free State]] in his capacity as BVP party leader. However the BVP never did participate in any elections.

==Terrorist activities==
''Namibia''. In 1989 the territory of South West Africa (renamed [[Namibia]] in 1990) was still under South African occupation. It had been given to the Union of South Africa under a League of Nations mandate after the First World War, it had previously been a German colony. In 1989 the South African government agreed to hold multi-racial elections there. The AWB had offices in the Namibian capital city, Windhoek, and a large following amongst the White population of Namibia.

In the run-up to the elections the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) had established stations there to govern the territory during the period of transition from White rule to SWAPO (South West African People's Organisation) rule. Five AWB members, under the leadership of the AWB's Johannesburg leader, Leonard Veenendaal, attacked an UNTAG base in Outjo, northern Namibia. Phosphorous grenades were thrown and it was riddled with machine gun fire. One UNTAG guard, Michael Hoaseb, was killed in the attack.

The men were apprehended and sent, on December 4th, to Outjo district court to stand trial. En route they escaped, and in the processes killed one of the policemen escorting them, Constable Van Wyck (who was shot in the stomach by Veenendaal). The men escaped to South Africa and, in 1997, before the South African government could deport them to stand trial in Namibia had fled to Britain. The Namibian government, with the assistance of [[Interpol]], are still trying to have the two men, who are in Britain, extradited to stand trial.

''Goedgevonden Farm''. On May 11th 1991 some 2000 White farmers clashed with a contingent of the South African Police at a state-owned farm, named Goedgevonden, situated some 11 miles from Ventersdorp. The farm was nestled between a number of privately owned White farms, in 1991 (as part of the government's reform program for Apartheid) the Land Acts were repealed. The Land Acts had previously given Whites exclusive rights to buy land in farming areas.

Due to the repeal a number of Blacks moved onto Goedgevonden farm. In the months following this White farmers nearby began to experience stock thefts{fact}, they asked the government to help, but the government didn't respond.

The AWB threatened, in late April 1991, that unless the government evicted the Blacks the AWB would do it. The government said the Blacks would be protected against the AWB. On the evening of May 10th some 2000 White farmers went to Goedgevonden to remove the Blacks. The police had established cordons around the perimeter of the camp. Even so, at 1.45 am on May 11th 1991 some 25 AWB men, on horseback, charged into the camp and began tearing down the makeshift houses.

Commercial vehicles were then used by the White farmers to punch a hole through the police cordon. At 3.30 am the farmers poured into the camp and destroyed what was left of it after the attack at 1.45 am. They were then routed by the police. At this point the police unexpectedly opened fire on the White farmers, injuring 4 (two of them sustained serious injuries){fact}.

''Ventersdorp''. Terre'Blanche and 2000 AWB supporters led a march on a National Party meeting being addresed by President DeK lerk on August 9 1991 in Ventersdorp. In an ensuing gunfight 7 policemen were shot, 43 AWB supporters wounded (3 killed) and 15 innocent bystanders injured.

Terre'Blanche and 6 other AWB members were arrested and fined for commiting public violence. One AWB supporter was forensically linked to a bullet fired at the police and was jailed for 5 years. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission later granted Eugene Terre'Blanche and then AWB Deputy Leader Piet Rudolph amnesty for their actions at Ventersdorp.

''Bophuthatswana''. In 1994 the AWB were the heavily criticized in the international media hate campaign after they propped up the regime of [[Apartheid|Bantustan]] leader Lucas Mangope. It was alleged that the 750 AWB paramilitary members who went into Bophuthatswana shot and killed 5 or more innocent Black civilians.{fact}

==1990-1994==
AWB membership plummeted following De Klerk’s announcement that Apartheid would end, falling continuously until 1994 when it constituted only a few hundred members. However splinter groups of the AWB, namely the Orde Boerevolk (Order of the Boer Nation), were involved in the execution of large scale bombing campaigns against left-wing targets (with Black trade union offices and National Party offices being favourite targets).

In 1991 De Klerk, against the advice of senior policemen, held a meeting in the right-wing stronghold of Ventersdorp (where the AWB had its headquarters from 1989 onwards). In the ensuing chaos, as AWB members attempted to hand a petition to DeKlerk, 3 AWB members were killed and some 43 injured as the police and AWB exchanged gunfire.

In the days leading up to the democratic South African elections of 1994, dozens of explosions rocked numerous locations across South Africa (including Jan Smuts airport in Johannesburg). A total of 21 people were killed and 176 injured in the AWB’s pre-election bombing campaign.

==Assasination of Chris Hani==
On April 10, 1993 Christopher Hani, leader of the South African Communist Party and [[Umkhonto We Sizwe]] leader (Umkhonto We Sizwe was the ANC's armed wing) was gunned down in the driveway of his Boksburg, Transvaal, home. The gunman was [[Polish]] anti-communist zealot and AWB member Janusz Walus. Walus had been provided with a list of names and addresses of leading liberals (including Hani, [[Nelson Mandela|Mandela]] and President FW De Klerk) and was preparing to kill them.

Walus pulled up outside Hani's home and called his name, Hani turned around, Waluz shot him once before walking to his body and shooting him again. Hani's neighbour, Retha Harmse, noted down what she thought was the killer's license plate (it was wrong by one character). Police on patrol in Boksburg city centre noticed Walus's car fitted the description, they pulled him over and found a pistol and silencer in the vehicle.

Initially Walus denied that he was the killer and said he didn't know how the pistol or silencer came to be in his possession. He made a confidential confession to a policeman he assumed was sympathetic, but the officer told the investigating officer that Walus had confessed.

Waluz implicated one man, Clive Derby-Lewis, a Conservative Party councillor. Derby-Lewis had arranged for the silencer to be fitted to a gun and then given it to Waluz, as well as obtaining Hani's address. Derby-Lewis' wife gave him Hani's address, she had obtained it from Arthur Kemp [http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_Politics&set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=vn20080410054544212C223121](who authored a book on the AWB) who was at that time a journalist for The Citizen newspaper. However Kemp was a former Sergeant in the Security Branch of the police and allegedly used this priveledge to obtain the list of addresses.

Waluz and Derby-Lewis were jailed for life (they may be paroled in 2010), while Arthur Kemp denied knowledge of helping to organise the murder, claiming that he had given the list of addresses to Clive Derby-Lewis' wife without knowledge of why she wanted them. The murder of Hani, arguably the second most popular Black South African politician, sparked mass riots.

==In the New South Africa==

Until recently the AWB had largely collapsed following the advent of democratic rule in South Africa, with a dwindling membership and with 30 AWB members jailed for organising and executing the pre-election bombing campaign. In 1997 AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche was tried for allegedly assaulting a gas station attendant in 1996 and for allegedly pistol whipping a disobedient employee of his farm. The AWB has dismissed the allegations as part of a left-wing conspiracy against the AWB. However in 2000 Eugene Terre’Blanche was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for one count of assault and one count of attempted murder. Terre’Blanche was paroled on June 11th 2004.

However in light of what they claim is genocide of White farmers in South Africa [http://www.stopboergenocide.com] the AWB has re-activated and is now holding meetings the across South Africa (with two meetings attracting 500 visitors).[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/2059457/South-Africa-AWB-leader-Terre'Blanche-rallys-Boers-again.html]

==Volkstaat Concept==
Initially the AWB regarded the entirety of South Africa (except for the Bantustans which were designated Black countries) as belonging to "the White man". However as it became apparent that some concessions would need to be made to appease the international community and non-Whites in South Africa, the AWB favoured a 'Volkstaat' (People's State) solution.

The AWB proposed that the lands occupied by the Boer people, which were the Transvaal, Orange Free State and Northern Natal, be made into a Volkstaat, with an AWB government. The AWB agreed to concede the Cape province to the 4 million or so Cape Coloureds (descendants of slaves imported into South Africa by Dutch settlers). The AWB later reduced its "proposal" to an AWB state consisting only of the Transvaal and Orange Free State.

However the plan was flawed on several levels. Firstly the National Party government refused to hold a referendum on the issue of a Volkstaat; more importantly, there were some 18 million Blacks in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. The AWB did not intend to consult the Black people living in the Orange Free State or Transvaal.

==Boer claims to Transvaal and Orange Free State==
The AWB claims to represent the "Boer nation", and also claims that the Boers have historical rights to the Transvaal and Orange Free State. The basis for this claim is the Sand River Convention (1852), in which Queen Victoria of Britain acquiesced to Boer demands and agreed that they should be allowed to rule the Transvaal as a republic. Queen Victoria also agreed to allow the Boers run the Orange Free State under the terms of the Orange River Convention (also known as the Bloemfontein Convention), signed in 1854.

==Flag controversy==
The AWB’s flag is a Triple Sevens with a red and white background, the 3 sevens represent the 777 of God (in direct conflict with the 666 of Satan), the white represents the supposed purity of the AWB’s ideals and the red represents the blood of Jesus Christ.
Some journalists have described the AWB as “neo-nazi”, although the AWB claims to no longer be anti-semitic (as of the revised Program of Principles, released in 1988). The AWB has only three requirements for membership (as laid out in its first Program of Principles), that members must be White, Christian and proficient in [[Afrikaans]]. The early AWB flag was simply a four pointed star (opposing the five pointed star of Zionism and the five pointed star of communism, both of whom the AWB were decided enemies).

== Sources ==

*Victory or Violence:Story of the AWB of South Africa by Arthur Kemp (2nd edition. March 2008)
*[http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990615259p1001.htm]-Amnesty application (1998)
*[http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/media/1996/9611/s961119g.htm]
*[http://www.namibian.com.na/Netstories/2000/June/News/00892E6FC4.html]
*[http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=Leonard_Veenendaal]

Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging

2008-06-06T05:03:46Z

Murray: cut down on the racism

The Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB; English: Afrikaner Resistance Movement) is a White separatist movement founded in 1973 by seven conservative Afrikaners. Since its inception, the AWB has attracted criticism from both the National Party (who ruled [[South Africa]] under [[Apartheid]]), as well as liberal anti-Apartheid activists.

The AWB’s founding members were [[Eugene Terre’Blanche]] (who subsequently occupied the post of leader and has remained leader to the present day), Jan Groenewald, JJ Jordaan, DJ Jordaan, Renier Oosthuizen and Piet Preller. All 7 men founded the group in the garage of Eugene Terre’Blanche’s home in Heidelberg in July 1973.

The AWB’s origins lie in an earlier right-wing party, the Herstigte Nasionale Party (Re-constituted National Party), which vehemently opposed the reforms of the Apartheid government from 1966 onwards. The HNP, by the May 1981 general election attracted moderate support from within the White electorate, winning approximately one third of the Afrikaner vote (but only 16% of the overall White vote).

==Early years==
Until 1978 the AWB existed in a nominal way, with no membership lists or cards (as part of an effort to avoid detection by the infamous secret service of the Apartheid government). However in 1979 a wealthy AWB member, Albert Hertzog, began to fund the rent of an office in [[Pretoria]] which began to serve as an AWB headquarters. The early 1980s witnessed tremendous growth amongst the right-wing of White South Africa, as President [[P.W. Botha]] warned that Afrikaners must “adapt or die”, which effectively signaled the commencement of a series of reforms which lead to the dismantling of Apartheid in 1990. The AWB grew rapidly and soon had an active membership in the thousands{fact}.

==Early Militancy==
In 1977 35 AWB members, under the leadership of Eugene Terre'Blanche, tore up petitions being circulated by a group of liberal White actors at a shopping mall in Pretoria. The actors were petitioning for the Breyten Theatre, a state-owned theatre in Pretoria, to be opened to non-Whites.

==Militant Action==
In the mid 1980s the AWB developed a tradition of disrupting National Party meetings held in the Transvaal and Orange Free State (the two most conservative provinces of South Africa). As early as 1979 the AWB had heckled National Party speakers at meetings, including future Conservative Party leader Dr. Andries Treurnicht (who became sufficiently disillusioned with the reforms of the National Party that, in 1982, he and 18 other MPs formed the Conservative Party).
On March 28th 1979 a group of 40 AWB members, including AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche, bluffed their way into a lecture at the University of South Africa. The lecture was being given by Professor Floors Van Jaarsveld, a noted liberal who the AWB claimed had insulted an Afrikaner Christian celebration (the Day of the Vow). Van Jaarsveld was made an example by the AWB, who publicly tarred and feathered him.

By 1988 the AWB enjoyed a large support base and membership, with estimates ranging from 5000 members to 70000{fact}. However, despite the efforts of the AWB, and other like-minded South Africans, in 1989 the newly inaugurated President De Klerk announced that Apartheid (a system of segregating South Africans by race; for example, non-Whites had severely restricted voting rights) was to end.

==Paramilitaries==
Throughout its history the AWB had a series of paramilitary wings, with their origins in a motorcycle gang called the "Stormvalke" (Afrikaans for Storm Falcons).

In 1990 the Aquila Guard was replaced by the Wenkommando (Victorious Commandos), named after a Boer commando which defeated the Zulu army during the Great Trek (1835-1840). The Wenkommando, according to a South African government report issued in 1992, numbered some 15,000 men, divided into 250 units across South Africa{fact}.

The Wenkommando was comprised of six different "wings" or "sections", including the Brandwagte (Sentinels) who were in charge of communicating any information on ANC or communist guerillas entering South Africa back to the AWB, as well as the Ystergarde (Iron Guard) who were tasked with defending senior AWB members at meetings and rallies.

The Wenkommando also included the Boerejeug (Boer Youth), the AWB's youth movement.

==The BVP==
In October 1979 the AWB registered a political party (intended, initially, to contest seats in parliament during elections) with the Department of the Interior. The party was called the '''Blanke Volkstaat Party''' (BVP) which, translates in English as, the White People's State party.

The BVP had four express purposes:{fact}
#To guarantee freedom (as the AWB saw it)
#To establish a ''Volkstaat'' (People's State, exclusively for Whites)
#Never to be "activated" against any other right-wing party
#To provide a legal front from which the AWB could raise fund

In the 1989 general election (the last Whites-only election) the BVP was intending to contest elections, and Eugene Terre'Blanche addressed meetings across the [[Transvaal]] and [[Orange Free State]] in his capacity as BVP party leader. However the BVP never did participate in any elections.

==Terrorist activities==
''Namibia''. In 1989 the territory of South West Africa (renamed [[Namibia]] in 1990) was still under South African occupation. It had been given to the Union of South Africa under a League of Nations mandate after the First World War, it had previously been a German colony. In 1989 the South African government agreed to hold multi-racial elections there. The AWB had offices in the Namibian capital city, Windhoek, and a large following amongst the White population of Namibia.

In the run-up to the elections the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) had established stations there to govern the territory during the period of transition from White rule to SWAPO (South West African People's Organisation) rule. Five AWB members, under the leadership of the AWB's Johannesburg leader, Leonard Veenendaal, attacked an UNTAG base in Outjo, northern Namibia. Phosphorous grenades were thrown and it was riddled with machine gun fire. One UNTAG guard, Michael Hoaseb, was killed in the attack.

The men were apprehended and sent, on December 4th, to Outjo district court to stand trial. En route they escaped, and in the processes killed one of the policemen escorting them, Constable Van Wyck (who was shot in the stomach by Veenendaal). The men escaped to South Africa and, in 1997, before the South African government could deport them to stand trial in Namibia had fled to Britain. The Namibian government, with the assistance of [[Interpol]], are still trying to have the two men, who are in Britain, extradited to stand trial.

''Goedgevonden Farm''. On May 11th 1991 some 2000 White farmers clashed with a contingent of the South African Police at a state-owned farm, named Goedgevonden, situated some 11 miles from Ventersdorp. The farm was nestled between a number of privately owned White farms, in 1991 (as part of the government's reform program for Apartheid) the Land Acts were repealed. The Land Acts had previously given Whites exclusive rights to buy land in farming areas.

Due to the repeal a number of Blacks moved onto Goedgevonden farm. In the months following this White farmers nearby began to experience stock thefts{fact}, they asked the government to help, but the government didn't respond.

The AWB threatened, in late April 1991, that unless the government evicted the Blacks the AWB would do it. The government said the Blacks would be protected against the AWB. On the evening of May 10th some 2000 White farmers went to Goedgevonden to remove the Blacks. The police had established cordons around the perimeter of the camp. Even so, at 1.45 am on May 11th 1991 some 25 AWB men, on horseback, charged into the camp and began tearing down the makeshift houses.

Commercial vehicles were then used by the White farmers to punch a hole through the police cordon. At 3.30 am the farmers poured into the camp and destroyed what was left of it after the attack at 1.45 am. They were then routed by the police. At this point the police unexpectedly opened fire on the White farmers, injuring 4 (two of them sustained serious injuries){fact}.

''Ventersdorp''. Terre'Blanche and 2000 AWB supporters led a march on a National Party meeting being addresed by President DeK lerk on August 9 1991 in Ventersdorp. In an ensuing gunfight 7 policemen were shot, 43 AWB supporters wounded (3 killed) and 15 innocent bystanders injured.

Terre'Blanche and 6 other AWB members were arrested and fined for commiting public violence. One AWB supporter was forensically linked to a bullet fired at the police and was jailed for 5 years. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission later granted Eugene Terre'Blanche and then AWB Deputy Leader Piet Rudolph amnesty for their actions at Ventersdorp.

''Bophuthatswana''. In 1994 the AWB were the heavily criticized in the international media hate campaign after they propped up the regime of [[Apartheid|Bantustan]] leader Lucas Mangope. It was alleged that the 750 AWB paramilitary members who went into Bophuthatswana shot and killed 5 or more innocent Black civilians.{fact}

==1990-1994==
AWB membership plummeted following De Klerk’s announcement that Apartheid would end, falling continuously until 1994 when it constituted only a few hundred members. However splinter groups of the AWB, namely the Orde Boerevolk (Order of the Boer Nation), were involved in the execution of large scale bombing campaigns against left-wing targets (with Black trade union offices and National Party offices being favourite targets).

In 1991 De Klerk, against the advice of senior policemen, held a meeting in the right-wing stronghold of Ventersdorp (where the AWB had its headquarters from 1989 onwards). In the ensuing chaos, as AWB members attempted to hand a petition to DeKlerk, 3 AWB members were killed and some 43 injured as the police and AWB exchanged gunfire.

In the days leading up to the democratic South African elections of 1994, dozens of explosions rocked numerous locations across South Africa (including Jan Smuts airport in Johannesburg). A total of 21 people were killed and 176 injured in the AWB’s pre-election bombing campaign.

==Assasination of Chris Hani==
On April 10, 1993 Christopher Hani, leader of the South African Communist Party and [[Umkhonto We Sizwe]] leader (Umkhonto We Sizwe was the ANC's armed wing) was gunned down in the driveway of his Boksburg, Transvaal, home. The gunman was [[Polish]] anti-communist zealot and AWB member Janusz Walus. Walus had been provided with a list of names and addresses of leading liberals (including Hani, [[Nelson Mandela|Mandela]] and President FW De Klerk) and was preparing to kill them.

Walus pulled up outside Hani's home and called his name, Hani turned around, Waluz shot him once before walking to his body and shooting him again. Hani's neighbour, Retha Harmse, noted down what she thought was the killer's license plate (it was wrong by one character). Police on patrol in Boksburg city centre noticed Walus's car fitted the description, they pulled him over and found a pistol and silencer in the vehicle.

Initially Walus denied that he was the killer and said he didn't know how the pistol or silencer came to be in his possession. He made a confidential confession to a policeman he assumed was sympathetic, but the officer told the investigating officer that Walus had confessed.

Waluz implicated one man, Clive Derby-Lewis, a Conservative Party councillor. Derby-Lewis had arranged for the silencer to be fitted to a gun and then given it to Waluz, as well as obtaining Hani's address. Derby-Lewis' wife gave him Hani's address, she had obtained it from Arthur Kemp [http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_Politics&set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=vn20080410054544212C223121](who authored a book on the AWB) who was at that time a journalist for The Citizen newspaper. However Kemp was a former Sergeant in the Security Branch of the police and allegedly used this priveledge to obtain the list of addresses.

Waluz and Derby-Lewis were jailed for life (they may be paroled in 2010), while Arthur Kemp denied knowledge of helping to organise the murder, claiming that he had given the list of addresses to Clive Derby-Lewis' wife without knowledge of why she wanted them. The murder of Hani, arguably the second most popular Black South African politician, sparked mass riots.

==In the New South Africa==

Until recently the AWB had largely collapsed following the advent of democratic rule in South Africa, with a dwindling membership and with 30 AWB members jailed for organising and executing the pre-election bombing campaign. In 1997 AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche was tried for allegedly assaulting a gas station attendant in 1996 and for allegedly pistol whipping a disobedient employee of his farm. The AWB has dismissed the allegations as part of a left-wing conspiracy against the AWB. However in 2000 Eugene Terre’Blanche was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for one count of assault and one count of attempted murder. Terre’Blanche was paroled on June 11th 2004.

However in light of what they claim is genocide of White farmers in South Africa [http://www.stopboergenocide.com] the AWB has re-activated and is now holding meetings the across South Africa (with two meetings attracting 500 visitors).[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/2059457/South-Africa-AWB-leader-Terre'Blanche-rallys-Boers-again.html]

==Volkstaat Concept==
Initially the AWB regarded the entirety of South Africa (except for the Bantustans which were designated Black countries) as belonging to "the White man". However as it became apparent that some concessions would need to be made to appease the international community and non-Whites in South Africa, the AWB favoured a 'Volkstaat' (People's State) solution.

The AWB proposed that the lands occupied by the Boer people, which were the Transvaal, Orange Free State and Northern Natal, be made into a Volkstaat, with an AWB government. The AWB agreed to concede the Cape province to the 4 million or so Cape Coloureds (descendants of slaves imported into South Africa by Dutch settlers). The AWB later reduced its "proposal" to an AWB state consisting only of the Transvaal and Orange Free State.

However the plan was flawed on several levels. Firstly the National Party government refused to hold a referendum on the issue of a Volkstaat; more importantly, there were some 18 million Blacks in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. The AWB did not intend to consult the Black people living in the Orange Free State or Transvaal.

==Boer claims to Transvaal and Orange Free State==
The AWB claims to represent the "Boer nation", and also claims that the Boers have historical rights to the Transvaal and Orange Free State. The basis for this claim is the Sand River Convention (1852), in which Queen Victoria of Britain acquiesced to Boer demands and agreed that they should be allowed to rule the Transvaal as a republic. Queen Victoria also agreed to allow the Boers run the Orange Free State under the terms of the Orange River Convention (also known as the Bloemfontein Convention), signed in 1854.

==Flag controversy==
The AWB’s flag is a Triple Sevens with a red and white background, the 3 sevens represent the 777 of God (in direct conflict with the 666 of Satan), the white represents the supposed purity of the AWB’s ideals and the red represents the blood of Jesus Christ.
Some journalists have described the AWB as “neo-nazi”, although the AWB claims to no longer be anti-semitic (as of the revised Program of Principles, released in 1988). The AWB has only three requirements for membership (as laid out in its first Program of Principles), that members must be White, Christian and proficient in [[Afrikaans]]. The early AWB flag was simply a four pointed star (opposing the five pointed star of Zionism and the five pointed star of communism, both of whom the AWB were decided enemies).

== Sources ==

*Victory or Violence:Story of the AWB of South Africa by Arthur Kemp (2nd edition. March 2008)
*[http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/990615259p1001.htm]-Amnesty application (1998)
*[http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/media/1996/9611/s961119g.htm]
*[http://www.namibian.com.na/Netstories/2000/June/News/00892E6FC4.html]
*[http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=Leonard_Veenendaal]

Gerry Kelly

2008-06-06T04:30:30Z

Murray: New page: '''Gerard Kelly''' (Irish Geaóid Ó Ceallaigh) (born April 5, 1953) is an Irish politician and a member of the Northern Ireland legislative assembly, and forme...

'''Gerard Kelly''' (Irish Geaóid Ó Ceallaigh) (born April 5, 1953) is an [[Ireland|Irish]] politician and a member of the [[Northern Ireland]] legislative assembly, and former member of the [[Irish Republican Army]].

== IRA activity ==
Kelly was born in [[Belfast]], in the [[Northern Irish nationalist|nationalist]] Lower Falls neighborhood. In the late 1960s, he became active in the [[Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement|civil rights movement]], but he became disillusioned with peaceful methods of resolving issues in Northern Ireland, and by 1972 had joined the IRA.

In 1973, a referendum was held in Northern Ireland to assess whether its citizens wished to remain part of the [[United Kingdom]]; the referendum was largely boycotted by the nationalist community. In response to the referendum, the IRA sent the 19-year-old Kelly and eight others to set off four car bombs in London. While two of the bombs were defused, one at the [[Old Bailey]] and another at [[Scotland Yard]] exploded, killing one person and injuring nearly 200. Kelly was convicted of causing explosions and conspiracy to cause explosions and given two life sentences plus 20 years<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/14/newsid_4724000/4724181.stm BBC story]</ref>.

In prison, Kelly and his partners were treated as ordinary criminals, and went on hunger strike seeking recognition as political prisoners and to be transferred to a prison in Northern Ireland. The prison authorities chose to force feed hunger strikers at this time; Kelly was force fed 170 times during a 205 day hunger strike. In 1975 he was transferred to [[Long Kesh]] prison in Northern Ireland. In September 1983, Kelly and 37 other IRA prisoners broke out of Long Kesh by stealing a food truck. During the escape Kelly shot a prison guard who attempted to stop the prisoners<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/21/northernireland.northernireland The Guardian]</ref>.

After escaping from prison Kelly was involved in IRA activities in [[Europe]]. He was rearrested in [[Amsterdam]] in 1986 and extradited to Northern Ireland, returning to Long Kesh. He was released from prison in 1989.

== Sinn Féin ==
After his release Kelly became active in politics as a member of [[Sinn Fein|Sinn Féin]]. Kelly played an important role in the negotiations with the British government that led to the [[Good Friday Agreement]] in 1998. In 1998 he was also elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Kelly is Sinn Féin's spokesperson for policing and justice<ref>[http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=14893 The Irish Echo]</ref>

== References ==
<references />

Catcher

2008-06-05T01:30:54Z

Murray:

[[Image:The 1882 Cincinnati Red Stockings.jpg|left|120px]]
'''Catcher''': In [[baseball]], the defensive player whose position is directly behind home plate.
 
 

== References ==
*[http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/baseball/beginners/glossary.html Baseball Glossary] WETA.
*[http://www.nocryinginbaseball.com/glossary/glossary.html Baseball Glossary OF TERMS]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/pitch_glossary.shtml Pitching Glossary]
*[http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml Batting Glossary]
*[http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/index.jsp Hall of Fame] National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc.
== See also ==
*[[Baseball]]
*[[Major League Baseball]]
== External links ==
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp The Official Site of Major League Baseball]
*[http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/index.jsp Minor League Baseball]
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/article.jsp?article=history BASEBALL HISTORY] Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association.
*[http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/stats.jsp Stats]
{{baseball}}

Talk:Ronald Wilson Reagan

2008-06-03T01:03:11Z

Murray: /* Parody? */ holocaust claims

{{protect|TK}}
== Photo ==

'''If someone is there who has had luck uploading image files here, please replace that unviewable picture with the following, please? Thanks!''' --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:29, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

http://www.nndb.com/people/359/000022293/reagan.jpg

:Done. I can't upload it though, as the page is protected. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]] [[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 05:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

----

I'm a little confused. I see why many of Undelia's edits were removed, but why the part about Reagan opposing government aid to the poor? Isn't that a component of opposing big government, trying to cut welfare programs that would benefit the poor? I don't think that all of Undelia's edits should have been removed wholesale, since some of what was added seems factually accurate.

== Why do you dislike my references? ==

Why were my edits unceremoniously and completely undone? Most of the edits were adding book citations so that claims were supported by some sort of sources. Does Conservapedia dislike facts and evidence? Or does it just dislike citations to viewpoints that don't harmonize with its own narrow agenda?

The question of whom to credit for the end of communism is a major one for historians and scholars. And there are a lot of scholars (I would say it's an accurate characterization to say most scholars) who disagree with those who credit Ronald Reagan for the end of the Cold War. I would've thought Conservapedia of all places would've appreciated trying to teach the controversy in a fairly even-handed way. Providing references to the "other side" in this debate doesn't strike me as contrary to Conservapedia's purportedly educational mission.

Obviously Conservapedia has its own conservative bias, which it is proud to wear on its sleeve. However, where I'm "biased" is that I'm not satisfied with assertions lacking grounding in sources. But it seems like Conservapedia is undermining its own objective of being "educational" by eschewing sound scholarly practices of documentation, references and -- gasp! -- presenting multiple sides of an issue, all so it can engage in unsubstantiated opinion. Wikipedia, for all its faults, likely would not arbitrarily remove several references and citations. One of their major flags, after all, is for articles with unsourced statements. Such articles appear endemic to Conservapedia, which one could attribute simply to it being so new and experiencing rapid growth, but given the way this particular entry has been butchered by administrators, it looks like unsourced statements might simply be official policy.

You do a great disservice to potential users by not only tolerating but encouraging such slipshod methods of scholarship. More than anything else, this will cause large numbers of people to reject the information in Conservapedia ''prima facie,'' and will lead more people to trust Wikipedia because it at least appears to uphold more rigorous standards. While I haven't prevented students explicitly from using Wikipedia (though I've strongly discouraged its use and urged them to consider its problems as a source), you have me leaning toward banning the use of Conservapedia outright, because the standards appear so low as to not even warrant further discussion.

Also, in simply removing my edits wholesale, I should point out that you removed several minor changes that had no business being expunged. For instance, adding "was born" in the sentence about how "Reagan was born and raised in Illinois ..." Also, I corrected the capitalization of "American president," since "president" (like other titles) should only be capitalized when used as an appositive before a proper name (e.g. President Lincoln, but Lincoln was elected president). See a style guide (Strunk and White, Chicago, etc.) for more on that.

: Please sign your comments if you can, using the signature button, so we know with whom we're speaking. Thanks.

: I did revert this entry because it tried to take credit away for Reagan for the fall of communism. I apologize if other edits were also removed in the reversion (rollback), but such is the nature of the Wiki software.

: We welcome well-supported facts here. We don't censor alternative views. But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due. If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given. It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit. He obviously does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)
::So what you're saying is that you don't censor alternative views, as long as they acknowledge that you're right? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:24, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Rekjavik, the Freeze, and the fall of Communism==

:: Well, no. It isn't obvious that Reagan deserves credit. One hypothesis is that Reagans presence in the White House played a significant role in the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. But you would have to test that against a counter hypothesis that the Soviet Union would have ended roughly at the same time and in the same manner if Reagan had not been president. Of course we can't revert history and control for that factor so any argument regarding causation is tenuous at best. However, there is a whole body of research looking at multiple explanations for the end of the Cold War and most of this research looks at mult-causal explanations. Social scientists generally are wary of monocausal explanations and especially monocausal explanations that single out any one individual. It is for this reason that the Reagan hypothesis is largely rejected--it has little to do with Reagan himself, but mostly to do with the complex nature of large-scale political processes. That isn't to say that Reagan and his policies weren't an important variable, it is just not certain whether he holds the most explanatory power.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 03:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well Jack, we have cites to demonstrate Reagans Defense spending in the early 80s virtually spent the Soviet Union out of existence, because they could not keep up. Gorbachav has virtually admitted as much. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have cites that say Reagan's spending extended the length of the Soviet Union's existence, I have cites that say internal social movements in the Eastern Bloc ended the Soviet Union, I have cites that the Peace movement in the United States was what brought about the changes in Reagan's attitude change that led to his willingness to open up negotiation space. However, I wouldn't make the claim that any of these provide the strongest explanatory power. Having cites doesn't confirm or disconfirm anything, it only provides one plausible explanation for an event. Selective citing is just as biased as no citing at all and, in fact, is more academically dishonest.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well, when I say I have cites, I don't mean it in the common Wikipedia sense of WP:V that any lie anybody told somewhere so long as it got in print is a valid citation. Not at all. I'm refering to a credible witness who has been properly vetted to stand up against cross examination. And I wouldn't make the reference if it were not so. Junk science, for example, does not qualify as a cite. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Neither do passing observations. And people who are directly involved in an event will sometimes hold the most biased explanation for how that event happened. (By the way how does someone virtually admit as much?) Especially when you are talking about huge sociopolitical changes. Behavior is complicated, especially political behavior and, like I said before, monocausal explanations are generally weak.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 00:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::That Soviet Communism was pathologically ill and doomed to an end sooner or later there's no question; indeeed, Ronald Reagan may have been the only guy in America who saw that & believed it in 1980. And he certainly hastened it's demise. What's more, many who opposed him, actively sought to prop up the existing status quo. And here the Nuke Freeze Movement suspects we can cite in particular. If they had their way, the Soviet Union would still exist and all the Nuclear weapons would still be '''frozen''', intact. They cannot pretend now that they did not take those positions, or hold those views, then. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: I think you would enjoy reading the book the Reagan Reversal by Betsey Lamb (I think). It is very favorable to Reagan but does a good job breaking through some of the myths about him that are propogated by both the left and the right. BTW, Ronald Reagan wasn't the only one to recognize that in 1980 and his policies after 1983 were in many ways more in line with the Freeze movement than it was with the Arms hawks.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 12:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: On that question, the Reykjavik summit is key; while widely reported as a failure, it really was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union, and the begining of the cooperative agreements that came later. Gorby basically was begging for an opportunity for Soviet institutions to survive through perestroika, and when he walked out, he knew it was the end of the Soviet Union. The Jackson Hole signing between Baker & Shevardnadze was the death warrant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*I will find you the sourcing, Rob...but Reykjavik was a calculated gamble, quite deliberate on Reagan's part. Besides, he said when home, he had a terrible sinus and was testy. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Gorby came to Reykjavik holding absolutely no cards. Unlike Khurschev's bravado, all Gorby could do was plead for time to let Perestroika work, cause everyone knew if 100% of the Soviet economy had been shifted to defense spending, it ''still'' could not compete with Reagans defense build-up and next genreation Stars Wars etc. When Gorby walked out, he knew it was the end of the Soviet Union. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Where's your evidence? ==

An interesting approach to documentation and sourcing. You accept a hypothesis (in this case that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War), then refuse to tolerate any alternative explanations, no matter how well grounded. You claim that such "liberal" views require substantiation, and yet, when substantiation for them is offered, you excise the substantiation altogether. I'll note that no documentation whatsoever is offered in support of the hypothesis that Reagan brought the end of communism in Eastern Europe.

I should add that "liberal" is a very misleading and damning characterization of these views, since the thesis that Reagan wasn't responsible for the fall of communism derives more from any number of factors in which Reagan had no bearing whatsoever. The references provided and then unceremoniously removed without explanation explain these in more detail.
For instance, Jan Kubik's work on the emergence of civil society and Solidarity in Poland shows how important the Catholic Church and especially the election of a Polish pope, John Paul II, helped to galvanize opposition in Poland. The pope's first visit to Poland in June 1979 provided a major source of inspiration and rehearsal for the opposition and the blossoming of civil society. The fruits of that emerged in the summer of 1980, when a wave of strikes gave birth to Solidarity, the independent trade union that played a major role in undermining Communist authority in Poland, and also in fostering opposition in other parts of Eastern Europe. You'll note that John Paul II became pope in 1978 and Solidarity emerged in August 1979, both of which occurred long before Reagan became president. Moreover, the work of Solidarity had little support from the United States, or from outside of Poland in general. Much of the limited American support lent to Solidarity (and I place emphasis on the idea that it was limited and had little bearing on Solidarity) actually came from the AFL-CIO, which provided some funding and supplies (things like printing presses). Even though Solidarity was forced underground when Poland came under martial law in December 1981, it continued to exist and function as an illegal organization, and civil society continued to develop beyond it. The reemergence of Solidarity in early 1989 came not as the product of external factors, but rather from a recurrence of the persistent economic problems that dogged the Communist regime throughout its existence. The regime reached out to Solidarity. To the extent that pressures from without even played a role, these would've been marginal, and would have emanated mainly from the Kremlin. But, in truth, even that was negligible, since Moscow did little more than to tell the Polish regime that it was on its own.

Similarly, works by Timothy Garton Ash, Gale Stokes and Vladimir Tismaneanu point to the systemic weaknesses of communism within Poland. Some of the important factors they cite are economic weaknesses and a growing crisis of legitimacy that prevented Communist regimes from persisting in hardline methods of repression. At the same time, these factors also led to the genesis of opposition movements within Eastern Europe (groups like Solidarity in Poland, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, the Prayers for Peace in East Germany).

The United States and Ronald Reagan don't receive credit in these explanations not due to pervasive "liberal bias," but rather because these factors that are seen as more important (and I should add as someone who has read widely in the scholarship, these are the most commonly cited explanations for the collapse of communism) and the role of the United States or of Ronald Reagan could only have been peripheral at best. It was limited largely to symbolic acts (such as Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall), but even these symbolic acts were directed more at the West and American constituents than at the people living in Communist countries.

I believe this very point was made in one of the edits that an administrator purged.

To give primary credit to Ronald Reagan or the United States for the end of the Cold War would to engage in staggering ignorance of the domestic and systemic factors that undermined Communist regimes, and to marginalize unfairly the many ordinary people and dissidents in Eastern Europe who helped to bring down communism from within. In addition, Reagan in particular deserves little credit for these developments because he was relatively late to the scene. The systemic factors, and in many cases the opposition movements as well, long predated Reagan's presidency, which had little bearing on them.

Now, call me biased, but I think that offers a very well-developed and -substantiated account of other explanations for the end of communism. Nothing in that strikes me as excessively "liberal." Indeed, the only "liberal" thing about it is that it doesn't engage in the same sort of pooh-poohing of Reagan that blindly credits him without offering substantiation.

If someone cares to offer more substantive reasons (citing references for this explanation would be a welcome change) for why Reagan deserves credit, then this entry and discussion can go somewhere.

But simply asserting that Reagan ended communism because you said so, then placing the onus on critics of this position to refute it using evidence, and then suppressing evidence that contradicts the ''a priori'' thesis/assertion: this doesn't exactly give Conservapedia's entry the ring of truth, or much in the way of credibility for that matter.

It would seem, based on the actions taken with respect to edits on this entry, that Conservapedia's "educational" mission would be more accurately described as disseminating conservative propaganda rather than presenting facts and seeking "truth."

You may castigate me for propagating a "liberal" viewpoint, but my true "bias" is that I like some sort of substantiation for sweeping generalizations and disputed claims. I merely attempted to present the alternate explanations that are mostly widely accepted among experts and scholars. You can criticize those groups for "liberal bias," but as I've made clear, there's nothing inherently liberal in these approaches. Moreover, a better response would be to offer your own facts and sources to support your claims, rather than engaging in knee-jerk censorship of someone who deigns to cite references and offer substantiation.

And your request for a signature is laughable. It has echoes of "Big Brother," and given the fascistic censorship witnessed in this article, I'd rather not risk being unceremoniously blocked for not blindly toeing the party line. The truth may not be determined democratically, but the authoritarian methods on display in Conservapedia have proven no more reliable.

-- "Karol Wojtyla"
::: None of us are perfect, probably all of us have overlooked signing our edits or our discussion at some time or another. But it is common procedure and helpful in discussion. Even months later, it is helpful in reading through a discussion to see who is making what points in what sequence. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I made the edits turning "most" into "some" and "other". The reason being is that it is more accurate to say that than to claim "most historians". There is plenty of literature that supports the claim that Reagan's willingness to meet the Soviets expansion-by-proxy and military buildup forced the Soviets into an arms race that they could ill-afford, and that this helped to break an already-faltering Soviet economy. There is also plenty of personal commentary from citizens of the former Soviet client-states who say that Reagan's opposition to the Communists gave them hope.

Your entry wasn't expunged; your points are still there. Personally, I think they '''are''' valid ones and that you simply overstated the level of agreement amongst historians.

I hope this helps you to understand why I made what I considered to be minor edits. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:41, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Agreed, although I'd still like to see some references for the literature that credits Reagan's policies. But I would add that there's substantial agreement, at least among historians who study the Eastern bloc, on the question of whether Reagan's role was that important. Reagan appears very little in that literature, so I'm wondering where the sources/references are that give him so much credit. After all, the Second Commandment says sources must always be credited and cited. We can continue to debate those sources on the discussion page, but I think the bigger point is that there's no widely accepted monocausal explanation for the end of communism, so it would be more appropriate to provide sources for the different theses, and to also expound on those interpretations. In other words, rather than simply saying "Reagan ended the Cold War," someone needs to elaborate on the reasoning behind that. Otherwise, it violates the Sixth Commandment (don't give personal opinions in entries).

:I agree with your central contention - there is no monocausal explanation for the fall of Communism. There were several separate forces that converged to break a flawed system. In fairness, though, I think that if you re-read this article you'll see it is more even-handed than you give it credit for. Most every single acclamation given to Reagan is qualified. And, as I pointed out before, your alternate sources were not deleted.

:I would go so far as to say that, for a Conservative site, it is close to the most balanced article on the site. Perhaps you would like to write an article on the Fall of Communism that explores the other causes? --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

My apologies to Dave3172. I wasn't accusing you of censorship. Rather, it was an earlier iteration of this page [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&oldid=22986]], which user Aschlafly rolled back wholesale. In that iteration, there were several references to texts supporting some of the alternative explanations for the fall of communism. While Dave3172 is right to note that the fall of communism would warrant an entry unto itself, what seemed more inappropriate was Aschlafly's decision to expunge many book citations (the earlier version was even more substantiated than the current version), with his stated reason:

"But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due. If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given. It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit. He obviously does."

User Aschlafly refuses to accept that, contrary to his personal opinion, the question of Reagan's credit for the end of communism is, in fact, unresolved. As other users have also tried to indicate, there are a wealth of alternative explanations that don't lend support to the "credit Reagan" thesis. And, at least in scholarly circles, it could be argued that there is substantial agreement that Reagan was not the primary or even a significant factor.

What I think is lacking for this entry, and would be worthy of inclusion on a separate entry for the fall of communism as well, would be some substantiation for the argument that Reagan deserves credit. As the article currently stands, and at least in the various iterations I've seen previously, it hasn't provided any support for this argument, aside from the anecdotal evidence of Reagan's speech in front of the Berlin Wall, the importance of which, I might add, seemed more to bolster Reagan's standing as a Cold Warrior and anticommunist in the West, rather than to make any significant impact on developments on the other side of the Iron Curtain (a point I recall seeing in an earlier, since censored version of this entry).

I'm not the one to provide such documentation. Frankly, in my studies of this question (and it was a subfield for one of my M.A. exams, so I've read in the scholarly literature quite extensively) I'm yet to encounter anyone who has presented a very extensive or, in my opinion, compelling argument for crediting Reagan. I am generally familiar with some of the reasons conservatives have given in support of the "credit Reagan" thesis, which user Dave3172 recounted above. But I have not encountered and cannot think offhand of what sorts of books, articles and other sources might lay out this argument at greater length. I would strongly encourage someone -- anyone -- to present those reasons more lucidly. As a teacher, I want to present my students with as many different interpretations as possible, and with the reasoning behind such arguments, so I can teach them to evaluate claims and sources more effectively. It would only be appropriate to include such material in Conservapedia, and I would think that especially on Conservapedia there would be contributors better able to provide that dimension of the debate.

As it stands, I do agree with user Dave3172 that the Reagan entry is rather even-handed and balanced. And in general I think the two of us are on the same page in terms of what we'd like to see.

But as a matter of course, I think it's always better to have too many references rather than too few. This is especially true for encyclopedias. In my mind, an encyclopedia should serve as a quick reference for basic facts, but also as a mere starting point for finding more extensive treatments of various issues and questions. Even if an editor happens to doubt the credibility of a source, it's better to allow users to know what sources are being used and to enable users to access those sources and make assessments of their credibility for themselves. If only more people learned those skills and the ability to read critically, and with a healthy skepticism, my job as an educator would be infinitely easier.

The real source of my aggravation lies in user Aschlafly's cavalier attitude toward sources and evidence that don't support his personal opinions. And while such attitudes are bound to be endemic on any wiki (whether Wikipedia or Conservapedia), which was part of the stated reason for the launch of Conservapedia, I find it troubling that Aschlafly of all users, as a founder or administrator of Conservapedia (if I understand correctly) is engaging in precisely the same behaviors that Conservapedia's founders deemed so troubling and problematic in Wikipedia. It just strikes me as highly hypocritical for user Aschlafly to be just as guilty of censoring viewpoints with which he disagrees.

-- "KW"

== Evidence that Reagan helped to end the Cold War. ==

I assume this stuff is copyrighted, so I'll just give names and page numbers. These aren't historians, mind you - they're witnesses to history.

Margaret Thatcher on Reagan's impact with ending the Cold War "Statecraft" p. 10-11.
Also included in this passage is testimony from the last Soviet Foreign Minister Alexandr Bessemertnykh.

A quote from Lech Walesa, leader of Solidiarity on the back of Peter Schweinzer's book, "Reagan's War."

I can provide more evidence, if necessary.

By the way, when the Soviet Union imposed martial law on Poland because of Solidarity, Reagan did take crucial action, and the results can not be underestimated. He revoked Poland's most favored nation trading status, which meant Polish goods faced a high tariffs on exports to the US. Most importantly, he banned the sale of oil and gas technologies to the USSR. Both of these actions put tremendous pressure on the Soviets to settle the strike on terms favorable to the Americans.

You got that last part absolutely wrong. The Soviet government didn't impose martial law on Poland. The Polish regime of Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski declared it because the alternative was to watch its own collapse and allow Poland to descend into complete chaos. The Soviets were not a factor -- repeat: not a factor -- in the end to the Solidarity crisis. In fact, we now know based on documents in archives in Warsaw and Moscow that have become available since the fall of communism that the Kremlin was prepared to allow Poland to "go its own way" in 1981. This was not Moscow's preference, for obvious reasons, but after Soviet leaders assessed the likely outcome of a crackdown (a la Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Afghanistan in 1979), they ruled out the military option. Some of the reasoning behind this was that Soviet leaders feared the repercussions of intervention, which they surmised would have brought an end to detente. However, equally important was their conviction that the Poles would fight back, and that the Polish Army could not be trusted to remain loyal to the Communist regime in the event of a Soviet invasion. The decision to crack down on Solidarity was left entirely to the Polish leadership. (For more elaboration on this, see Vojtech Mastny's article "The Soviet Non-Invasion of Poland in 1980-1981 and the End of the Cold War," and Matthew Ouimet's "The Rise and Fall of the Brezhnev Doctrine in Soviet Foreign Policy.")

The irony, of course, was that the West widely believed (rather erroneously, as we now know) that Moscow had been calling the shots in Poland. So, despite the fact that it hadn't ordered the crackdown and resigned itself to the possibility of a non-Communist Poland, the Kremlin still faced the loss of benefits that had come with detente.

I'm also perplexed by your claim that the end of the legal Solidarity movement (and it's much more accurately characterized as an independent trade union and opposition movement than a strike, since hundreds of strikes occurred in this period in Poland) saw the Soviets "settle the strike on terms favorable to the Americans." Martial law was about the last thing the Reagan White House would've wanted. Or perhaps the next-to-last thing, since only a direct Soviet invasion of Poland could have been worse from an American standpoint.

However, even if you point to the end of detente and the economic hardships this brought to the Soviet Union as a major causal factor in the fall of communism, it's still debatable how much credit Reagan deserves for that. Many of the moves in that direction, such as the end of American food relief to the Soviet Union, had been initiated by Jimmy Carter following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and prior to Reagan's presidency. Under Reagan those policies may have been pursued to an even greater degree, though it is likely that, had he won a second term in office, Carter would have followed much the same course (especially if you recall that his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a Pole). Much of the basis for crediting Reagan with the collapse of communism seems to dwell on his outspoken opposition to communism, and to having been in the right place at the right time. Given the array of systemic weaknesses, the developing opposition movements and the long-brewing crises that culminated in East-Central Europe in 1989, and in the Soviet Union over the following two years, it is highly probable that communism would have collapsed roughly when it did regardless of who lived in the White House in the 1980s.

Furthermore, I'd be interested in seeing the verbatim quote from Walesa. A professor said that Walesa gave a talk in Seattle some years ago where one of the audience members asked him if he thought Reagan or Gorbachev deserved the most credit for the collapse of communism. Walesa replied, "No, it was the Holy Father!" by which he meant Pope John Paul II (since Catholics refer to the pontiff as the Holy Father). So from the perspective on someone who obviously "witnessed" (and also shaped) history, you can see what people on the ground thought.

-- "KW"

==McCarthy reference==
Reagan tesitified in 1947 before the HUAC -- even before the Hiss & White episodes; McCarthy didn't produce his list til 1950, and was a Senate Committee. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Flipping through some of the history pages, I see that PraiseTheLard mentioned Reagan's role as head of SAG in blacklisting supposed Hollywood Communists. However, I notice that this was repeatedly removed by other editors.

My question: why? This really happened, and I don't think the facts are in dispute. Thus, shouldn't it be included in an entry on Reagan, especially as it was one of the more notable (or notorious, depending on one's perspective) things he did in the years before he became governor*, and it can be seen as a stepping stone to politics, as well as an early sign of his zealotry as a Cold Warrior.

* Unless, of course, you consider the classic Reagan film "Bedtime for Bonzo" (1951) to meet these criteria. But it's already in the entry under miscellanea.

:Why? Yes, Reagan did testify in 1947 regarding subversive communist influence in SAG; Joe McCarthy started his investigations in 1950 of government employees and contractors doing business with government. Now, unlike Wikipedia, we can't fit a square peg in a round hole. For example, for several months I was in dispute resolution over things like people who died in 1948, 2 years before McCarthy, who nevertheless were victims of McCarthyism. Or all the atomic physicists who ended up on the Hollywood Blacklist. Or McCarthy, who never served in the House, sat on the House Un-America Activities Committee. Now these are quite simply facts any child has access to, nonetheless, it is the policy of Wikipedia not to allow some of this information into the sum total of human knowledge. So unless you can somehow prove that 1947 = 1950, Ronald Reagan in no way shape or form can be said to have any conection with "McCarthyism". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

* If you read my comment on the removal more carefully, you'd notice that I never mentioned McCarthy or McCarthyism (I had nothing to do with the edits that included and removed that information, which is why I was questioning the actions of those involved). What I was trying to call attention to (and clearly failed to do so) was why information on Reagan's anticommunist activities, such as his role in blacklisting people in Hollywood for alleged Communist sympathies, was removed. What I suggested ought to have happened was that the incorrect information linking Reagan to McCarthyism could have been removed, but the other information outlining his anticommunist activities in conjunction with SAG and the Hollywood Blacklist should have been retained. Something about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. -- "KW"

:KW, Thanks for the clarification. There is much confusion regarding the so-called Hollywood blacklist. What you find is (A) deliberate efforts to cite HUAC as the source of the blacklist (B) deliberate efforts and distortions to cite McCarthy as serving on HUAC at the time.

:The simple fact of the matter is (A) the "blacklisted" actors and writers were blacklisted by the MPAA (the same group that issues movie ratings and the Oscars); (B) the US government '''did not''' blacklist the Hollywood actors; (C) McCarthy's Committee, which had nothing to do with the blacklist in the first place, would not possess legal authority to investigate anyway. McCarthy's Committee only had legal jurisdiction to investigate the US Government or government contractors.

:Now, it is argued that some Hollywood films had business relationships with the US Government in the making of films in WWII. Yes, this is true. To that extent, if there were a pretext to investigate Hollywood studios, screenwriters, and actors who were acting as government contractors, why ''didn't'' McCarthy investigate them.

:Needless to say, unravelling the a half century of deliberate distortions and deceptions is messy indeed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:''P.S. Reagans credentials as an anti-Communist aren't really something we need to speculate about; attempts to "link" Reagan to some of the unpleasant aspects of "McCarthyism" is something we need to be concerned about.''

*'''Something our younger members might want to keep in mind, it is totally ''revisionist thinking'' to view the House Un-American Activities Committee, its investigations and Congressman McCarthy as evil. I think the genocide of the Soviet Communist Party, and its leaders are very well documented. So are the hundreds of spies sent to the U.S. It is a proven fact that many true-believers, as opposed to those who were easily mislead or naive, did actively get jobs in the film industry. What you know today as "transparency" didn't exist in the 50's and 60's. Nuclear bombs were new to us, the leader of the Soviet Union announced on TV that they would "bury" us. These are things you need to take into consideration when examining the period.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 19:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Can we limit the speculation and the removal of facts/sources to include unsubstantiated opinion? ==

Someone earlier today inserted a line at the end of the survey of various interpretations of the end of communism to the effect of "Nevertheless, Reagan was the personal driving force behind the fall of communism." Given the multitude of other interpretations presented in this article and elsewhere on the talk page, it seemed inappropriate to add that line as a way of denying the existence of controversy in this debate and asserting a personal opinion as manifest fact. As it stands, and as I reverted it, the article never claimed that any single interpretation was "right." Instead, the main idea (and what I would hope would be more important for an encyclopedia) is that the issue is not clear cut, and to present the basic contours of the debate.

Similarly, I noticed that a user changed the section on the presidential legacy regarding SDI/Star Wars, removing the information about how the principle of atmospheric-based missile defense (the foundation of SDI) has never been tested successfully. Moreover, the same user changed the line that said (and I paraphrase from memory), "Even though many conservatives claim SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, most analysts of Soviet policy note that such considerations were of minor concern and that internal considerations played the paramount role in Soviet policymaking." In its place, the new line (again, I paraphrase) said simply that "SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage against the Soviet Union." Any notion that the existence of leverage is disputed was summarily excised.

While I understand that many (most?) of the users of Conservapedia likely believe Reagan to have been the driving force behind the end of the Cold War, and to have though that SDI brought the Soviet Union to its knees and spurred the collapse of communism, I underline that these are only individual opinions. They may be based on certain sources, but they remain interpretations and not cut-and-dry facts. At the very least, there should be documentation and evidence to support these sorts of assertions. But I also think that, given the level of contention over these questions in academic and political debates, a better approach for Conservapedia, or any encyclopedia for that matter, is to present the controversy and the various sides, rather than unilaterally presenting one perspective as absolute fact.

It's my understanding that this was a major motivation for creating Conservapedia as an alternative to Wikipedia, to include viewpoints that were being summarily removed on Wikipedia. I'm all for presenting alternative viewpoints, but I think what's essential to give Conservapedia any broad credibility is to not provide '''only''' the viewpoints lacking on Wikipedia, but to present all the viewpoints. If you only want to present certain viewpoints, well, it is called Conservapedia, but you should probably stop claiming to be encyclopedic in nature.

'''**Reagan, while President of SAG, opposed Communist infilteration of the guilds in Hollywood, however he was also instrumental in fighting for actors who were painted by McCarthy's broad brush, and got their names removed. He did just that in helping a young actress, Nancy Davis, who he eventually married.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Good observations. With reference to,
::''"Even though many conservatives claim SDI gave the U.S. considerable leverage vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, most analysts of Soviet policy note that such considerations were of minor concern and that internal considerations played the paramount role in Soviet policymaking."''
:the subtle thing said here is trying to separate "conservatives" from "most analysts", i.e. moderate or manistream. Facts are so-called "conservative analysts" are very mainstream given the subject under discussion. The so-called "moderate analysts", or others this referes to, are journalists and opinion makers, not defense policy analysts. This sort of subtlety needs to be watched for. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: But I think you're falsely interpreting a statement that says "many conservatives" to exclude conservatives from or the "mainstream." Perhaps the issue was in the paraphrase I believe the exact language said something to the effect of "many political scientists and historians," or "scholars," or something a bit more specific. But when I said "analysts," I meant this merely as a shorthand for a variety of groups, which included many relevant scholars, and did not mean it in the narrow sense of defense policy analysts. I certainly don't think defense analysts had a monopoly on wisdom or insight regarding Soviet policymaking. We know from documents and materials available after the fact that as much as analysts and observers got right, they also got many things wrong. And this assessment applies equally to academics, scholars, journalists, politicians and opinion makers as it does to defense experts, policy analysts, etc. Likewise, I meant policymaking in a broad sense for the Soviet case, having in mind domestic political and economic policies as much as military and foreign policies. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 01:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In fact, here is the verbatim passage: "While supporters of Reagan claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the Soviet Union, most political scientists and historians note that Star Wars played a fairly minor role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount."

:: I think you'll agree that the language here is much less problematic. And while there are undoubtedly Reagan supporters in the ranks of political scientists and historians, I think it's accurate to suggest that more of them aren't Reagan supporters than are.

::Anyway, my apologies for having been lazy and not citing the exact passage earlier, which I think was a source of much confusion. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 01:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::''most political scientists and historians note that...."
:::How about, ''many [or some] political scientists and historians are of the opinion that ...'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I am somewhat skeptical of citizens from another country being able to tell fact from fiction, when quoting Soviet citizens, who were or are a part of that government, being as their vested interest is in denigrating any accomplishments by Reagan. Likewise the part about military service, which I removed, was completely inaccurate, in that it failed to mention that he did indeed enlist, was an officer, and contributed to the raising of millions of 1940's Dollars on behalf of the war effort. Likewise his fighting of the black lists, which his own future wife, Nancy Davis was put on. Cannot the Sysops here block this highly inaccurate and troubling information being listed? It troubles me users cannot contact anyone about this, in a easily identified manner. Someone put up these web pages, it belongs to someone. Someone is ultimately responsible, no? If not, perhaps I need to refer all this BS to the likes of Ed Meese or Mike Deever, for rebuttal. --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Reagan actually served ''two'' non-contiguous active military stints, if I recall. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Reagan entered military service in 1942 and served for three years in the U.S. Army, for which he made training films, and he was discharged with the rank of captain. [http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00] --[[User:TK|TK]] 10:47, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Reagan states in his 1965 autobiography [http://www.biblio.com/books/28287897.html] he served in the Cavalry, confirmed here [http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25513&page=51 Ronald Reagan, Cavalry Lt/USAAF Capt, FMPU; personnel officer 9th AF]; Peggy Noonan likeqwise cites it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Explain to me what was "inaccurate" or "troubling" in saying that Reagan, as head of SAG, was involved in naming members of the film industry on the Hollywood Blacklist? He was involved. He answered questions in HUAC hearings and kept the FBI informed about "disloyal" members of his union. These are facts.[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/blacklist.html] I can't assess the veracity of the statement that Reagan also tried to shield actors victimized by McCarthy, which would certainly make Reagan's a complex and difficult-to-read character.

But the main points to make are 1) nothing in the statement that Reagan played at least a contributing role (by testifying before HUAC, informing the FBI, etc.) in the Hollywood Blacklist is factually inaccurate; 2) if Reagan ''did'' try to clear the names of actors caught up by McCarthyism, including Nancy Davis, then it needs to be cited (see the Conservapedia commandment if you're unclear on the reason why); 3) whatever role Reagan may have played in vindicating those unjustly accused by McCarthy, it still doesn't make it any less true to note that earlier he played a part in the anticommunist persecution of individuals who wound up blacklisted in Hollywood.

Also, I find it maddeningly ignorant and offensive to make such a blanket statement as to claim broad skepticism regarding the ability of "citizens from another country being able to tell fact from fiction," whether quoting Soviet citizens, or in any other context. First, I don't know why the whole "immediately distrust foreigners" is even relevant to this discussion, or to the edits on the Reagan article. Second, ignorance, like wisdom, knows no national boundaries. Americans hold a monopoly on neither. You can love this country and think it's the greatest in the world, but that doesn't preclude you from recognizing the intelligence of non-Americans, or the ignorance of many Americans. Rather than making such a blanket condemnation, try to point to specific examples of bias, ignorance or what have you, instead of speaking in such vague generalizations. -- "KW"

::Ok, so by Reagan giving testimony to HUAC, then a separate non-governmental entity, the Motion Picture Association of America blacklists actors, that makes Reagan "involved". Whereas in fact, the actual involvement of the MPAA is suspect, because it appears to be coincidental that the members of MPAA are the ones who refused to extend contracts, not the MPAA itself.
:::''Reagan did try to clear the names of actors caught up by McCarthyism, including Nancy Davis...''
::I beleive you may be misusing the term "McCarthyism here; and can you provide a cite for the specific reference. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

*By the way, HUAC stands for "House Un-American Activities Committee" '''which was an official body of the United States Congress'''. It was Chaired by Congressman Joesph McCarthy, of Wisconson. As for extending contracts, the motion picture studios are the true villians here, in caving into pressure from the Congress. Not excusing Congress's actions but it wasn't the Government refusing the contracts.--[[User:TK|TK]] 15:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:You make my point for me. It is ignorant, in the extreme, to give half-answers as "fact" like about Reagan's testimony before the HUAC, without explaining further, his other actions. To ignore, or leave them out is bias indeed. It proves my point, because most anyone from the Untited States, politically involved, knows the story about how Ronald Reagan met Nancy Davis!! You are using clearly liberal, left of center sourcing material, and passing it off as fact, just because you provided a source. Go to moveon.org, and you can get those types of "facts". You have a very revisionist view, imo, almost of someone too young to remember, prersonally, the period. It was not considered heinous at that time, to oppose Communist infiltration of the entertainment industry, and while most people did not agree with McCarthy's tactics, they did not oppose the goal. --[[User:TK|TK]] 01:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My omission of the story about how Ronald met Nancy was based on ignorance, yes. I didn't know the story behind it, but that doesn't reflect willful or malicious neglect on my part. I couldn't tell you how any president met his wife, which is more a product of my priorities, or "bias," as you term it: I simply don't care much for personal gossip of any sort. There, you know my personal "bias" regarding the matter at hand.

::But, again, if I made an omission, then the correct move on your part is to correct it by '''adding the missing fact, not expunging other facts that don't tell the story you like.''' That's all I requested. I don't profess omniscience, and I'm certainly not an expert on the intricacies of the Reagans' courtship. But since you apparently have knowledge of that and consider it so essential to the story of his involvement with HUAC, then add that to the entry and share your particular wisdom with everyone. Balance is a good thing, and that's what I was trying to urge you to provide. Obviously I want as complete a picture as possible, but I also don't know every side of the story, and I know I don't know.

::And you're right that I don't have personal recollections of the period. However, my age or experience make my contributions no less valid. I don't discount the very real sense of fear and terror that pervaded the era. But while you might consider this a hindrance or claim this forces me into "revisionism," I can respond by saying that your personal experiences and recollections dooms you to your own "bias," in that you evidently feel like you have a stake in the matter, whereas I didn't have anything to gain or lose based on its outcome. Neither approach is necessarily "wrong" or more "objective." It's just a way of noting that no one is immune from bias, and that bias takes a number of forms. This, among many other reasons, is why I place such emphasis on including as many different dimensions as possible. Clearly you have a perspective that I don't, but your perspective might cause you to focus on certain things to the exclusion of other factors that seem noteworthy to me. Why not use our different perspectives to mutual advantage? -- "KW"

:::I think you confuse this place for Wikipedia. This is the Conservative version. Therefore like values are tensed more than those which oppose, otherwise what is this place for? I also think you mistake personal things for purely historical ones. I am not making you, personally less valid, however this place is the place for debating your personal ideas, and the failure to go the extra mile and inform the people who will use this as a resource, of the whole story, not a fragment of it. You are using, in my opinion, the same tired liberal sources those of us in the States have grown to mistrust. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Evidently I confused this place for an encyclopedia interested in facts. I see you arbitrarily removed the information about how Honecker could and did ignore Gorbachev's entreaties for reform. The fact that several Soviet troops were stationed in East Berlin was quite ancillary to the issue at question, namely the status of the Berlin Wall. Were, as you (or whoever added the line about the Soviet troops) suggested, Gorbachev to have exercised military pressure on Honecker to reform, he would've ceased to be a reformer. You can't force through those sorts of liberalizing measures through violent and oppressive measures. The French Revolution attempted that, and in ended in the Reign of Terror and, later, with military rule under Napoleon. Your decision to willy-nilly ignore the realities of internal dynamics, both within the Eastern bloc and within individual countries of the bloc, makes your own ''opinion'' regarding the importance of Gorbachev (and what he potentially could have done) to the fall of the Berlin Wall exceedingly groundless and unsubstantiated. Even though the first incarnation of the Berlin Wall was erected in 1961 with Soviet assistance, this was what the East German government at the time wanted as well, in order to triage the massive population loss and brain drain of East Germans who went to West Berlin and from there to the West. Those desires held true into 1989, and it was only when popular pressures began to mount within East German for opening the borders that things began to change. Moreover, the fall of the Wall itself was not the product of deliberate policy on anyone's part; on November 9, 1989, the party head in Berlin read (or perhaps misread, as scholars have debated) an announcement on television in somewhat unclear language (if you see a clip of the broadcast, you can even see him looking a bit surprised and what he thought he was reading) to the effect that the border would be opened for private trips abroad, which the East Germans watching on television interpreted to mean the complete opening of the border, prompting thousands to storm the checkpoints and begin tearing down the Wall. In the end, not Gorbachev nor Honecker nor Reagan, for that matter, played a key role in tearing down the Wall. Credit a bureaucrat's vague words and the initiative of the thousands of East Germans who made it so.

::::And I don't know why you keep making thinly veiled illusions suggesting that I'm some sort of foreigner. You keep using that canard to try to discredit me, but it only reflects poorly on you because 1) I'm an American, born and raised, and 2) your implication that anyone who bothers to learn about the other side of an issue (or in this case to pay attention to what was actually happening on the other side of the Iron Curtain rather than accepting a bunch of poorly supported opinions as the gospel truth) must not be American suggests that anyone who's American is also ignorant with respect to the rest of the world. -- "KW"
:::::KW, these are all good points you make above and well researched. However you may be argueing the substance on the page. Let's find somewhere to put all that research in. How about [[German Democratic Republic|East Germany]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Done. It's a fragmentary entry, by necessity, but at least there's the beginnings of an entry. -- "KW"

== Citations from Wikipedia.... ==

Since the Conservapedia is billed as an alternative to Wikipedia, which is deemed by the Founders as culturally, religiously and politically biased, why in God's name are editors using information from that source to substantiate their information/edits here?

Many of us start from the premise Wikipedia is a suspect source. Please find alternative source information, otherwise there isn't really a point to this "alternative" is there?

*'''You're right. Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source or authority. Please edit the offending pages and alert the contributors. The mistakes could have been innocent, of course.--Aschlafly 19:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)'''

== Edits ==

I think the reorder is somewhat cumbersome, and not putting most of the information at the top, perhaps? --[[User:TK|TK]] 23:41, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Check out this link: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Iran/Contra==
For this edit,
:''although the U.S. government under Reagan gave direct support to Iraq during the war. President Ronald Reagan stated that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."''
we need (a) a date; (b) source. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
----
A report by a presidential commission, released in February 1987, depicted Reagan as uninformed, and concluded that his relaxed "personal management style" had prevented him from controlling his subordinates. House and Senate committees, conducting joint hearings, heard testimony that Reagan did not know of the diversion of funds. Most committee members signed a majority report in November 1987 asserting that although Reagan's role in the affair could not be determined precisely, he had clearly failed to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Poindexter, North, and others were indicted in the affair in 1988. [http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0329270-00] --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

----
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East. One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.

On April 5, 1984, Ronald Reagan issued another presidential directive (NSDD 139), emphasizing the U.S. objective of ensuring access to military facilities in the Gulf region, and instructing the director of central intelligence and the secretary of defense to upgrade U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities. It codified U.S. determination to develop plans "to avert an Iraqi collapse." Reagan's directive said that U.S. policy required "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical warfare (without naming Iraq), while including the caveat that the U.S. should "place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives." [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/] --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you. Good research. Now as to specifics, your language "''depicted Reagan as uninformed''" is stated perhaps more precisely as "Members of the National Securirty Council staff, along with CIA Director William Casey, persuaded Reagan...".

*: '''Rob, "uninformed" in government parlance, is not what you think. It means the subordinates did not inform him. Those are raw quotes, which would need re-phrasing. I sent you an email, did you get it? There are lot of things most sane people wouldn't feel comfortable posting about themselves on public pages.''' --[[User:TK|Terry]] 23:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::Got it. Yes a private discussion can help facilitate where we wish to go with this and save time. I responded, did you get it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*'''No, Rob..I haven't reveived anything from you. Did you send it via email through this board? I'll email you, with my IM info.'''

:The two NSDD cited deserves treatment in context, however after Reagan's reelection (and the reestablishment of relations with Iraq) the overture to Iran to sell weapons from Israel was given more focus, as the Tower Commission Report clearly gives detail. Also, feelers were sent prior to the second term regarding contact between Teheran and the hostage takers in Lebenon.

:The language "''dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics''" referes to the use of the Iranian [[Mahatma Ghandi]] and proginator of [[Human Rights]] reforms in Iran, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], use of children to clear minefields.

:A proposal: lets complete a good review of the Iran/Contra affair here, in the Reagan artcle, which then perhaps could be spun off into its separate article with only a summary left behind. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Not from me, Rob! I put up material here, someone takes it, re-compiles it, slaps it back up as their edit, after the same thing was added by me a day or so ago! Is there some commandment about NOT communicating here? You invited participation, yet everyone is running around like chickens with their heads off, never communicating! --[[User:TK|Terry]] 23:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Let me make two observervations: (1) the stuff about it being outed on Nov. 3 1986 (we need to check if that is prior to election day 1986 when the Democrats regained the Senate and were in a position to hold public investigations, or after election day) is well researched, and we can put it in at the point it belongs. (2) The stuff about Iraq is going to need some clarification, because this narrative picks up "after Reagan was re-elected", i.e. after Nov. 84, and his swearing in Jan. 85; NSDD 139, 5 April 1984 is ''prior''. While all this material is extremely (a) valid and (b) relevent, we are writing an historical narrative of events, not doing a hit piece with piecemeal material out of context. So this is what I'd like to discuss, gaining some structure to events.

:::Let me add, as an after thought, all accounts I read all over the web dismiss this all as a "scandal" of a bunch of greedy arms dealers and other assorted low-lifes which either includes Reagan, or Reagan gave his assent to. That POV has been explicitely stated eleswhere. So what we are examining is the motives for Reagan's giving assent to this matter. And beginning with a conclusory premise, that (a) Reagan's just another greedy corrupt Republican (b) this is just more evidence of the currupt aims, motives, and duplicity of Republicans in power and why you can't trust them, will fail. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Iraq==

--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Comment on this inclusion''':''although the U.S. government under Reagan gave direct support to Iraq during the war. President Ronald Reagan stated that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.");''

this may warrant inclusion at some point, and it no way contradicts US policy aims as stated by Henry Kissinger upon the outbreak of the Iran-iraq War in 1981, "All we can do is hope they both loose." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Being old enough to remember this time really good but too old to remember exactly where I heard this: The CIA, in shipments of Iran's weapons, would include "faulty" munitions such as hand grenades that would explode as soon as the handle was released, killing the thrower. Not all, but like 15-20% were "defective". I'll see if I can find a source.
::''primea facia'' this may be faulty; you will recall CIA was not involved in Iran/Contra; and using Israel & private arms dealers is what the matter was all about. Please, do not come here with warrantless, unqualified speculation. Get legitimate source documents first, then bring it to our attention. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
----
*Reagan said, '''''"could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran..."'''''
This is the same problem that confronts President Bush today, i.e. allowing Iran to gain ascendancy over the majority Shia in Iraq, and the region. I'm sorry if this conflicts with journalists and scandalmongers aims to sell newspapers to paint Reagan in bed with the fascist Ba'athists, but this is not a propaganda vehicle, and we are here to write factual biography of Mr. Reagan. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly, RobS. In the secular, political world, sometimes the person you end up in bed with, well...the reason you do is just because there isn't room anywhere else, or you are simply too tired to look elsewhere. ;-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So the point here is, the crazies in Iran gaining hegemony in the Gulf needed to be detered (then, as now); then in Reagan's second term the fear that if a militarized Iraq survived the War intact, it might turn it's attention elsewhere, like Kuwait, which it did.

:::What do we know? Journalists blew the story wide open to sell headlines, and partisan Democrats looking to make a scandal, hastened (1) the Gulf War of 1991; (2) the fact that Iran ''still'' isn't an ally, and remains hostile with nuke capabilities. And if Iran hasn't got a nuke yet, they got the money to buy brainpower or an operational bomb from cash starved North Korea.

:::All this so partisans could create a scandal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed. Welcome to my world. I console myself knowing that sooner or later (usually later) the public gets damned mad, and there is literally political hell to pay. I have been waiting for that now about 7 years. Look at http://newt.org for American Solutions....something is being done, and the ground work being layed. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:The public wouldn't get mad if they stopped eating up all the journalists and the paid purveyors if lies lies. Truth is, news items have a shelf life, and a "sell by" date. Journalists do not care if (1) four years later Saddam indeed invades Kuwait as Iran/Contra tried to head off, or (b) 20 years later Iran still isn't an ally and now is a hostile power seeking nuclear weapons. All these scandalmongers wish to do is build careers, create and sell interesting news items, and the world be damned if consequences down the road surface as a result of thier actions. They're always in the postion to blame others. And as P.T. Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute to buy thier lies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==NSDD 139==
Here are portions of the relevent context of NSDD 139 5 April 1984 extracted for discussion.

*In light of recent developments in the Iran-Iraq War and the threat which an escalation of that conflict or a terrorist campaign could pose for the vital interests of the U.S. and its Allies, measures must be taken now to improve our immediate ability to deter an expansion of the conflict in the Persian Gulf and, if necessary, defend U.S. interests...

*In the recognition of the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism...

*...prepare a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse.

*The Secretary of State will ensure that the policy of the United States Government condemning the use of chemical warfare (CW) munitions in the Iran-Iraq war is unambiguous and consistent, with the 1925 Geneva protocol. Our condemnation of the use of CW munitions by the belligerents should place equal stress on the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing the ruthless and inhumane tactics which have characterized recent offensives. (TS)

Here are extracts from '''Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)''', < http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm >

===Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84===
*The Iranian high command passed from regular military leaders to clergy in mid-1982....

*In July 1982 Iran launched Operation Ramadan... near Basra...the clergy used "human-wave" attacks... Ranging in age from only nine years old and up, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks...

*...by the end of 1983, an estimated 120,000 Iranians and 60,000 Iraqis had been killed. Despite these losses, in 1983 Iran held a distinct advantage in the attempt to wage and eventually to win the war of attrition.

*Beginning in 1984, ...according to Jane's Defence Weekly and other sources, Baghdad used chemical weapons against Iranian troop concentrations...

*In April 1984, Saddam Hussein proposed to meet Khomeini personally in a neutral location to discuss peace negotiations...

*...Iraq launched a new series of attacks on shipping on February 1, 1984.

===The War of Attrition, 1984-87===
*By 1984 it was reported that some 300,000 Iranian soldiers and 250,000 Iraqi troops had been killed, or wounded....

*In early 1984...

*...the Iranian command again resorted to the human-wave tactic. In March 1984, an East European journalist claimed that he "saw tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about twenty to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack."

*Despite Iraqi denials since the war started, in February 1984 the Iraqi command ordered the use of chemical weapons. Within a four-week period between February and March 1984, the Iraqis reportedly killed 40,000 Iranians and lost 9,000 of their own men...

*Ranging in age from only nine years old and up, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks.

*Within a four-week period between February and March 1984, the Iraqis reportedly killed 40,000 Iranians and lost 9,000 of their own men....in February 1984 the Iraqi command ordered the use of chemical weapons....between May 1981 and March 1984, Iran charged Iraq with forty uses of chemical weapons.

If anything is missing from the source documents to add to, or clarify context, please bring it forward. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:*'''Some very valuable additions, Rob!''' --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Reagan & Shamir==
*''Reagan, though he once told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that he had personally liberated concentration camps''
this is total bull, and you should know better. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:06, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Reagan's participation in the liberation of concentration camps is bull, yes.

However, he did claim later in life, telling both Shamir and Simon Wiesenthal that he had personally liberated camps, when in fact he had merely seen film footage.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13736

----

== So much for being different from Wikipedia? ==

I noticed that Conservapedia now has a page explaining how it's different from Wikipedia [http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia]. Reason No. 2, to quote it verbatim, is:

''We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.''

Now, I think this is a commendable policy. One journalist's view should not necessarily be taken as fact. And this holds doubly true in the case of columnists, editorialists and other commentators whose work regularly appears on the Op-Ed pages of newspapers. By definition, these kinds of journalists are presenting opinions, and often selectively use or disregard facts.

So I find it particularly troubling to see how many times this entry violates this policy. The opinions of Peggy Noonan, Cal Thomas, et al, are presented here in the guise of factual statements, used to justify specific opinions on Reagan's legacy, involvement with the Hollywood Blacklist, the end of the Cold War, etc. It just doesn't lend much credibility to the entry or to Conservapedia, particularly in light of the claim that Conservapedia "does not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts."

And, I'd add that presenting the views of Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher or other officials and politicians in a similar manner is just as problematic. While these sorts of individuals may have a unique perspective on events, having been personally and directly involved in ways most journalists and other observers have not, their views are still opinions, and should be presented -- as in the case of the op-ed columnists mentioned above -- as the opinions of interested parties, rather than given as fact.

Certainly, the same can be said of the academics and scholars cited in the entry. However, those viewpoints are clearly presented as individual interpretations (and are not upheld as the simple truth). Moreover, in general I'd feel more comfortable citing an academic book than a newspaper columnist or insider because there's usually a rigorous standard of methodology and research being used that just isn't there for journalists and politicians. If you cite an academic book, you can usually point to the fifty pages of sources and references at the back to show what it's based on. You're lucky if columnists even name their sources (much less the specific place where they found their information), while politicians are wont to simply refer to each other for credibility, which means the foundation for their opinions is often lacking in substance.

Now, I'm sure that pointing out this blatant contradiction of policy won't lead to its rectification for this entry, or for Conservapedia in general. But, I feel compelled for some odd reason to point out why the site will likely want for credibility, and to suggest some ways in which the standards and quality of submissions can become a bit more robust. The site is still young, and it's possible that with a concerted effort Conservapedia can achieve its purported goals. I just won't be holding my breath. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 12:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, whilst everyone is entitled to keep whatever opinions one wants to, it should be pointed out that most of that Journalists "report", these days, are just opinions as well, at best, and outright propaganda at the worst. In the end, what one's peers say about them, and the job you've done, is what counts in history. An automobile mechanic, being praised by other mechanics, is much more valuable to the rest of us, than praise from me. If you are laboring under the delusion that journalists, or academics are somehow "fairer" than other humans, you would be wrong.--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

** That's certainly debatable. The reason historians and scholars tend to view memoirs and other ex post facto recollections with considerable skepticism is that people often rewrite or whitewash their past deeds to portray themselves in the most flattering light possible. Or, often they do so to flatter their friends and allies. There's nothing inherently evil in this; it's human nature. After all, we've all heard a few "fish stories" in our day.

My main point, however, was not that any particular kind of source was inherently better than others. Rather, it was to note that the opinions of columnists presented in the Reagan entry violate the Conservapedia policy cited above. I'd remove the quotes, but I'd get shouted down for "liberal bias" when all I want to see happen is Conservapedia actually abiding by its stated policies. The preceding unsigned comment was made by [[SmithHall]]

*There is only one quote from a columnist, which is, in the US, a different category than Journalist. Peggy Noonan was an Assistant to the President, a member of his administration. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edit ==

Could someone add this article to [[:Category:Actors]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 15:58, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

*That catagory is inappropriate. Should we add "Painters" or "House Painters" to Hitler? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Second thought, it is appropriate. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==[[Iran Hostage Crisis]]==

Should there be some mention of the [[Iran Hostage Crisis]] in the foreign policy section? There isn't even a casual one-sentence dismissal of 444 days of captivity experienced by dozens of Americans. Completely left out. [[User:Reaganomist|Reaganomist]] 16:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*The Iran hostage crisis was on Jimmy Carter's watch, however you are right in saying it needs mention here as well, for the World knows that they turned them loose because they understood what Reagan would do to them if they didn't.--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, they released them moments after news of his election. Heck, if I was a terrorist I'd be terrified of Reagan too. We could use another Reagan. [[User:Reaganomist|Reaganomist]] 19:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Saint Reagan==
I know he's a saint and all, but could we cut down the opening paragraph and make the dek more of a summary than a glowing review? Thanks [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

*Flippin, you have crossed the line several times recently, with sarcastic, intemperate remarks, especially dragging Andy's family into your vendetta. I am sure you have many pairs of socks, so you shouldn't mind when I block you. Please be productive, and find another hobby aside from merely tweeking Conservatives, like producing articles, if you wish to remain here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Fixing Iran-Contra Section ==

At the *very least*, can we please get the name of the Bolan amendment right? That is a brutal blow to any pretense of competency on this issue. Also the argument that it is an impingement upon the power of the executive is highly tendentious; can it be fixed? [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 12:28, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==1976 Election, running against Ford==

There's a section that says that Reagan withdrew his nomination because he could have beaten Ford and didn't want to be the spoiler. I'm sorry, but that's not true. Reagan almost pulled it off, but he came up short when the electoral count was being tallied. If he could have won the Republican nomination in 1976, he would have. No one runs for months of hard campaigning just to withdrew because they would win. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:32, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*I'm sorry, I was there, that is what happened. There isn't an electoral tally at conventions. If he had stayed in, and once the first rounds of votes had been taken, the state delegates are then free from their commitment to vote per the primary. At that point hundreds would have voted with their hearts, which were always with Reagan. Recognizing the problem it would cause in the general election, he put a stop to it. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:43, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well if you were there, then that trumps my knowledge. I was with my parents watching on TV and it didn't come across that way, but I was younger and TV isn't exactly going to report what happens in the trenches anyway, nor would I necessarily have the memory recall of someone dedicated enough to go to the live event. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:05, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*TV is good for some dramatic shows. I own a TIVO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Tip O'Neill==

Reagan did not only forge a friendship with O'Neill to "pass legislation" - O'Neill and Reagan were friends for many years following the end of Reagan and O'Neill's reign as the two most powerful men in the nation (1st and 2nd, respectivally). And neither Tip nor Reagan let their friendship get in the way of politics - or vice versa.

*That is very true. Too bad many today can't manage the same civility. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:41, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

I’m reading Reagan’s autobiography right now and it seemed like he was trying to have a good relationship with Tip O’Neil, but O’Neil was resisting. He told of an instance where he invited O’Neil to the White House and they both had a really good time. Then the next day after O’Neil was attacked him in the press, he called up O’Neil and asked him why he was mad at him after they seemed to form such a good friendship, O’Neil said his and Reagan’s friendship was, “politics before 6:00pm, friendship after 6:00pm.” --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 13:06, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes. President Reagan had "learning curve" in Washington, as all Presidents do. In the end, he considered O'Neil, and O'Neil considered Reagan, among their best friends in politics. They truly had a deep affection for each other, more than would be common for two Irishmen who had reached the pinnacles of their chosen profession. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:26, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

== California ==

The Californian section on Reagan is sorely lacking. I would like to add more information concerning major landmarks in Californian history under Reagan's term as Governor which is not listed so far.

Also his history before California is very brief. - Kazuma

Feel free to make some suggestions here since the page is locked. I totally agree! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:54, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Question ==

How is [[criticism of Ronald Reagan]] '''not''' [[placement bias]]? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

== Parody? ==

"'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' (February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), '''''heroic leader''''' and father of modern political discourse"

I'd remove it, but I'm afraid it may have been left there on purpose. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 19:25, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Holocaust ==
I'm not so oblivious as to try to add it myself, but just out of curiosity...since [[Barack Obama|Obama's]] page now contains the account of his statement that his uncle liberated Auschwitz, shouldn't Reagan's claims (to Yitzak Shamir and Elie Wiesel) to have liberated concentration camps himself be added here? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:03, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-06-02T15:34:34Z

Murray: /* Notice of changes */

This article requires a complete overhaul. Despite the length, it contains numerous untrue statements and opinions masquerading as facts.

- Judge Jones was not an activist judge and he never admitted to such a thing. In his ruling he specifically denied making an activist decision and his so-called admission was simply the straw man arguments and misleading assertions of a disgruntled Casey Luskin.

- The Discovery Institute may claim that Jones "copied verbatim" from the ACLU but that does not make it true. Jones relied heavy upon the ACLU for his findings of fact (which did not comprise a majority of his decision), but this is common throughout many court rulings.

- The reference given to allegedly prove Jones made an activist decision is only one part of a three part series printed in the Montana Law Review. A rebuttal to Luskin's mostly groundless assertions is a part of the series. This was not mentioned at all in the references. It should be mentioned that the Montana Law Review has not taken a stance on the Kitzmiller decision.

This article needs to be seriously revised or deleted. In its current form, it should not be a part of a "trustworthy encyclopedia". --Jimmy 22:47, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==Proposed Change==

The current article is unsatisfactory because it is almost completely devoid of references and presents very little in the way of factual information. I propose the following change. If there is not any objection, I'll press on.

:Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was a challenge brought in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Dover Area School District by a group of eleven parents whose children were subject to the requirement that a statement in support of intelligent design (ID) be read aloud by any science class instructor prior the presentation of any material about the theory of evolution. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref>

:Plaintiffs were a group of parents that brought the case on behave of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school boards revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004. They were represented by American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Pepper Hamilton LLP. Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm </ref>

:Defendants were the Dover Area School Board who presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was placed in effect. The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas More Law Center on a pro bono basis. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref> <ref> http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139 </ref>

:Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and Lemon Tests to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analysis the constitutionality of the ID policy under the Establishment Clause." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref>

:On December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court summarized in stating, "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref>

:Criticism:
:Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, a conservative Republican appointed by President Bush, was accused of judicial activism. <ref> http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp </ref> Despite the accusations that he admitted to making an activist ruling, he actually preempted his critics by stating; "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." <ref> http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp </ref>

:The term cdesign proponentsists was spawned into the American culture due to this case. <ref> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ </ref>''

:Thanks --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

*Reject. It's still an obvious, barely changed copy from Wikipedia, as I already showed on your talk page. Additionally, multiple uses of the National Center for Science Education as a primary source is simply laughable. You might as well use the KKK as a source for articles about how racism is okay. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 02:22, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:Mr. Jinxmchue: Based on my past experience with your editing and opinions, I will simply discount your initial observation and not take your rejection as the final word. Another word on your skills as an editor, you may take this as an observation. Every paragraph has a reference. The primary references for the first six paragraphs are to the PDF transcript of the official ruling of Judge Jones which is posted at the NCSE. If fact, the NSCE has many documents from the trial, all posted unedited and without editorial comment. So you see, the only primary resource I used from the NCSE concerned their research into creationism and this was the You Tube interview that was posted at the end of the article. Even a cursory reading of the article and references will show just about the entire article is written using the December 20, 2005 ruling. All other references were added to list the law firms involved with the trial. Using the KKK as a means to criticize my references is juvenile, but if you insist on using such ad hominem comments, I can't stop you.

:This being said, I feel that this version is not as good as my previous effort. If anyone would like to add constructive editing or suggestions, that would be nice. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:14, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Jimmy, your version above does not even explain clearly, up front, what the disclaimer said. It has mistakes (behave?) and makes an unjustified reference to the judge as a "conservative". I agree with Jinxmchue that your proposal is unacceptable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:::So if I correct the spelling error, get rid of 'conservative', and add the 'disclaimer' then my article can be posted? --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:57, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I would say also find some better, less viciously, viscerally biased sources and, using said sources, write up the article from scratch. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:50, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::I'll keep the 'vicious' and 'viscerally' biased source from the Evolution News link because you seem to like it as it is the only reference in the original. Since my re-write was written up from scratch from the court ruling, do I have your 'approval'? --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 13:32, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I recently compared the NCSE point of view with that of Wikipedia on ID. Its virtually identical. Writers at Wikipedia assume that NCSE is '''correct''', instead of treating them as one party to a dispute.

If you want to describe liberal POV here, be sure to label it properly. Say, for example, that the NCSE supported X because of Y. Now '''that''' would be helpful! (But saying "X is true" and giving NCSE as a reference is not helpful; don't do it any more, or we'll have to drop you from the project. Not just you, Jimmy, but anyone who writes like that.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:52, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why all the concern about the NCSE? Their POV is only used at the end of my article to explain cdesign proponentsists. I didn't even write that little sentence but it is stuck there because my edit was reverted. All I did was provide the reference to the people that discovered the sloppy editing of the ID text book. The other NCSE references are for the PDF file of the court ruling. Is there any reason why this link[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf] is more valid than this one [http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf]? Come on, they both use the exact same PDF file of the court ruling. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 01:33, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:: From a quick glance, I can't see how it's "still an obvious, barely changed copy from Wikipedia". Could Jimxmchue point out which parts of the Wikipedia article it is a copy of?
:: Ignoring that, and apart from other comments above (including the disclaimer, spelling, etc.), I think the rewrite looks good, with one exception that I'll discuss below. I don't have a problem with including NSCE references that are merely transcripts of the court case, but on the other hand, if they are available elsewhere (i.e. a court site) as you indicate, why not link to the originals instead of copies?
:: The exception is the bit about the judge's alleged activism. The current article says that the judge has admitted to activism. The proposed version implies that accusations of activism are wrong, according to the judge himself. Both claims/implications are incorrect, as far as I can see. That is, the judge did ''not'' admit to activism, but the link which supposedly supports that does appear to make a case for him being activist. To clarify, the link supporting the current claim that he admitted to activism actually says that he "made striking admissions that demonstrate the activist nature of the ''Kitzmiller'' ruling". That is, he did not admit to activism, but he did admit to certain things that indicate activism on is part. The rewrite should reflect the claims that he was activist (but without claiming that he admitted as much) and why. His rebuttal of that can be mentioned, but I note that he explains little if anything about ''why'' it's not activism, with merely a simple denial then deflection onto the other parties.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:52, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Philip: Thanks for your comment. I used the NCSE link because they also have what looks like every transcript of the proceedings available on-line. Even if you don't like their politics or science, they are a handy reference for all the Kitzmiller documents. That being said, I don't mind if the other reference is used. In defense of Judge Jones, his denial of his alleged activism was a part of his verdict which came before the Discovery Institutes charge of activism; therefore he didn't address any specific claim leveled against him. I feel that any further discussion of any alleged activism on his part should be reserved for another article that is linked to this one. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:05, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

==Edit==

Philip: The quote box for the disclaimer looks good, thanks. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 15:53, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

==Questions concerning Aschlafly's edit==

Mr. Schlafly: in my opinion your edit has introduced an unreferenced opinion and removed important facts that contributed to the credibility of this article. Every major edit I made to this article was discussed beforehand and I even made every change you required, yet here you are deleting important facts that give a certain measure of comprehension to the Kitzmiller v Dover lawsuit. I'd like to know why the following changes were made.
*Why was the sentence concerning Tammy Kitzmiller and the ten other parents that were a part of the lawsuit removed?

: Everyone knows that the driving force behind this type of lawsuit is the anti-religion organizations. The parents probably did not pay even a dime for the lawsuit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are of course ignoring that the case is called ''Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District''. Who is Kitzmiller? This I think is fundamental to the article. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

*Why was the $2 million sum mentioned prior to the verdict and why was it not mentioned that the payment of fees was reduced to $1 million?

: What makes you think the fees were reduced? The award should be up-front and not hidden.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::Cronological order is important when telling the story so in any sensible prose it should go verdict, award, reduction on appeal. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::: You were informed of this fact before on the Evolution article talk page. Even this anti-ACLU organization says so. [http://www.theacru.org/acru/the_aclus_exploitation_of_the_civil_rights_attorney_fee_act/] I think the award fee should be posted after the judges ruling, this is clearly not hiding information. It's funny that you are the one accusing me hiding information while at the same time removing pertinent facts. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

*Why was mention of the lead law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP, removed?

: It's obscure and meaningless. The names of law firms are not relevant to a summary of a decision. Do you know or care who the law firms were in key decisions?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:: No you removed it because you are trying to make this look like it is all the ACLU doing and not that of the parents and the law firm they hired. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Just as obscure and meaningless as the ACLU and the AU? What about the Thomas Moore Law center? You seem to have a thing for the lawsuits the ACLU is involved in. Your gripes and complaints about them are all over the ACLU article. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

*Why was the legal reasoning the judge employed in his verdict removed? Shouldn't his reasoning involving the establishment clause, Lemon Test, other opinions about creationism, and the opinions of other jurists be included?

: The reasoning used is not as important as the outcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::Yes it is. You are the lawyer you should know this. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::The fact that Judge Jones based his verdict on sound judicial precedent and legal reasoning is not important? In my opinion that sounds like a bizarre statement for lawyer to make. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

*The idea that the parents sued to "censor any mention of intelligent design in public school" is without merit. If I am wrong I'm sure you could provide the reference that is required by the commandments.

: That's what the suit was about, and the outcome was to censor any mention of intelligent design.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::Still uncited opinon. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Your removal of "liberal fluff" was nothing more that the removal of factual information. It has been said the facts have a liberal bias, even if that is so; it shouldn't be a barrier for adding pertinent information. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your "facts" are "liberal fluff" that obscure the result. You seem unclear about the result yourself!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:You might want to give references to support your "facts." And why should we mention the judge's reasoning if we know he is biased? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:36, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::The facts I wrote about were clearly presented in the judge's decision, obviously not 'liberal fluff'. The fact you removed them shows that you are clearly trying to hide something. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:11, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::WilliamH you are either you are a parodist or like Andy imagine everything in the world can be divided into liberal/conservative views. Somethings are testable facts and some important ones have been removed to the detriment of this article. Jimmy wrote a much better article then the one there now. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Do you always accuse people of "imagining" things when they point out that things need to be referenced properly or that one shouldn't report statements by biased sources? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 21:01, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Well for a start the plaintiffs in the case were parents, the current article implies if not states that the plaintiffs were the ACLU and AUSCS. The case was not to censor any mention of ID, but instead to stop a statement in favour of it being read out. A sourced statement from the uscourts.gov site has been removed which explained why the Lemon Test and endorsement test should be applied. Can you tell me which of these are biased or not referenced correctly? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:04, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::WilliamH: You're joking, right? Did you even bother to look at the references I posted? Every fact and opinion I wrote or quoted was supported with a reference. Of course the judge had biases, he based his ruling on ''"…the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and Lemon Tests to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID policy under the Establishment Clause." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools." '' In other words he wrote his decision based on the rule of law and previous precedent. If you actually read his decision you would know this. If there is a good reason to delete this information from the article I am all ears. If you have any other information that the judge was biased for any other reason, please include it in the article, with a valid reference of course. Conservapedia is supposed to be a resource for teachers and students, yet credible information was deleted on the basis of "liberal fluff". --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 21:08, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Judge Jones has made various comments outside the courtrooms that put in question his ability to determine in an unbiased way the outcome of this case, some of those quotes can be read here:
:::::::http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-04.html
:::::::http://www.discovery.org/a/3135 and :::::::http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/dover_in_review_an_analysis_of_1.html
:::::::http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330
:::::::http://tbayly.wordpress.com/2005/12/20/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/
:::::::http://boycott-hollywood.us/blogs/the_vast_right-wing_conspiracy/archive/2005/12/20/intelligent_design.aspx
::::::Now, if you do have references for your other assertions, then good. In my first comment above I simply suggested you linked to the references in question which I was unaware could be find in the body of the article. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 22:20, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I'm not sure what other assertions you are talking about. As far as I know, everything I wrote or quoted was referenced.
:::::::http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-04.html
:::::::Ms. Schlafly appears to be uninformed about why Judge Jones used the term "breathtaking inanity". He said that in reference to the obvious lies told by some of the defendants. The rest of her comments are in the same vein. Read the depositions and the trial transcripts and you will see the obvious differences between the statements taken under oath.

:::::::http://www.discovery.org/a/3135 and :::::::http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/dover_in_review_an_analysis_of_1.html
:::::::These two links are just whining on the part of the Discovery Institute. Many of their statements are in glaring contradiction to the Wedge document and the testimony given by their expert witnesses such as Behe.

:::::::http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330
:::::::The WND article is a joke that shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone that has a rudimentary understanding of how judges write their opinions. It is not un-common for judges to use the findings of fact of the winning party. Does anyone seriously consider that the ACLU is actually complaining about Judge Jones using (plagiarizing) their research? I think they are impressed that the judge would do so.

:::::::http://tbayly.wordpress.com/2005/12/20/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/
:::::::Hmmmmm. I think Judges Jones's preemptive strike against his critics was spot on. He correctly predicted the losing side would vent, and they did.

:::::::http://boycott-hollywood.us/blogs/the_vast_right-wing_conspiracy/archive/2005/12/20/intelligent_design.aspx
:::::::Typical right-wing rant from a person that doesn't like a judicial decision and then decides to label it judicial activism. No need to provide any evidence, just blow a gasket and then think they are providing meaningful commentary. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 22:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Jimmy, in addition to William's comments, you should learn the outcome of the case before you write about it and certainly before you criticize others about it. The fee award was $2 million. I'd guess you picked up the $1 million from Wikipedia's biased entry. It's baseless. You also seem unclear about how the ACLU sought, and obtained, censorship of reference to [[intelligent design]] in the classroom. Is that what you applaud?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Mr. Schlafly: Please cut me some slack, I obviously knew what the outcome was; I quoted the judge's decision. I know the fee award was $2 million, I never contested that fact. I did happen to notice the $1 million dollar number quoted at Wikipedia's factually biased Kitzmiller article. I also noticed the reference they used; do you have a problem with it? [http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139] Did you have a problem with the reference I quoted earlier? [http://www.theacru.org/acru/the_aclus_exploitation_of_the_civil_rights_attorney_fee_act/] What about this one? [http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf] And here. [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/PA/162_intelligent_design_costs_dov_2_24_2006.asp] It took me only 2 minutes to find all of these references. And yes, I do applaud the judge's decision to remove an idea with virtually no scientific support. Heck, even Prof. Behe can't be bothered to do any 'peer-reviewed' research for ID; he had better things to do according to his sworn testimony during the trial. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 23:07, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Responding to a number of points (before edit conflict with latest post(s):
* The parents/defendants should definitely be mentioned, as should the involvement of groups like the ACLU. I have no trouble believing that it was ''initiated'' by one or more parents, but then I wouldn't put it past the ACLU to seek out a parent willing to bring the action with their support. I don't know exactly what the situation was, but clearly both are relevant factors and both should be mentioned.
* Regarding the parents suing to prevent any mention of ID: This is a reasonable conclusion to draw, given that ID was not to be taught, but merely ''mentioned'', and it was this ''mention'' that they objected to. There may, however, be a better way of bringing up this point.
* Regarding the other points mentioned above that Andy deleted, I think they ''should'' be there, but what I think should happen is that the article is restructured a bit so that the more relevant information (i.e. the stuff that both sides agree should be there) goes higher up in the article and the less relevant stuff (e.g. the name of the law firm) goes lower down or in footnotes. I agree that generally things like this should be chronological, but that doesn't prevent having a summary which mentions, say, the verdict before you get into the (chronological) detail of the case.
If nobody else reinstates some of that stuff first, I’ll do it when I get a chance, although I don’t know when that will be.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks Philip. I am prohibited from making any changes to anything that Mr. Schlafly has written because a certain administrator has forbidden me to do so and has threaten to block me if I ever do it again. I only make additions or minor editing, not deletions; this is one of the reasons some of the articles I have edited look a bit bizarre. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 23:38, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:I'll help take up the flag on this one and make some of those changes.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 01:23, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Folks, this is an encyclopedia. That means the essential material goes first where the reader can understand it right away. This is not a book, where story telling from beginning to end may be appreciated.

:: This entry should explain to the reader up-front what this case was about, what drove it, and who won what. It doesn't do that now and the list of plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the case obscures what really happened.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:16, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Notice of changes ==

In furtherance of my comments above, the liberal fluff and errors are going to be removed from this entry this morning. Case summaries do not dwell on the identity of law firms and plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the action. See [[Engel v. Vitale]] and [[Stone v. Graham]] if you still don't believe me. Also, the summary insists on repeating a key error about the award despite my repeated corrections of that. I'll wait a bit if someone else would like to correct this first, but if not then I'll fix it yet again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:34, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:Mr. Schlafly: If you had all these concerns about the article when I first posted it on the talk page, then why didn't you say so? It sure would have made things a lot easier. If I'd known you were going to butcher this article and then add unreferenced and unsupported factoids that comply with your reality, I wouldn't have wasted my time. Maybe I should just spend my time on the NASA article.

:Who says "Case summaries do not dwell on the identity of law firms and plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the action." Is that a rule that you just created? Why reference Conservapedia articles to demonstrate your point? The Engel v Vitale article starts out with a blatant lie, anybody that knows anything about this case knows it did not deal with banning all prayer from public school classrooms. It contains irrelevant opinions and facts that do not contribute to the article and is missing information that should belong. This is also one of the bizarre articles I was talking about. I added the second line of the article that quoted the judge's ruling and it is completely at odds with the opening line. The Stone v Graham article is, quite frankly, completely worthless as a reference. It is unreferenced and contains such a small amount of information that it is rendered almost useless as an encyclopedic entry. I brought this to your attention months ago when you were 'editing' the changes I made to the 'Public Schools' article.

:What exactly is the key error of the award fee? I'd like you to point it out with full factual references please. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:00, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Jimmy, I don't have time to explain the corrections of all your mistakes and take out obviously inappropriate information, like names of law firms and plaintiffs who lacked any financial interest in the case. You seem to be getting biased and/or false information from Wikipedia and importing it here. Please stop that practice.

:: The fee award against the defendants was $2 million. Try harder if you can't figure that out and insist on changing that. Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::The award was $2m, but ultimately my understanding is that ACLU and the other organization agreed to accept $1m "to lessen the burden on the district." Probably both facts should be stated. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:34, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Type of article ==

What type of article is this meant to be?

Andy mentions above that "Case summaries do not dwell on the identity of law firms and plaintiffs who had no financial interest in the action". Well, perhaps not, but then encyclopedias don't usually have "case summaries" either. Now I've got no problem with Conservapedia having case summaries—it's one of our distinctives (along with essays, debates, family-friendliness, etc.). But this particular case was more than a case that was legally significant for lawyers, but an important point in the history of ID. So should this article be merely a "case summary", written from a legal point of view, or more of an encyclopedia article, written from a general public point of view? Or, should there be two separate articles? One being the legalese case summary, and the other being the more general article?

I think at the moment it is trying to be both. A legalese case summary ''would'' mention the actual plaintiffs, and not say much about other parties, such as the ACLU. A more general encyclopedia article would probably emphasise broader aspects, such as the role of the ACLU. The title currently suggests the legalese case summary. So should we try and incorporate both into this article, or make it two separate articles?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

: Philip, this case is a 2-million dollar verdict that completely censored any mention of ID. That needs to come across clearly early in the entry. The money awarded obviously increases the motivation for this ACLU-type case.

: A reader should be able, based on the first 100 or so words, to understand the significance of the outcome of the case. I don't mind fluff later in the entry, but it should not obscure the essence that needs to be on the first page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Eamon de Valera

2008-06-01T19:47:51Z

Murray:

[[Image:Eamon de Valera.jpg|right]]
'''Éamon de Valera''' (New York, October 14, 1882 - Dublin, August 29, 1975) was a politician and mathematician, Prime Minister (Taoiseach) of [[Ireland]] from 1951-1959 and President from 1959-1973. He was an important figure in the [[Easter Rising]], the Irish War for Independence (from the United Kingdom), and the Irish Civil War. De Valera dominated post-independence Irish politics for forty years.

== Early Life ==
De Valera was born in [[New York City]] to an Irish mother, Catherine Coll de Valera, who had immigrated from [[County Limerick]], and Vivion de Valera, a [[Spain|Spanish]] artist. Catherine and Vivion were married in September 1881 in Jersey City, NJ<ref>[http://aoh32.org/2006_09_01_archive.html Ancient Order of Hibernians]</ref>. Vivion died in 1885, and the young Éamon went to live in Ireland with his uncle in Bruree, Limerick. At 16, de Valera enrolled at Blackrock College in [[Dublin]], and won several scholarships and awards. In 1903 he was hired as a mathematics teacher at Rockwell College in [[County Tipperary]]. He later returned to teach at Blackrock College after earing a mathematics degree from the Royal University of Ireland.

== Initial Political Activity ==
As a young man, he became an Irish Language activist, joining the [[Gaelic League]] in 1908, where he met Sinéad Flanagan, whom he married in January 1910. In 1913 de Valera joined the [[Irish Volunteers]], a body formed to ensure the enactment of the [[Home Rule Act]]. He was voted a captain in 1914 and prior to the [[Easter Rising]] was commandant of the 3rd Battalion, Dublin Brigade and a member of the [[Irish Republican Brotherhood]].

== Easter Rising ==
When the Rising began, on April 24, 1916, de Valera's forces occupied Boland's Mill in Dublin. There have been conflicting reports as to his performance during Easter Week; supporters claim he showed excellent leadership skills and tactical ability, while detractors claim that he suffered a nervous breakdown<ref>Coogan, T. P. (1993). ''De Valera: Long Fellow, Long Shadow.'' London: Hutchison.</ref>. Following the rebels' surrender, de Valera was sentenced to death by the British. His sentence was commuted to life in prison largely as a result of his American citizenship and the fact that at the time the British were trying to convince the [[United States]] to join [[World War I]] and feared that his execution would inflame American public opinion. De Valera was released along with the other prisoners in June 1917.

== War of Independence ==
In 1917 de Valera was elected to the [[House of Commons]] for East Clare in a special election to replace [[Willie Redmond]], who was killed in World War I. In May 1918 he was imprisoned again, but was reelected in 1919 as a member of [[Sinn Fein|Sinn Féin]], who won 73 of 105 Irish seats. In January 1919, the Sinn Féin representatives, who had refused to attend the House of Commons, formed an Irish parliament, Dáil Éireann, or Assembly of Ireland. De Valera escaped from jail in February 1919, and in April was elected Príomh Aire, or prime minister, of the Dáil. To raise money, seek official recognition of an Irish Republic, and obtain the support of the American people, de Valera visited the United States from June 1919 to December 1920. Though he raised $5.5 million, he was unable to secure official recognition from the US government.

De Valera returned in January 1921 to an Ireland in the midst of war. However, a truce was declared in July, and de Valera met with [[David Lloyd George]], the British prime minister, on July 14, but a peace agreement could not be reached. Further negotiations took place from October through December 5, but de Valera did not participate, arguing that he was Irish head of state and should not participate unless the British head of state, [[King George V]], was also present. The Irish delegates [[Michael Collins]], [[Arthur Griffith]], and [[Robert Barton]] ultimately negotiated a treaty that proved controversial, as it made Ireland a dominion of the Commonwealth, and agreed that the King would be represented in Dublin by a Governor-General. Additionally, the treaty allowed for the partition of Ireland. De Valera was unhappy with the terms; he claimed that he had not participated in negotiations in order to better maintain control of extremists in Ireland, while others claimed that he knew the likely outcome and avoided participation in order to avoid responsibility. His two primary problems with the treaty were: (1) it required members of the Dáil to swear loyalty to the King; (2) it allowed Britain to retain control over several naval ports, potentially preventing Ireland from having an independent foreign policy. The treaty passed the Dáil 64-57, at which point de Valera and many like-minded TDs resigned.

== Civil War ==
The disagreement over the treaty ultimately escalated into the [[Irish Civil War]] in 1922-3. Although the new government attempted to avoid bloodshed, [[Winston Churchill]] threatened to reoccupy Ireland if they did not take action against anti-treaty forces who were headquartered in the Four Courts building in Dublin. De Valera backed the anti-treaty forces; he held no official position and had little influence, however. The pro-treaty forces of the new government, the [[Irish Free State]], had the support of most of the population, and were unable to fight effectively. On May 30, 1923, they were ordered to "dump arms". De Valera and many other anti-treaty leaders were arrested and interned; de Valera was released in 1924.

== Fianna Fáil ==
After the Civil War ended, de Valera returned to politics. He resigned from Sinn Féin in 1926 and formed a new party, Fianna Fáil (Soldiers of Destiny). The party did well electorally but initially refused to take the oath to the King, beginning a case to challenge the legality of the oath. However, following the assassination of deputy prime minister [[Kevin O'Higgins]] in 1927, the case was dropped, and de Valera and his party took the oath and entered the Dáil.

Fianna Fáil became the dominant party in the Dáil after the 1932 general election, and de Valera was appointed prime minister. He quickly initiated an economic war against the UK that lasted until 1938, substantially damaging the Irish economy. Fianna Fáil won general elections in 1933, 1937, 1938, and 1943. His government generally worked toward dismantling the treaty with Britain. In 1937, de Valera enacted a new Irish constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, which resulted in a number of changes, including: (1) the name of the state was changed from the Irish Free State to Éire; (2) it was claimed that the national territory included Northern Ireland; (3) an elected President of Ireland replaced the British governor-general; (4) the "special position" of the Roman Catholic Church was recognized; (5) divorce was outlawed; (6) Irish was declared the first official language.

== Later Years ==
De Valera and the Dáil nearly unanimously believed that neutrality during [[World War II]] was the best policy, although the government assisted in fighting fires in [[Belfast]] after a [[Luftwaffe]] raid. In 1945, de Valera was the only head of any state to extend condolences following [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler's]] death.

Fianna Fáil was replaced in 1948 by a coalition government, but regained control in 1957. De Valera remained as Taoiseach (prime minister) until 1959, when he was elected President, an office from which he retired in 1973 at age 90. His son, [[Vivion de Valera]], served in the Dáil, as did his granddaughter [[Sile de Valera]]. A grandson, [[Eamon O Cuiv|Éamon Ó Cuív]] is a current TD.

== See also ==

*[[Ulster]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.answers.com/topic/eamon-de-valera Eamon de Valera]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Politics]]

Sean O'Casey

2008-06-01T17:00:29Z

Murray:

'''Seán O'Casey''', or Seán Ó Cathasaigh in Irish (March 30, 1880 to September 18, 1964) was an important [[Ireland|Irish]] playwright.

Born John Casey to a middle class family, he suffered from childhood eye trouble. O'Casey left school at 14 and worked for many years as a manual laborer.<ref>O'Connnor, G. (1988). ''Seán O'Casey: A Life.'' New York: Atheneum.</ref> As a young man he was involved in nationalist and socialist causes, at various times being a member of the [[Gaelic League]], the [[Irish Republican Brotherhood]], and the [[Irish Transport and General Workers Union]]. For part of 1914 he was secretary of the [[Irish Citizen Army]], created by [[Jim Larkin]] to advance the interests of the working class.<ref>''ibid''</ref>

Much of O'Casey's work, particularly his early plays, focuses on nationalist themes. He made his public debut when ''The Shadow of a Gunman'' was performed at [[Dublin|Dublin's]] [[Abbey Theater]] in 1923. This was followed by his two most critically acclaimed plays, ''Juno and the Paycock'' in 1924 and ''The Plough and the Stars'' in 1926, both also put on by the Abbey. The latter was misunderstood by audiences as being anti-nationalist, and generated unrest similar to [[John Millington Synge|Synge's]] ''Playboy of the Western World'' 19 years earlier.

Upset at the rejection of his next play, ''The Silver Tassie'', in 1929 O'Casey broke with the Abbey and moved to [[England]], where he lived until his death. His plays during this time were more explicitly socialist but did not meet with the same critical or box office success as his early works. O'Casey died of a heart attack at the age of 84<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0330.html Obituary in the ''New York Times'']</ref>.

== Works ==
*''The Shadow of a Gunman'', 1923
*''Juno and the Paycock'', 1924
*''The Plough and the Stars'', 1926
*''The Silver Tassie'', 1929
*''The Star Turns Red'', 1940
*''Purple Dust'', 1942
*''Red Roses for Me'', 1943
*''Cock-a-Doodle Dandy'', 1949
*''The Bishop's Bonfire'', 1955
*''The Drums of Father Ned'', 1958

== External Links ==
[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/parade/abj76/PG/pieces/ocasey/sean_ocasey.shtml O'Casey Bibliography] 
[http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/threemon_article_sean_o_casey_irish_drama_portrait_of_the_artist.htm O'Casey Portrait] 
[http://en.internationalism.org/wr/292_1916_rising.html O'Casey and Easter 1916]

== References ==
<references />

William Butler Yeats

2008-06-01T15:44:42Z

Murray:

'''William Butler Yeats''' (June 13, 1865 - January 28, 1939) was an [[Ireland|Irish]] playwright and poet. Winner of the [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Prize for Literature]] in 1923, Yeats was one of the most important contributors to 20th century literature. Yeats also served two terms in the Séanad, the Irish Senate.

Yeats was born in [[Dublin]] but raised primarily in [[County Sligo]] and in [[London]]. His father, John Butler Yeats, was a well-known painter. Though born into the [[Protestant Ascendancy]], W. B. Yeats became an important figure in the [[Celtic Revival]], a movement that championed native Irish culture over English influences. Much of his work draws upon Irish mythology and folklore. His poetry was also influenced by [[Maude Gonne]], with whom he maintained a primarily platonic love affair for many years. Yeats cofounded Dublin's famous [[Abbey Theater]].

== Poems ==
*''The Lake Isle of Innisfree''
*''Easter 1916''
*''Under Ben Bulben''
*''He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven''
*''When You Are Old''

== Plays ==
*''Cathleen ni Houlihan''
*''The Land of Heart's Desire''
*''The Hourglass''
*''On Baile's Strand''

== External Links ==
[http://www.niox.co.uk/education/english/poetry/results.php?poet=yeats Selection of Yeats poems]
 
[http://www.nli.ie/yeats/ Yeats exhibition at the National Library of Ireland]

Sean O'Casey

2008-06-01T15:43:41Z

Murray: New page: '''Seán O'Casey''', or Seán Ó Cathasaigh in Irish (March 30, 1880 to September 18, 1964) was an important Irish playwright. Born John Casey to a middle ...