https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=NSmyth Conservapedia - User contributions [en] 2026-09-30T22:29:50Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:NSmyth&diff=1357579 User:NSmyth 2017-06-30T06:56:37Z <p>NSmyth: Just fixing my profile and getting rid of the unnecessary bits</p> <hr /> <div>A former sysop on Conservapedia(2007), I am a person who refuses to look at anything through the eyes of any political affiliation. I am a Canadian. I am also an avid history buff, with my primary interest being in contemporary international political and military history.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{user Evo}}<br /> {{User bigbang}}<br /> {{User bothered}}<br /> {{User Donuthole}}<br /> {{User noracists}}<br /> {{User patriot questions authority}}<br /> {{User Bible just book}} <br /> {{User pubschool}}<br /> {{User Earth}} <br /> {{User gay rights}} <br /> {{User cows tasty}} <br /> {{User Block|Zero}} <br /> {{User Barnstar?}}</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=New_Democratic_Party&diff=1019308 New Democratic Party 2012-11-18T18:37:40Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>The '''New Democratic Party''' or '''NDP''' is a [[Federal]] political Party in [[Canada]] and the current Official Opposition. Its current leader is Quebec MP Thomas Mulcair. It is noted for being the party of [[Tommy Douglas]]&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.mta.ca/faculty/arts/canadian_studies/english/about/study_guide/roots/ccf2ndp.html NDP Party history]&lt;/ref&gt;, founder of Canada's [[universal healthcare]] system. Said of Douglas &quot;He pursued his radical ideas relentlessly until they became so mainstream rival politicians claimed them as their own&quot;. Douglas also criticized [[liberalism]]. &lt;ref&gt;[http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/parties_leaders/topics/851/ CBC historical archive on Tommy Douglas and the NDP.]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The NDP has traditionally been an opponent to both the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative Party]] and [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] as well as the separatist [[Bloc Quebecois]]. From their recent success in the 2011 elections the NDP beat their all time record of 43 seats of the Ed Broadbent era with 103 seats making them the official opposition, although they still have little to no power as the Conservatives have a majority government.<br /> <br /> Some of the main issues on the party's platform include;<br /> Increasing social programs such as public health care (including dental) and eduction and a dramatic raise in taxes of all forms (except small business taxes). They support giving more money to the CBC, Quebec, and arts. They favour heavier regulation in all aspects of the economy.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Canadian Political Parties]]<br /> [[Category:Canadian History]]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:NSmyth&diff=963058 User:NSmyth 2012-02-21T14:14:27Z <p>NSmyth: Just playin' around with my user page.</p> <hr /> <div>A former sysop on Conservapedia(2007), I am a person who refuses to look at anything through the eyes of any political affiliation. I live based on logic and reason, and my actions will reflect this as I find it appropriate to do so. I am a Canadian, currently training to become a chef. I am also an &quot;amateur historian&quot;, with my primary interest being in contemporary international political and military history.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{user Evo}}<br /> {{User bigbang}}<br /> {{User bothered}}<br /> {{User Donuthole}}<br /> {{User noracists}}<br /> {{User patriot questions authority}}<br /> {{User Bible just book}} <br /> {{User pubschool}}<br /> {{User Earth}} <br /> {{User gay rights}} <br /> {{User cows tasty}} <br /> {{User Block|Zero}} <br /> {{User Barnstar?}}<br /> <br /> Alongside these, I'm laying out my views and am happy to discuss/debate issues/politics/beliefs on my talk page.<br /> <br /> I believe that the single most important job of government is to create the highest amount of happiness, for the highest number of citizens, for the longest period of time. This may require initially unpopular decisions to be made in order to ensure a good payoff later on.<br /> <br /> On social issues, I often tend to be somewhat of a leftist. I believe in equality for all regardless of anything.<br /> <br /> I believe that the military of every nation should be predominantly defensive and isolationist, however a small branch for offensive action should be kept in case of necessary peacekeeping work or intervention in international situations that could have lasting effects on the history of the entire planet.<br /> <br /> I believe in the idea of a powerful Navy/Air Force over land-based military organisations.<br /> <br /> I believe that it should be the right of any citizen of any country to own non-automatic firearms, as long as thy're willing to undergo a criminal background check, and a psychological evaluation, and are over the age of 21.<br /> <br /> I do not support Barack Obama. He has been a general disappointment. However, I also do not support any of the current front-runners in the Republican Party or Ron Paul. If he had a shot though, I would gladly support Buddy Roemer(R) if I were a citizen of the USA.<br /> <br /> I believe that, regardless of whether or not Global Warming is fact or fiction, we need to start to really move away from Coal and Oil as the primary sources of energy.<br /> <br /> I believe in a fair, flat Federal Income Tax of 9% for all citizens regardless of their financial standing, or &quot;class&quot;.<br /> <br /> I believe in States' Rights unless there is a clear conflict of interest between either said state and it's citizens, or the Federal Government.<br /> <br /> I believe politicians should be paid a low salary in order to root out those who go into politics for their own personal gain instead of the needs of the citizens they represent.<br /> <br /> I believe that the position of President/Prime Minister/Chancellor/etc. should be an unpaid position.<br /> <br /> I believe that Political lobbying should be outlawed, and that corporations are not people.<br /> <br /> I believe in Capitalism and a mostly free market, with regulations in place only to prevent banks and corporations from taking advantage of consumers. However, I also believe that there is a point where one should be able to say, &quot;I have enough&quot;, there is a such thing as having or taking too much, which I call &quot;SuperCapitalism&quot;.<br /> <br /> I am Agnostic, however I have great respect for religious institutions, and recognize their right to exist, and the necessity of it.<br /> <br /> I believe there should be a clear separation of Church and State. Regardless of the religion involved, history has shown that a nation based on the laws of any religion is a less free state than one based on Secular laws.</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:NSmyth&diff=963054 User:NSmyth 2012-02-21T13:43:23Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>A former sysop on Conservapedia, I am a person who refuses to look at anything through the eyes of any political affiliation. I live based on logic and reason, and my actions will reflect this as I find it appropriate to do so.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{user Evo}}<br /> {{User bigbang}}<br /> {{User bothered}}<br /> {{User Donuthole}}<br /> {{User noracists}}<br /> {{User patriot questions authority}}<br /> {{User Bible just book}} <br /> {{User pubschool}}<br /> {{User Earth}} <br /> {{User gay rights}} <br /> {{User cows tasty}} <br /> {{User Block|Zero}} <br /> {{User Barnstar?}}</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=First_Black_president&diff=963053 First Black president 2012-02-21T13:31:20Z <p>NSmyth: Updated</p> <hr /> <div>Outlandish false claims circulated widely on the web in late 2008 regarding America's '''first [[black]] president'''. For years extreme black separatists have used falsified evidence to claim that five presidents were black. The chief source is a self-published book by a black militant named Leroy Vaughn, ''Black People And Their Place In World History'' (2002).&lt;ref&gt; see [http://www.amazon.com/Black-People-Their-Place-History/dp/0971592004/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1227071953&amp;sr=1-1 Amazon blurb]&lt;/ref&gt; Vaughn got his gossip from ''The Six Black Presidents: Black Blood, White Masks, USA'' by black militant Auset Bakhufu (1993),&lt;ref&gt; See the highly [http://www.amazon.ca/Six-Black-Presidents-Blood-White/dp/1880187000 negative reviews]&lt;/ref&gt; who in turn drew on ''Sex and Race: Negro-Caucasian Mixing in All Ages and All Lands'' (1940) by Joel Augustus Rogers, a black militant of the 1930s. The goal of the propaganda was not truth but hatred of whites and the American political system. No conservative scholar gives the work credence.<br /> <br /> [[Barack Hussein Obama]], who was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, sought to be considered as a fellow black man by [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?|African American voters]]. For example, he awkwardly referred to black teenagers 30 years younger than him as &quot;brothers&quot;, declaring that &quot;brothers should pull up their pants.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-to-mtv-br.html &quot;Obama: 'Brothers Should Pull up Their Pants'&quot;.] Political Radar, ABC News Blogs&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> President Obama is bi-racial; his father was black and his mother was white.&lt;ref name=&quot;SundayTimes&quot;&gt;Jorge, Rome (November 9, 2008) [http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/nov/09/yehey/weekend/20081109week1.html ''US President-elect Barack Hussein Obama 2nd''] The Sunday Times&lt;/ref&gt; Some argue that he is the first [[Affirmative Action President]].<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[category:United States Politics]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Punk&diff=962887 Punk 2012-02-20T17:00:16Z <p>NSmyth: Removed sentence to nowhere.</p> <hr /> <div>'''Punk music''', or '''punk rock''', originated in the United States in a club called [[CBGB's]] in [[New York City]] in the mid-1970s with [[Television (band)]] and [[The Ramones]] followed by the still popular [[The Dead Kennedys]]. It was seen as a response to the cultural sterility of [[progressive rock]] and other highly commercialized forms of rock. Although punk had limited popularity in America, it quickly spread to the [[UK]] where bands such as [[The Sex Pistols]], [[Siouxsie and the Banshees]] and [[The Clash]] became massively popular. <br /> <br /> ==Musicality==<br /> Punk is charactarised by up-tempo arrangements, and seldom employs instruments other than [[guitar]], bass, and drums. By design, the songs are usually structured to be very simplistic, with the 1-4-5 [[chord]] progression being typical. The lyrics, which are almost always written in a 1-1, 2-2 [[rhyme scheme]], can be concerned with any topic, but usually deal with some aspect of youth culture or express some theme of &quot;punk attitude&quot; such as opposition to authority.<br /> <br /> ==Dancing==<br /> Various methods of dancing to punk rock have emerged, such as skanking, pogo-ing, and slam dancing. Most punk-style dancing is synasthetically expressive of an emotion, rather than a particular representational style, such as a jitterbug. Dancing tends to be individual or communal, seldom couples-oriented.<br /> <br /> ==Punk Culture==<br /> Punks typically distinguish themselves from others with their unmistakable appearances. This has included things such as Mohawk hairstyles, tight pants, studded leather jackets, bullet belts, combat boots, etc. Clothing and hairstyles vary widely throughout the punk scene, and often particular outfits denote particular strains of punk or core-beliefs. Most true punks however will claim that the punk subculture is more based on the idea of non-conformity.<br /> <br /> ==Subgenres of punk==<br /> As punk-rock grew in popularity, several subgenres became apparent, some of which represent very fine distinctions (such as anarcho-punk), or small (Muslim punk) or localized (Nardcore) groupings. Some subgeneric names are probably useful, however, or at least well-known. Hardcore punk, usually characterized by fast tempos and a stripped-down/minimalist sound was a staple of West Coast punk during the 1980's, especially in the important Southern California-region and has since spread throughout the world. New Wave, despite being descended of punk, developed its own distinctive sounds and subculture respectively. Forms such as [[Grunge]] and [[Emo|Emotive Hardcore]](both descended of the Post-Hardcore punk movement) each developed largely into their own subcultures respectively in their own right.<br /> ==External Links==<br /> [http://www.punkvoter.com Punkvoter.com]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Punk| ]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gerontology&diff=962885 Gerontology 2012-02-20T16:51:01Z <p>NSmyth: Re-wording. What was there was a mix of incorrect definition. Also removed completely irrelevant/unproven sentence. I invite anyone with any knowledge of the topic to make it a worthwhile article.</p> <hr /> <div>Gerontology is the study of aging and its effects on physical and psychological health.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Books==<br /> *[http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/50/9/1240a Review of ''Toxic Adults''], which the doctor reviewing regards as a pseudoscientific hodgepodge of New Age pop psychology<br /> <br /> See:<br /> *[[Thanatology]]<br /> *&quot;[[Fountain of youth]]&quot;<br /> <br /> [[category:science]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Should_we_criminalize_homosexuality%3F&diff=907099 Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality? 2011-08-28T23:36:54Z <p>NSmyth: /* No */</p> <hr /> <div>==Yes==<br /> I believe homosexuals are causing our economy to decline. Just look at India, a country that barely tolerates [[homosexuality]], and it's GDP is steadily increasing and becoming an economic. Many other countries like Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain are suffering economically and they have either legalized same-sex marriage or have more liberal &quot;gay rights.&quot; And many empires have collapsed due to the acceptance of homosexuality (Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, and the British Empire).<br /> <br /> In order to save our economy, we must criminalize homosexuality. Punishing them by death is a bit too extreme, as we Americans need to show that we are more moral than those who punish homosexuality through death. Instead, I suggest we ''deport'' them any communist/socialist state (Cuba, Venezuela, China, and North Korea). These countries are definitely more tolerant towards their gay population since there is never any communist state that criminalizes homosexuality. Or maybe we should send the entire gay population in America to Japan. Since many anime portray homosexuals in a more positive light and Japan happens to be the gay friendliest country in the world, we deport homosexuals there instead.--[[User:JacobMS|JacobMS]] 23:42, 5 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I am afraid to say that unfortunately JacobMS, you seem to not understand the difference between correlation and causation. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:22, 6 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Christianity clearly prohibits homosexuality, and since America is a CHRISTIAN country, we need to outlaw homosexuality to protect the country from sin. ---[[User:DennisRifkin|DennisR]] 07:32, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::According to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, America is not a Christian nation. See: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html. And I quote: &quot;Art. 11. The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;&quot; From the founding fathers themselves, practically. John Adams was president at the time and proudly signed and announced it, and it, along with the rest of the treaty of course, was unanimously agreed upon by the senate. I needed to point that out. --[[NSmyth|NSmyth]] 19:28, 28 August, 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes. After Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas is the worst Supreme Court Decision in the history of the United States. It needs to be overturned and a federal anti-Homosexuality law passed. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 17:02, 28 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes. Please see: [[Homosexuality and murders]], [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]] and [[Homosexuality and health]]. When one looks at the [[homosexuality and health]] article, it is really not that surprising that [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=undP3-0yEn8 Indian lady Christian dancers are far more graceful] than the [[Lesbianism and obesity|obesity infested lesbian population.]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH4ZTSUZQWM&amp;list=PLFD5B143F743EB6B1] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:18, 28 August 2011 (EDT) <br /> :There's also [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] and [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 17:28, 28 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::OliviaB, you are being redundant. Is that not covered under [[Homosexuality and health]]? (you are probably not the first parodist guilty of being redundant) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 28 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==No==<br /> <br /> The last thing we need in this country are more liberal, nanny state policies like this. The only thing criminalization of homosexuality would accomplish is more spending on law enforcement and increased governmental control of our lives. There would also be no way to enforce it, since making love in the street is already illegal, and homosexuals could just claim public displays of affection as political statements protected by the first amendment, which would clog our court systems even worse than they already are. There is no objective way to prove homosexuality outside the bedroom, so that throws a giant wrench into any possibility of enforcement. <br /> <br /> Government control is a slippery slope. It starts with the criminalization of deviant sexual practices, and before you know it, the government is controlling who breeds with who and when. Homosexuality may be sinful and immoral, but it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:19, 6 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Technically, Homosexuality is not in major violation of the majority of the country's morals, and so there's not reason to criminalize it. What happens in the bedrooms of a loving, consensual couple should not be of any concern to anyone else. [[User:Geosurgeon|Geosurgeon]] 16:19 PM August 28, 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No. Even if I did agree that homosexuality is wrong(which I don't), I don't think it could make it through the house or senate. Evidence from both sides is way too shaky, and the religious motive behind it would be dangerously close to being unconstitutional. It would also bring up many comparisons to Nazi Germany, where they criminalized homosexuality, by punishment of death, and while I'm fully aware that even if such legislation was to be written up, it wouldn't be nearly as terrible as Nazi Germany, the comparison would stick the moment it became public. Furthermore, the amount of money such legislation would cost(sinking money into already overzealous law enforcement, and the prison system for a completely ridiculous piece of legislation would be a terrible idea no matter how you look at it) in the end would be enormous and a terribly unnecessary and unaffordable burden on America and Americans in today's economic climate. [[NSmyth|NSmyth]] 19:37 28 August, 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> [[Category:Debate]]<br /> [[Category:Homosexuality]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=906858 Liberal 2011-08-28T03:27:38Z <p>NSmyth: Undo revision 906857 by Briankeithharper (talk) fixing vandalism</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that the [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty|pedophile]] [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.&lt;ref&gt;<br /> *[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]<br /> *[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]<br /> *[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]<br /> *[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]<br /> *[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ John Maynard Keynes - the pedophile, The Atlantic]<br /> &lt;/ref&gt; ]]<br /> A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons though some may practice [[Cafeteria Christianity]]. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.&lt;ref&gt;As one liberal website candidly observes, &quot;Obama is a shallow narcissist, not a believer in any cause higher than himself. Every American president has had a healthy ego, but none has ever been as purely motivated by vanity as the childishly self-loving [[Barack Obama]].&quot;[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Barack-Obama-s-ego-driven-by-Christopher-Calder-091210-804.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly [[statist]] and, as in Europe, [[socialist]]ic. Liberalism has changed over the years and degenerated into corruption. <br /> <br /> For example, [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are almost in bed with public sector unions, as they &quot;donate&quot; money to the re-election campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions. <br /> <br /> Polling data over several decades has consistently shown more Americans identify themselves as conservative than liberal, by a ratio of 2-1.&lt;ref&gt;http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance&lt;/ref&gt; A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:<br /> <br /> * Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]<br /> * [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events<br /> * Support for [[gun control]]<br /> * Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right&lt;ref&gt;The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation<br /> * Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]<br /> * Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]<br /> * The denial of inherent [[gender differences]]<br /> * Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]<br /> * Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]<br /> * [[Tax and spend]]<br /> * Trying to impede the freedoms of others<br /> * Implementation of [[affirmative action]]<br /> * [[Political correctness]], the opposition of [[free speech]]<br /> * Support of [[labor union]]s<br /> * Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual &quot;education&quot; rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex.&lt;ref&gt; [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * A &quot;[[living Constitution]]&quot; that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended<br /> * Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br /> * Abolition of the death penalty<br /> [[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and &quot;very liberal&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&amp;current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> * [[Environmentalism]]&lt;ref&gt;[[Greenpeace]], for example.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * [[Disarmament treaties]]<br /> * [[Globalism]]<br /> * Opposition to the [[Bible]] and God.<br /> * Opposition to full private property rights&lt;ref&gt;For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]<br /> * In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]]. The theory of [[evolution]] is a key component of [[atheistic]] ideologies in the [[Western World]]. <br /> * Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]<br /> * Calling anyone they agree with a &quot;professor&quot; regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Barack Obama]]).<br /> * Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]].<br /> * Withholds support to our armed forces fighting overseas to protect their freedoms.<br /> * Promote arrogance through what they consider superior lifestyles.<br /> * Tolerance of wrongheaded ideas and lifestyles.<br /> * Supports financially irresponsible policies.<br /> * Following policies which are proven to be incorrect.<br /> * Do not support a free-market economy and support regulation of business.<br /> * &quot;The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ....&quot;&lt;ref&gt; [http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0605bt.html Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton], City Journal - 5 June 2009&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * Support of leftist ideologies such as [[socialism]] and nazism<br /> * Encouragement of [[Global Warming|global warming alarmism]].<br /> <br /> According to current dictionaries and their own beliefs, a liberal is &quot;a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties&quot; or &quot;a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&amp;sub=Search+WordNet&amp;o2=&amp;o0=1&amp;o7=&amp;o5=&amp;o1=1&amp;o6=&amp;o4=&amp;o3=&amp;h=00&lt;/ref&gt; or &quot;open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.&quot; or &quot;favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal&lt;/ref&gt;. In practice, however, liberals are often the most intolerant of people, and frequently are on the side of disorder, chaos, anarchy, and lawbreaking. According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary - and matched by current observation - liberals are &quot;unchecked by a sense of the decorous, the fitting, or the polite...lacking significant moral restraints&quot; or &quot;... an emancipation from convention, tradition, or dogma that extends from a belief in altering institutions to fit altering conditions to a preference for lawlessness.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;''Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged'', Volume II; Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Chicago, 1986. (pg. 1303, column 1)&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> ==Liberals and Uncharitableness==<br /> [[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html&lt;/ref&gt; In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&amp;page=2] ]]<br /> ''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]]<br /> <br /> In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:<br /> {{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published &quot;Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.&quot; The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....<br /> <br /> If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:<br /> <br /> -- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).<br /> <br /> -- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> [[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].&lt;ref&gt;http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&amp;BarnaUpdateID=152&lt;/ref&gt; Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&amp;page=2]<br /> <br /> == Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ==<br /> The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] and the article exposed the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&amp;c=1&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his charitable giving]].<br /> <br /> ==Liberals and Superstition==<br /> [[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]<br /> <br /> The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: &quot;A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. &lt;ref&gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:<br /> {{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith &amp;mdash; it's what the empirical data tell us.<br /> <br /> &quot;What Americans Really Believe,&quot; a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....<br /> <br /> This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book &quot;The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener,&quot; skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.&lt;ref&gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> == Liberalism in North America Today ==<br /> [[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]<br /> [[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly [[liberal]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}&lt;/ref&gt; Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: ''SIN''. Liberals (1) '''S'''hift the subject, they (2) '''I'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''N'''ame call.&lt;ref&gt;Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A&amp; Herman Cain: &quot;Stupid People Are Ruining America&quot;], February 11, 2011.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Liberals typically support a &quot;''mixed''&quot; economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. &lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]<br /> <br /> {{cquote|'''There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. &lt;ref&gt; [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&amp;p=liberal+teachers&amp;fr=yfp-t-501&amp;fp_ip=MX&amp;u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&amp;w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&amp;d=BNZFhPReRjC1&amp;icp=1&amp;.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> ===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===<br /> <br /> The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings&lt;ref&gt;http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm&lt;/ref&gt; of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.<br /> <br /> ==Liberalism in Europe today==<br /> <br /> In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe&lt;ref&gt;http://www.alde.eu&lt;/ref&gt; is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,&lt;ref&gt;http://www.liberal-international.org/&lt;/ref&gt; such as the Liberal Party of Australia.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.liberal.org.au/]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them &quot;liberals&quot; or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, &quot;liberal&quot; may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called &quot;liberal&quot; in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.pes.org]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Historical Liberalism ==<br /> In history, the word &quot;liberal&quot; has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the &quot;Third Way&quot;. In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.&lt;ref&gt;&quot;Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs.&quot; Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==<br /> Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.<br /> <br /> See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].<br /> <br /> == Infamous liberals ==<br /> <br /> ''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]<br /> <br /> *[[Joseph Stalin]] was an [[atheism|atheist]], [[communism|communist]], and [[evolution|evolutionist]] dictator who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. <br /> <br /> * [[Mao Tse Tung]] - atheist and communist dictator responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.<br /> <br /> * [[Margaret Sanger]]<br /> <br /> *[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and &quot;very liberal&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&amp;current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4&lt;/ref&gt; Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].&lt;ref&gt;http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Liberal Organizations == <br /> *[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]] <br /> *[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]<br /> *[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]<br /> *[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]<br /> *[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]<br /> *[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]<br /> *[[CAIR|Council on American-Islamic Relations]]<br /> *[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]<br /> *[[Democratic National Committee]]<br /> *[[Greenpeace]]<br /> *[[MoveOn.org]]<br /> *[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]<br /> *[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]<br /> *[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]<br /> *[[National Education Association]]<br /> *[[National Organization of Women]]<br /> *[[PETA|People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]<br /> *[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]<br /> *[[Progressives for Obama]]<br /> *[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]<br /> *[[SEIU|Service Employees International Union]]<br /> *[[U.S. Peace Council]]<br /> Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> <br /> * [[Conservative resources]]<br /> * [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]<br /> * [[Classical liberal]]<br /> * [[Drinking Liberally]]<br /> * [[Godless liberal]]<br /> * [[Last wordism]]<br /> * [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]<br /> * [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]<br /> * [[Liberal Christianity]]<br /> * [[Liberal Democrats]]<br /> * [[Liberal Elite]]<br /> * [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]<br /> * [[Liberal Fascism]]<br /> * [[Liberal friendship]]<br /> * [[Liberal Gloss]]<br /> * [[Liberal grading]]<br /> * [[Liberal hypocrisy]]<br /> * [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]<br /> * [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]<br /> * [[Liberal labels]]<br /> * [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]<br /> * [[Liberal logic]]<br /> * [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]<br /> * [[Liberal Party]]<br /> * [[Liberal supremacist]]<br /> * [[Massachusetts liberal]]<br /> * [[Progressives]]<br /> * [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]<br /> <br /> ==Further Information==<br /> * [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]<br /> * [[Conservative Links]]<br /> <br /> {{liberalism}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Political Ideologies]]<br /> [[Category:Politics]]<br /> [[Category: Liberals]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rick_Perry&diff=905383 Rick Perry 2011-08-25T23:59:06Z <p>NSmyth: Undo revision 905379 by BarushAlAkbar (talk) Vandalism fixed</p> <hr /> <div>{{Officeholder<br /> |name=Rick Perry<br /> |image=Rick Perry.jpg<br /> |party=[[Republican]]<br /> |spouse=[[Anita Thigpen Perry]]<br /> |religion=Methodist<br /> |offices=<br /> {{Officeholder/governor<br /> |state=Texas<br /> |terms=December 21, 2000-Present<br /> |preceded=[[George W. Bush]]<br /> |succeeded=<br /> |former=n<br /> }}<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''James Richard &quot;Rick&quot; Perry''' (b. 1950) has served as the [[Republican]] Governor of [[Texas]] since December 2000, when he succeeded then-Governor [[George W. Bush]] and was elected to full four-year terms in 2002 and 2006. He easily won an unprecedented third term in November 2010, after defeating by a wide margin the [[RINO]] Senator [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the GOP primary in March.<br /> <br /> In August 2011, Perry entered the [[presidential election 2012|2012 race for President]]. His key positions include rejection of the theory of man-made [[global warming]], equal time for [[creationism]] and [[evolution]] in schools, pro-[[Second Amendment]], and [[pro-life]] with exceptions.<br /> <br /> ==Career==<br /> A former Democratic state legislator who became a Republican in 1989, Perry was elected to a full term as governor in 2002, which he served, and then reelected to another full term in 2006 with only 39 percent of the vote. Previously he served as the agriculture commissioner (1991-1999), reflecting his background as a college graduate with a degree in animal science.<br /> ==Controversies==<br /> He was much criticized concerning his attempt in early 2007 to mandate by executive order the [[HPV vaccine]] for young girls as a condition of entering school. Defiant, Perry then felt he had no choice but to sign a bill overriding his mandate because it had been passed by a huge majority in both houses of the legislature.<br /> <br /> He was criticized by the ''Dallas Morning News'' for traveling to Turkey in early June 2007 to give a speech to a &quot;secret forum&quot; on the topic of [[federalism]], which is not even a topic on which Perry has any established expertise.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-perry_31tex.ART.State.Edition1.43b926a.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> On June 15, 2007, Perry vetoed nearly 50 bills in one day. He also asked that legislators quit wasting their time and start passing more conservative bills, especially restricting freedom of movement for radical homosexual activists, in order to prevent harm to young people from their vile propaganda.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/138969.html here&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> House Bill 2006 would have added protections to property owners facing eminent domain proceedings and it was vetoed.<br /> <br /> In 2009, Perry drew fire for numerous statements that suggested Texas' legal right to secede from the union if it wanted to, a long-discredited legal interpretation which was the main argument of the terrorist [[Republic of Texas]] movement.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/04/17/0417gop.html &quot;Governor says Texas is one state that could leave union, though he's not pushing it&quot;]&lt;/ref&gt; While such statements were viewed with favor by the Texas Republican party and helped him win the 2010 gubernatorial election, it is unclear whether they will come back to haunt his 2012 election prospects.<br /> <br /> His prayer rally scheduled for August 5, 2011 has been strongly attacked by the left as a violation of the so called &quot;separation of church and state,&quot; which is actually a liberal misreading of the constitution&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/opinion/how-to-respond-to-rick-perrys-response.html?src=un&amp;feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp &quot;How to respond to Rick Perry's 'Response'&quot;]&lt;/ref&gt; True, however, is that Perry's tithing and charitable giving combined make up a paltry 0.5% of his salary, as investigative reporting by the Houston Chronicle has shown.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/new/7607414.html &quot;Perry puts faith on display but offers little for collection plate&quot;]&lt;/ref&gt; His office's response to this story was &quot;he refuses to talk about his faith.&quot;<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> *[http://www.governor.state.tx.us/ Official Website]<br /> *[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnG_njvuoyA The Left Is &quot;Never Going To Like Us, So Let's Stop Trying To Curry Favor With Them&quot;]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Perry, Rick}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Republican Governors]]<br /> [[Category:Texas Governors]]<br /> [[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]<br /> [[Category: Conservatives]]<br /> [[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Royal_Society&diff=905294 Royal Society 2011-08-25T17:38:07Z <p>NSmyth: Darwin was a fellow, but was not a president of the Royal Society.</p> <hr /> <div>The '''Royal Society''' is [[Britain|Britain's]] preeminent scientific institution. It was founded in 1660, and early Fellows included [[Christopher Wren]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Robert Hooke]], [[Charles Darwin]], and [[Isaac Newton]]. Past presidents include Wren, Newton, [[Joseph Banks]], [[Humphrey Davy]], [[Lord Kelvin]], [[Lord Lister]] and [[Ernest Rutherford]].<br /> <br /> ==Election Process==<br /> <br /> Fellows of the Royal Society are elected for life through a peer review process that culminates in a vote by existing Fellows. The main criterion for election as a Fellow is scientific excellence.<br /> <br /> ==Current Fellows==<br /> <br /> Current Fellows include [[Jocelyn Bell Burnell]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Harry Kroto]], [[Tim Berners-Lee]], [[Paul Nurse]] and [[John Sulston]].<br /> <br /> ==U.S. counterpart==<br /> Its U.S. counterpart is the [[National Academy of Science]].<br /> <br /> [[category:science]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> <br /> [http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk Royal Society]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:NSmyth&diff=905293 User:NSmyth 2011-08-25T17:33:30Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>A former sysop on Conservapedia, I am a person who refuses to look at anything through the eyes of any political affiliation. I live based on logic and reason, and my actions will reflect this as I find it appropriate to do so.<br /> <br /> Articles I am currently working on:<br /> <br /> [[World War II]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{user Evo}}<br /> {{User bigbang}}<br /> {{User bothered}}<br /> {{User Donuthole}}<br /> {{User noracists}}<br /> {{User patriot questions authority}}<br /> {{User Bible just book}} <br /> {{User pubschool}}<br /> {{User Earth}} <br /> {{User gay rights}} <br /> {{User cows tasty}} <br /> {{User Block|Zero}} <br /> {{User Barnstar?}}</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=World_War_II&diff=905291 World War II 2011-08-25T17:28:32Z <p>NSmyth: Just the start to a huge article overhaul I'm working on.</p> <hr /> <div>{{World War 2<br /> | image =WWII collage.JPG<br /> | conflict = <br /> | date =1931-1945<br /> | location =Europe&lt;br/&gt;North and eastern Africa&lt;br/&gt;Eastern Asia<br /> | combatant1 ='''Allies'''&lt;br/&gt;[[Great Britain]]&lt;br/&gt;[[France]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Soviet Union]]&lt;br/&gt;[[China]]&lt;br/&gt;[[United States]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Poland]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Denmark]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Norway]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Belgium]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Luxembourg]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Canada]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Australia]]&lt;br/&gt;[[New Zealand]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Netherlands]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Yugoslavia]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Greece]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Italy]](from 1943 to 1945)<br /> | combatant2 ='''Axis'''&lt;br/&gt;[[Nazi Germany]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Italy]](until 1943)&lt;br/&gt;[[Japan]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Hungary]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Romania]]&lt;br/&gt;[[Bulgaria]]<br /> | commander1 = <br /> | commander2 = <br /> | strength1 = <br /> | strength2 = <br /> | casualties1 = <br /> | casualties2 = <br /> }}<br /> '''World War II''' was a global set of conflicts, beginning in 1931 in Asia, 1935 in Africa, and 1939 in Europe, all lasting until 1945, in which the [[Allies|Allied powers]] (led after the Fall of France by the [[British Commonwealth]], and including the [[United States]], the [[Soviet Union]], the [[Republic of China]], among many other nations), completely defeated the [[Axis Powers]] (led by [[Third Reich|Nazi Germany]], and including [[Italy]], [[Japan]], [[Hungary]], [[Romania]] and [[Bulgaria]]). Although Japan's war against China began in 1937, the main conflict started in September 1939 when Germany and the Soviet Union divided [[Poland]]; [[Britain]] and [[French Third Republic|France]] then declared war on Germany. <br /> <br /> The conflict was the deadliest in human history with estimated deaths ranging from 50 million to over 70 million soldiers and civilians.&lt;ref&gt;http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second&lt;/ref&gt; It ended with the Soviet Union dominant in Eastern Europe, and the U.S. and its allies dominant in Western Europe, setting the stage for the [[Cold War]].<br /> ==Causes==<br /> :''See: [[Causes of World War II]]''<br /> <br /> ==War Begins in Europe==<br /> [[Image:Communazi Peace Pact.jpg|thumb|300px|right|By terms of a secret protocol to the [[Nazi-Soviet pact]], [[Poland]] was partitioned with Germany and the USSR each occupying 200,000 square kilometers.]]<br /> :''See also: [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]]''<br /> <br /> In the immediate run up to WWII, there were frequent reports of trespassing Polish troops. On August 31, 1939 German covert operatives staged a fake attack by Polish troops on a German radio station. WWII started on September 1, 1939, when German troops invaded Poland. Hitler justified this as a defensive act, pointing to the frequent border incidents, and said famously that from this moment on Germany would strike back.<br /> <br /> The major tactical innovation of the war was the use of combined arms warfare, typified by the German doctrine of [[blitzkrieg]]. In this style of warfare armor, infantry, artillery and air power (see [[Luftwaffe]]) all coordinate to achieve overwhelming superiority at point on the enemy lines. Armor and fast-moving infantry units then exploit the gap and penetrate deep behind enemy lines. The objective is to cause a widespread collapse of the enemy's ability to fight. It was particularly effective during the early stages of the war, before the Allies developed effective countermeasures.<br /> On September 17, 1939, Poland was invaded from the east by Hitler’s ally, [[Josef Stalin|Stalin]].<br /> <br /> In 1939-1940, eastern Poland, [[Estonia]], [[Latvia]], [[Lithuania]] and [[Bessarabia]] were invaded and annexed by the Soviet Union.<br /> <br /> ==War in the West==<br /> [[Image:Caen_sniper.jpg|left|thumb|200px|A Canadian soldier in the ruins of Caen, 9 July 1944]]<br /> Once the invasion of Poland was complete, German forces regrouped while French and British forces remained on the defensive, leading US commentators to dub it the [[Sitskreig|Phoney War]]. May 10 1940 made clear that the war was real, as Germany invaded France, occupying neutral countries such as the [[Netherlands]], [[Luxembourg]] and [[Belgium]] in the process. Resistance by the British and French armies proved ineffective, and France was soon surrendered. British and French troops were routed and evacuated mainland Europe at [[Dunkirk]]. France was divided into the northern [[Occupied France]] and the collaborationist [[Vichy regime]] in the south of France, including [[Corsica]].<br /> <br /> The collapse and occupation of France, together with Germany's non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union,&lt;ref&gt;[http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2007/01/celebrations-marking-60-years-since-end.html Celebrations Marking 60 Years Since the End of World War II], Pavel Vitek, ''Russkii vopros - Studies'', No. 1 2005. Translation from Russian.&lt;/ref&gt;, Germany's alliance with fascist Italy and an expansionist Japan, the benevolent neutrality of fascist Spain, and the fact that little of Europe was outside Axis control, led many to assume that Britain had been defeated. Indeed it would appear that the seemingly foolish decision of the relatively weak Britain to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard. This decision ensured the remaining British Empire was still involved in the war, with Japan threatening many British possessions in Asia.<br /> <br /> In 1940 [[Denmark]] and [[Norway]] were invaded by German forces, to preempt a British occupation of Norway and occupy its coastline and ports to be used by the [[Kriegsmarine]]. Norway also contained a source of [[Heavy water]], potentially crucial in the construction of an atomic weapon. The operation was successful, but losses were heavy, especially to the Kriegsmarine. This was soon followed by the British troops invited by [[Iceland]] and American occupation of [[Greenland]]. (The goal was to prevent any increase in the range of German air and submarine activity, brought about the occupation of these lands - and of the Azores at the request of the Portuguese Government.)<br /> <br /> With Britain the sole opposing European nation, the [[Battle of Britain]] commenced. The [[Luftwaffe]] attempted to achieve aerial dominance over the south of Britain, in order to allow a sea based invasion of the British Isles to proceed. From 10th July to the end of October the [[Royal Air Force]] and the Luftwaffe fought for dominance; the resilience of the RAF, which counted in its ranks also Canadian and London Polish exile pilots, and the use of [[radar]] and its associated early warning systems, had forced a rethink of German tactics. It was the first significant setback for the Germans in the War. They now concentrated on the great population centers, especially London, hoping that huge civilian casualties would weaken morale and lead to a lessening of the war effort by the populace. The period that followed, popularly known as [[the Blitz]], lasted into May 1941. Around 40,000 civilians and civil defense workers died; but the Germans failed to reach their objectives and their resources were soon diverted to the Eastern front as Hitler began concentrating on the impending invasion of the Soviet Union. <br /> <br /> With the pressure off their airbases the RAF was now able to increase its nightly raids on industrial sites in Germany and occupied lands. Because of the inability to correctly target these sites, the raids soon turned into “area bombing”, and German civilian casualties rose. These raids were to reach further into Germany as the war progressed and were greatly increased when American bombers began their sorties.<br /> <br /> ==Finnish Wars==<br /> <br /> The Soviet Union invaded [[Finland]], a neutral, on November 30 1939. This conflict came to be known as the &quot;Winter War&quot;. Despite the overwhelming numbers of the Red Army, the Finnish resistance was strong and the battle was hard fought before the Soviet army took control. Outside powers (including the U.S.) considered intervention to help Finland; only a little aid trickled in and Finland was forced to sue for peace. The peace treaty signed in March 1940 favored the Soviets, but they paid heavily for their victory with 200,000 dead. Finland lost 25,000 dead, and had to absorb 400,000 refugees from areas turned over to the Soviets. In 1941 Finland joined Germany in attacking the Soviets, in the &quot;Continuation War&quot; (1941-44), but lost again. An armistice in Sept. 1944 stabilized the border, using March 1940 lines; in addition Finland had to pay heavy reparations and had to remain neutral in the [[Cold War]].&lt;ref&gt; Roger R. Reese, &quot;Lessons of the Winter War: a Study in the Military Effectiveness of the Red Army, 1939-1940,&quot; ''Journal of Military History'' 2008 72(3): 825-852 &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Soviet-German War==<br /> 1941 marked the major turning point in the war in Europe, when the Germans undertook [[Operation Barbarossa]] - the invasion of the Soviet Union. Stalin was repeatedly informed by his own spies and anti-German countries that Germany was about to attack; he rejected the accurate reports and paid dearly for the blunder. <br /> <br /> In June--behind schedule because of diversions in the Balkans--the Germans launched their massive war against the Soviet Union (known as the &quot;Great Patriotic War&quot; in Russia). It was by far the largest, bloodiest, and most decisive phase of World War II. Outside observers in the first few months figured that Germany would win easily. But the Nazi armies were split three ways, logistics became worse and worse as distances grew, and none met their objective by the time the extreme Russian winter of 1941-42 set in. Blitzkrieg had failed against the Soviets, and the Germans lacked the resources to fight a long war against a country with such vast areas and so many more people. The Luftwaffe, which promised to overcome the slowness of ground travel, failed to provide adequate support and was soon matched and outnumbered by the Soviet air force.&lt;ref&gt; The best studies of this theater are by [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&amp;num=30&amp;btnG=Google+Search&amp;as_epq=&amp;as_oq=&amp;as_eq=&amp;as_brr=0&amp;as_pt=ALLTYPES&amp;lr=&amp;as_vt=&amp;as_auth=glantz+david&amp;as_pub=&amp;as_sub=&amp;as_drrb_is=q&amp;as_minm_is=0&amp;as_miny_is=&amp;as_maxm_is=0&amp;as_maxy_is=&amp;as_isbn=&amp;as_issn= David Glantz]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Finally, after the disastrous Battle of Stalingrad, in which nearly 25% of the German forces on the Eastern Front were defeated, the Soviets began a massive, steady counter-attack. After a time of comparatively slow progress, the brilliant Soviet officer, Konstantin Rokossovsky, engineered &quot;Operation Bagration&quot;, named-so after the Napoleonic Russian hero. The operation was extremely successful for the Soviets, leading to around 600,000 Soviet casualties and over 500,000 German casualties, including over 60,000 German vehicles and tanks. Even the Germans' best officer, Erich von Manstein, couldn't turn the situation around. Finally, in 1945, Soviet troops stormed Berlin, and forced Nazi Germany into capitulation.<br /> <br /> ==Far East==<br /> <br /> After Pearl Harbor, the Japanese juggernaut seemed unstoppable. In the south, they conquered the [[Philippines]], the oil-rich Dutch East Indies, Malaysia, and extended their reach as far as the Solomon Islands. In the west, they seized [[Burma]] and the vital port at [[Rangoon]], and even attacked British forces at [[Ceylon]]. The Japanese empire now reached as far as [[Wake Island]] in the east and the [[Aleutian Islands]] to the north. Attacks on Japanese targets, including the Doolittle raid, boasted American morale, but did little material damage. In May 1942, Japanese forces were finally halted at the [[Battle of the Coral Sea]], which cost the Americans a precious [[aircraft carrier]], but saved southern [[New Guinea]]. At the [[Battle of Midway]] a month later, the Japanese lost four of their best carriers, suffering a blow to their sea power from which they never recovered.<br /> <br /> The Americans took the offensive in August with a landing on the island of [[Guadalcanal]]. The overall American offensive strategy was two-pronged. Forces in the south advanced up the Solomon island chain and New Guinea, while in the central Pacific, Marines took island after island, including [[Battle of Tarawa|Tarawa]], Eniwetok, [[Saipan]], and [[Guam]]. The two lines of attack came together at the Philippines.<br /> <br /> Integral to the strategy was the policy of island hopping. Many Japanese strongholds were bypassed, allowing the American forces to concentrate on more strategically significant islands. For example, [[Truk]] and Rabaul were home to major Japanese air and naval bases, but once the bases were neutralized, there was no reason to take on the troops there. This policy not only saved thousands of American (and Japanese) lives, it shortened the war by at least several months.<br /> <br /> The American invasion of the Philippines took place in late October of 1944 when Marines landed on Leyte Island. A few days later, the US Navy shattered what was left of Japanese naval power in the [[Battle of Leyte Gulf]]. The Japanese fought hard, however, and Leyte took two months to secure. When the Americans landed on the other islands, they found the troops there equally unwilling to retreat, but with American superiority in almost every area, the outcome was never really in doubt. [[Manila]] was captured by March, and the American position had become solid enough that leaders could start preparing for the final stage: [[Operation Downfall|the invasion of Japan]]. The first step was taken when the island of [[Okinawa]] was captured in June after two months of heavy fighting. Operation Olympic, the invasion of [[Kyushu]], was scheduled for November 1945, followed by Operation Coronet, the invasion of [[Honshu]], in March of 1946.<br /> <br /> The Japanese, soldiers and civilians alike, were expected to put up a fierce defense. Army Chief of Staff [[George C. Marshall]] believed that Japan would fight to the last man, and insisted on preparing for a land invasion of Japan with an army of 2,000,000 men anticipating a tremendous number of casualties. Some analysts estimated the number of projected casualties from Operation Olympic alone at 250,000 dead and wounded.&lt;ref&gt;Historical Atlas of the U.S. Navy, by Craig L. Symonds, the Naval Institute, 1995&lt;/ref&gt; For this reason, Washington begged the Soviet to invade Japanese possessions on the mainland. <br /> <br /> [[Image:Ww2-asia usma.edu pic.gif|thumb|300px|left|Time Line of Pacific War]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Japanese capitulation==<br /> On August 6, 1945, a B-29 Superfortress, the Enola Gay piloted by Paul Tibbet, dropped an atomic bomb (now called a nuclear weapon) on [[Hiroshima]]. Japan did not respond, so on August 9, Bocks Car, a B-29 piloted by Frederick C. Bock dropped the second atomic bomb. <br /> <br /> The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, in reponse to urgent American requests. It invaded Manchuria and Korea; the Japanese army disintegrated. It was no longer possible for the Imprial Army to defend the Emperor. On August 20 the Japanese government told Washington it was ready to accept the proposed terms, with the understanding the Emperor would remain on the throne and would not be hung as a war criminal. Washington agreed, saying the authority of the emperor would be &quot;subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers.&quot; On September 2, 1945, the Japanese Emperor formally surrendered all Japanese forces to the Allies in a famous ceremony aboard the battleship ''Missouri'' in Tokyo Bay. This was the ending of World War II, after six years almost to the day.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Effects of war on empires==<br /> <br /> *[[Iron Curtain]]<br /> :The Red army conquered practically everything east of the &quot;Iron Curtain,&quot; destroying independent national governments and making them all subservient to Moscow. The US grudgingly tolerated this imperialism until 1947, when it was Greece's turn. Then the US drew the line and adopted a policy of [[containment]]. Because of the geography of war, [[Yugoslavia]] and [[Albania]] escaped the Red Army. They fell under the control of independent Communists--Yugoslavia received American support, and Albania turned to Red China for help against the Soviets.<br /> <br /> *[[British Empire]]<br /> :The war effectively bankrupted Britain, which soon gave up India, as well as Pakistan, Ceylon and many of its other colonies). <br /> <br /> * French Empire<br /> :France saluted its overseas Empire as the savior of France, and wanted control back. That led to nasty large scale civil wars in Algeria and Vietnam, which France lost.<br /> <br /> *the Netherlands and Indonesia <br /> :The Dutch returned to the [[Dutch East Indies]] to face an insurrection they could not handle. Dutch acknowledged in 1949 the sovereignty of [[Indonesia]], a non-Communist state.<br /> <br /> *Supremacy of the USA in the Western World<br /> :The war left the U.S. with a vastly stronger economy than anyone else. To save on budget deficits the military was demobilized, but the long-term strategy was in confusion after Roosevelt's death.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> ===Land war===<br /> [[Image:Bradley.jpg|thumb|290px|''Time'' Dec. 4, 1944]]<br /> * [[Battle of the Bulge]], Dec. 1944<br /> * [[Battle of Okinawa]], spring 1945 <br /> * [[Second Sino-Japanese War]], 1937-45<br /> * [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]], US general<br /> * [[Omar Bradley]], US general<br /> * [[George S. Patton, Jr.]], US general<br /> ===Air war===<br /> * [[Luftwaffe]], German air force<br /> * [[World War II in the Air]]<br /> * [[Bombing of Japan]] <br /> * [[Bombing of Germany]]<br /> ===Naval===<br /> * [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]], Dec. 1941<br /> * [[Battle of Midway]], June 1942 <br /> * [[Chester W. Nimitz]], US Admiral<br /> <br /> ===Homefronts===<br /> * [[Holocaust]], killing the Jews<br /> <br /> ===Leaders===<br /> * [[Charles de Gaulle]], France<br /> * [[Adolf Hitler]], Germany<br /> * [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], US<br /> * [[Winston Churchill]], Britain<br /> * [[Joseph Stalin]], Russia<br /> * [[Chiang Kai-shek]], China<br /> * [[Benito Mussolini]], Italy<br /> * [[William Lyon Mackenzie King]], Canada <br /> * [[John Curtin]], Australia<br /> <br /> ==Further reading==<br /> For a more detailed guide, see [[Bibliography of World War II]]<br /> <br /> * Dear, I. C. B. and M. R. D. Foot, eds. ''Oxford Companion to World War II'' (in Britain titled ''Oxford Companion to the Second World War'' (2005; 2nd ed. 2009). the best reference book; [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-World-War-II/dp/019280670X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1236549909&amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> * ''Times Atlas of the Second World War'' (1995)<br /> * Weinberg, Gerhard L. ''A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II'', (1994) the best overall view of the war.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> * United States Department of the Navy/Navy Historical Center's [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-4.htm Fleet Admiral Chester William Nimitz]<br /> * [http://www.onpower.org/history_wwii.html/ World War II]<br /> * [http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=12&amp;articleID=139 &quot;On the Brink of World War II: Justus Doenecke’s ''Storm on the Horizon'',&quot; by Ralph Raico]<br /> *[http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1997/padilla.html Kursk: The Turning Point on the Eastern Front in World War II], by Roberto R. Padilla II<br /> * [http://encyc.org/WorldWarII World War II - Encyc]<br /> * [http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1499 &quot;Government and the Economy: The World Wars,&quot; by Robert Higgs]<br /> * [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=113 &quot;How War Amplified Federal Power in the Twentieth Century,&quot; by Robert Higgs]<br /> * [http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=65 ''Depression, War and Cold War'', by Robert Higgs]<br /> * [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=138 &quot;Wartime Prosperity?&quot;, by Robert Higgs]<br /> * [http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=1431 Pearl Harbor]<br /> [[Category:World War II| ]]<br /> [[Category:Wars]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Islam&diff=904450 Talk:Islam 2011-08-22T19:57:24Z <p>NSmyth: /* Christianity never attacked the Islamic world.&quot; */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Wikiproject Religion}}<br /> See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.<br /> ----<br /> Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...<br /> <br /> Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.<br /> <br /> The first section of this article is factual.<br /> <br /> The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it (&quot;The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world&quot;) seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21<br /> :: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> : This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating &quot;entirely&quot; like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> &quot;a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents&quot; - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]<br /> <br /> The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads &quot;They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief&quot;. Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]<br /> : It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: Regarding &quot;controversial&quot; statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of &quot;pig gods&quot; is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.<br /> <br /> I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]<br /> <br /> :We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == There is still misleading information in here ==<br /> <br /> I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.<br /> <br /> The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly &quot;mostly&quot; because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?<br /> <br /> What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.<br /> <br /> ::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> == We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==<br /> <br /> Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa<br /> : I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of &quot;putting across&quot; your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google &quot;the Arian crisis&quot; to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.<br /> <br /> ::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21<br /> <br /> ::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... &quot;Let your women keep silence in the churches,&quot; 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The &quot;entire Old Testament&quot; is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.<br /> <br /> :Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The role of an &quot;encyclopedia&quot; is not to convert others from other, &quot;wrong&quot; (i.e. &quot;not my&quot;) points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br /> ::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::: Anything &quot;can be viewed&quot; as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't &quot;make&quot; a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Five Pillars==<br /> We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :I thought that the &quot;twelvers&quot; were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Jihad, the &quot;sixth&quot; pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. &lt;font color=&quot;FFD700&quot;&gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;000000&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> : Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. &lt;font color=&quot;#222222&quot; face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot;&gt;Wik&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#444444&quot; face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot;&gt;i&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#666666&quot; face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot;&gt;nterpreter&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sup&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Spelling==<br /> <br /> The apostrophe in &quot;Qur'an&quot; is between the &quot;r&quot; and &quot;a,&quot; not after the &quot;u.&quot; [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Islam and Judaism ==<br /> <br /> There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==<br /> <br /> Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?<br /> <br /> :If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}<br /> <br /> == Islam and Paganism ==<br /> <br /> I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site<br /> <br /> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html<br /> <br /> {{unsigned|Kaviii}}<br /> <br /> I agree. Startoman24<br /> <br /> :The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> No one seems to have been able to attach any meaningful support to the claims in this section. Jack Chick tracts are not proof. The section has been removed until someone can find halfway trustworthy sources for the claims made in it --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 00:41, 30 June 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Changing &quot;Allah&quot; to &quot;God&quot; ==<br /> <br /> I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title &quot;Allah&quot; goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.<br /> <br /> I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :It seems that the Islamic usage of &quot;Allah&quot; is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament &quot;God&quot; it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Human Sacrifice ==<br /> I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.<br /> <br /> == revelation and transcription ==<br /> <br /> Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Recategorization ==<br /> <br /> Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Removal ==<br /> This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: &quot;Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal &lt;ref&gt;Ibid.&lt;/ref&gt; as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. &lt;ref&gt;Esposito, &quot;The Oxford History of Islam&quot;, p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books]&lt;/ref&gt;&quot;<br /> #The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).<br /> #Pig god &quot;Jamal&quot; - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means &quot;handsome&quot;. I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.<br /> #Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.<br /> #I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])&lt;/small&gt; 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}<br /> <br /> ==Islamic Violence==<br /> Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21<br /> <br /> ==Historical Background==<br /> I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but &quot;Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying.&quot;<br /> :Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: The article says, &quot;Some of the text for this article was taken from &quot;Islam: A Primer&quot;, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain&quot;. My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Head covering for women ==<br /> <br /> While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Star and moon symbol ==<br /> Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star &amp; Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}<br /> <br /> : I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for &quot;islam&quot; and &quot;islam symbol&quot; the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT) <br /> <br /> * http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg<br /> <br /> == Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==<br /> Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Except that it wouldn't be a truth. I'd say a major portion would be at least 0.5%, the number of jihadist muslims is much less.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:55, 23 June 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::Jihad is an important part of Islam. These people believe in a religion that supports &quot;holy war&quot;, if killing infidels isn't a major part of Islam I fail to see why much else is.[[User:RightPatriot|RightPatriot]]<br /> <br /> == Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==<br /> <br /> Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.<br /> Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.<br /> Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the &quot;vetting&quot;, it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Not to get into the Obama &quot;controversy&quot;, but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Gloria, I think you will find the Obama article ''speculates'' that he follows the Islamic faith. There is no conclusive proof (as yet) and as such he should not be included here. I am sue your concern is well-meaning, but speculation does not equate to fact. If he is ever found out be one, then by all means he can be added to the list. Until then...no. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Thank you for the prompt &amp; courteous response. I would argue that if we can say in the main article that he might be a Muslim, then we should be allowed to say that elsewhere on CP too. (After all, if we can't say it here, where ''can'' we say it?) However, I will be bound by your command. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)<br /> :In a way,I honestly do not mind (he is not my President, in any event), but your reply answers your own question. There is a difference between saying he 'might' be a Muslim and listing it as 'fact' under &quot;Prominent Muslims&quot;. Maybe &quot;Prominent Suspected Muslims&quot; but let us rather not go down that road. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == I object! ==<br /> <br /> I submit that the &quot;related&quot; link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.<br /> <br /> == Removed Obama ==<br /> <br /> Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.<br /> <br /> The first section in this debate section-[ http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F] is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)<br /> <br /> I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section &quot;Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all.&quot;-JArneal<br /> <br /> Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.<br /> <br /> == Removed Obama ==<br /> <br /> Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.<br /> <br /> TThe section Debate, is obama a muslim covers that myth, and is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)<br /> <br /> I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section &quot;Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all.&quot;-JArneal<br /> <br /> Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.<br /> <br /> == Prominent Muslim ==<br /> <br /> Right now it lists &quot;Barack Hussein Obama&quot; as a prominent Muslim but says he is &quot;President-elect&quot; of the United States. Even though it's inaccurate, is the title really necessary? Everyone should know who Obama is [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Relevance? ==<br /> <br /> The last line of the introduction to this article states that &quot;the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims.&quot; While this may be true - at least the majority of terrorists who are aimed at the United States may be Muslim, I'm not sure the majority of the world's modern terrorists are muslims - it is definately not cited. There is no evidence to this fact.<br /> And frankly, even if there does turn out to be evidence, I do not see the relevance that this has to the Islamic faith as a whole. You would not see on the &quot;African American&quot; page that the majority of domestic violence cases occur within this ethnicity. It is just IRRELEVANT. [[User:89vanguard|89vanguard]] 9:53 11, March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Consistency of Koran/Quran ==<br /> <br /> I noticed that the article is not consistent in its use of Koran and Quran. Could we make a decision as to which one to use, then use it throughout? I don't know enough about it to say which one to use, I am just pointing the inconsistency.{{unsigned|PatrickA}}<br /> :Good point. The correct spelling appears to be &quot;Qur’an&quot;, although I am under the impression that &quot;Koran&quot; is probably the acceptable Western spelling. Would you care to go ahead and standarise the article accordingly? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::Sorry for not getting there sooner, I had to get off. Thank you for standardizing the article. [[User:PatrickA|PatrickA]] 16:57, 17 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::Just as Chanukah has multiple spellings in english, Koran has no definite spelling using english characters.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:34, 23 June 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens) ==<br /> <br /> Can someone link the name in the prominent Muslim section, there is an article for him now.<br /> <br /> :I reverted a comment on this page by User:The Troll because it was nothing more than rude remarks and did nothing to add to the article. I know we usually do not revert talk page comments. If any Sysop feels I was wrong, please feel free to revert my deletion of the comment, thanks [[User:Taj|Taj]] 16:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Obvious trolling, as in this case where the user self-identified as a Troll, isn't protected. We are not a free bulletin board for those who disagree with conservative and Christian values are welcomed to disagree with us with impunity, or argue we are wrong without end. Respectful disagreement or questions are welcome. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == could you remove something ==<br /> <br /> I think the &quot;despite his illiteracy&quot; in the introduction is a little biased sounding. It's true he was illiterate, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like it didn't happen that way. While muslims believe that was a miracle in itself, you could always just put another sentence saying &quot;So-so people doubt this because so-so&quot;. Just to make it less biased. I would do it, but I wasn't sure exactly if i should because it's a change in tone, although I feel a more neutral one.--[[User:Panda|Panda]] 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *We are not unbiased. We are a conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia by definition. We have no interest in diluting the facts here, or making them &quot;politically correct&quot; so no one could possibly be offended. You should fight carrying over things you were indoctrinated with from Wikipedia and MSM. Someone saying God doesn't exist is a lie, and we don't mind saying so quite clearly. Too bad they don't agree; there are thousands of atheist/agnostic/secular wikis, boards and forums for them to participate in. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:21, 17 June 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Dilution of Conservative POV ==<br /> <br /> Please do not water this article down! By the tacit and explicit agreement of the so-called moderate elements of Islam, their failure to consistently and loudly speak out against violence, it is a violent religion. --&lt;big&gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;/big&gt;&lt;sub&gt;/Admin&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:46, 15 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> But there are several instances of Muslims and Muslim organizations speaking out against violence and terrorism. A notable example is here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter16.htm [[User:YNathanielsz|YNathanielsz]] 20:23, 8 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes, let's all be very careful not to water down the bias in this article! Neutrality is for liberals! Anyone who isn't willing to be held accountable for the actions of everyone even tangentially associated with them is just as guilty as a terrorist! [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 18:03, 19 April 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Dialectical Logic of Islamists ==<br /> <br /> ''Dialectical logic'' [http://www.FrankHatchiii.com/The_Lost.html] is found in the core of Eastern and Western thought. It is a common flaw to the human species. Although the various human cultures have devloped their own methods of using this flaw, it is not simply a cultural defect. However, since each culture uses this flaw to defend and to define itself, every attempt to correct the flaw is perceived to be an attack on the culture itself. '''Islamists''' are particularly sensitive to this perceived attack; because the dialectical Absolute of the Koran is found in the attempt to synthesize the Old and New Testaments.[http://www.FrankHatchiii.com/Mayor.html]--[[User:FrankHatch|FrankHatch]] 13:32, 13 May 2011 (EDT)<br /> --[[User:FrankHatch|FrankHatch]] 13:36, 13 May 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Christianity never attacked the Islamic world.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> The Pope authorized the Crusades. Is the argument that they weren't an attack, the target wasn't the Islamic world, or that Catholics aren't Christians? [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 19:58, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :'Attack' in this context means to be the aggressor. Christendom didn't attack the Islamic empire, it defended itself against invasion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 03:06, 15 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Right. #1 then. Okay, thanks. [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 09:37, 15 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> I'd hardly call the crusades a defence against Islamic invasion. While Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike see Jerusalem and the surrounding areas as the holy land, the Islamic Kingdoms of the time had had control of the area for a very long time before the Crusades. All territorial claims aside, by any technical definition of the word, it was a Christian invasion. I think this is somewhat of a grey area, and is easily up for debate. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 15:31, 22 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Not a defense against an Islamic invasion? Do you know how much of Christian Europe was conquered by Islamic hordes before we pushed them back? I suggest you read about the Reconquista and more generally about the period from the collapse of the Western Empire to the high middle ages. It's a period little taught but most rewarding of study. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I'd by lying if I said I was super well-read in medieval history(my strongest area of history is the late 19th to the mid 20th centuries), and I'll take your advice and read up on it, and continue my involvement with this article when I have more knowledge. I was basing my opinion on a minimal amount of knowledge, and I suppose you may have a point. [[NSmyth|NSmyth]] 15:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:NSmyth&diff=904445 User:NSmyth 2011-08-22T19:38:58Z <p>NSmyth: Just a little edit to my page seeing as I'm not a kid with no grasp of the reality of political, and religious viewpoints anymore.</p> <hr /> <div>A former sysop on Conservapedia, I am a person who refuses to look at anything through the eyes of any political affiliation. I live based on logic and reason, and my actions will reflect this as I find it appropriate to do so.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{user Evo}}<br /> {{User bigbang}}<br /> {{User bothered}}<br /> {{User Donuthole}}<br /> {{User noracists}}<br /> {{User patriot questions authority}}<br /> {{User Bible just book}} <br /> {{User pubschool}}<br /> {{User Earth}} <br /> {{User gay rights}} <br /> {{User cows tasty}} <br /> {{User Block|Zero}} <br /> {{User Barnstar?}}</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Islam&diff=904441 Talk:Islam 2011-08-22T19:31:49Z <p>NSmyth: /* Christianity never attacked the Islamic world.&quot; */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Wikiproject Religion}}<br /> See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.<br /> ----<br /> Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...<br /> <br /> Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.<br /> <br /> The first section of this article is factual.<br /> <br /> The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it (&quot;The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world&quot;) seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21<br /> :: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> : This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating &quot;entirely&quot; like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> &quot;a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents&quot; - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]<br /> <br /> The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads &quot;They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief&quot;. Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]<br /> : It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: Regarding &quot;controversial&quot; statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of &quot;pig gods&quot; is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.<br /> <br /> I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]<br /> <br /> :We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == There is still misleading information in here ==<br /> <br /> I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.<br /> <br /> The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly &quot;mostly&quot; because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?<br /> <br /> What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.<br /> <br /> ::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> == We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==<br /> <br /> Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa<br /> : I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of &quot;putting across&quot; your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google &quot;the Arian crisis&quot; to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.<br /> <br /> ::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21<br /> <br /> ::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... &quot;Let your women keep silence in the churches,&quot; 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The &quot;entire Old Testament&quot; is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.<br /> <br /> :Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The role of an &quot;encyclopedia&quot; is not to convert others from other, &quot;wrong&quot; (i.e. &quot;not my&quot;) points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br /> ::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::: Anything &quot;can be viewed&quot; as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't &quot;make&quot; a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Five Pillars==<br /> We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :I thought that the &quot;twelvers&quot; were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Jihad, the &quot;sixth&quot; pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. &lt;font color=&quot;FFD700&quot;&gt;[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;000000&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> : Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. &lt;font color=&quot;#222222&quot; face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot;&gt;Wik&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#444444&quot; face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot;&gt;i&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#666666&quot; face=&quot;Times New Roman&quot;&gt;nterpreter&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sup&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> <br /> Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Spelling==<br /> <br /> The apostrophe in &quot;Qur'an&quot; is between the &quot;r&quot; and &quot;a,&quot; not after the &quot;u.&quot; [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Islam and Judaism ==<br /> <br /> There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==<br /> <br /> Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?<br /> <br /> :If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}<br /> <br /> == Islam and Paganism ==<br /> <br /> I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site<br /> <br /> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html<br /> <br /> {{unsigned|Kaviii}}<br /> <br /> I agree. Startoman24<br /> <br /> :The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> No one seems to have been able to attach any meaningful support to the claims in this section. Jack Chick tracts are not proof. The section has been removed until someone can find halfway trustworthy sources for the claims made in it --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 00:41, 30 June 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Changing &quot;Allah&quot; to &quot;God&quot; ==<br /> <br /> I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title &quot;Allah&quot; goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.<br /> <br /> I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :It seems that the Islamic usage of &quot;Allah&quot; is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament &quot;God&quot; it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Human Sacrifice ==<br /> I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.<br /> <br /> == revelation and transcription ==<br /> <br /> Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Recategorization ==<br /> <br /> Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Removal ==<br /> This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: &quot;Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal &lt;ref&gt;Ibid.&lt;/ref&gt; as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. &lt;ref&gt;Esposito, &quot;The Oxford History of Islam&quot;, p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books]&lt;/ref&gt;&quot;<br /> #The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).<br /> #Pig god &quot;Jamal&quot; - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means &quot;handsome&quot;. I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.<br /> #Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.<br /> #I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])&lt;/small&gt; 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}<br /> <br /> ==Islamic Violence==<br /> Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21<br /> <br /> ==Historical Background==<br /> I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but &quot;Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying.&quot;<br /> :Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: The article says, &quot;Some of the text for this article was taken from &quot;Islam: A Primer&quot;, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain&quot;. My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Head covering for women ==<br /> <br /> While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Star and moon symbol ==<br /> Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star &amp; Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}<br /> <br /> : I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for &quot;islam&quot; and &quot;islam symbol&quot; the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT) <br /> <br /> * http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg<br /> <br /> == Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==<br /> Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Except that it wouldn't be a truth. I'd say a major portion would be at least 0.5%, the number of jihadist muslims is much less.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:55, 23 June 2009 (EDT)<br /> :::Jihad is an important part of Islam. These people believe in a religion that supports &quot;holy war&quot;, if killing infidels isn't a major part of Islam I fail to see why much else is.[[User:RightPatriot|RightPatriot]]<br /> <br /> == Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==<br /> <br /> Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.<br /> Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.<br /> Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the &quot;vetting&quot;, it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Not to get into the Obama &quot;controversy&quot;, but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Gloria, I think you will find the Obama article ''speculates'' that he follows the Islamic faith. There is no conclusive proof (as yet) and as such he should not be included here. I am sue your concern is well-meaning, but speculation does not equate to fact. If he is ever found out be one, then by all means he can be added to the list. Until then...no. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Thank you for the prompt &amp; courteous response. I would argue that if we can say in the main article that he might be a Muslim, then we should be allowed to say that elsewhere on CP too. (After all, if we can't say it here, where ''can'' we say it?) However, I will be bound by your command. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)<br /> :In a way,I honestly do not mind (he is not my President, in any event), but your reply answers your own question. There is a difference between saying he 'might' be a Muslim and listing it as 'fact' under &quot;Prominent Muslims&quot;. Maybe &quot;Prominent Suspected Muslims&quot; but let us rather not go down that road. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == I object! ==<br /> <br /> I submit that the &quot;related&quot; link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.<br /> <br /> == Removed Obama ==<br /> <br /> Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.<br /> <br /> The first section in this debate section-[ http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F] is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)<br /> <br /> I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section &quot;Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all.&quot;-JArneal<br /> <br /> Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.<br /> <br /> == Removed Obama ==<br /> <br /> Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.<br /> <br /> TThe section Debate, is obama a muslim covers that myth, and is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)<br /> <br /> I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section &quot;Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all.&quot;-JArneal<br /> <br /> Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.<br /> <br /> == Prominent Muslim ==<br /> <br /> Right now it lists &quot;Barack Hussein Obama&quot; as a prominent Muslim but says he is &quot;President-elect&quot; of the United States. Even though it's inaccurate, is the title really necessary? Everyone should know who Obama is [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Relevance? ==<br /> <br /> The last line of the introduction to this article states that &quot;the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims.&quot; While this may be true - at least the majority of terrorists who are aimed at the United States may be Muslim, I'm not sure the majority of the world's modern terrorists are muslims - it is definately not cited. There is no evidence to this fact.<br /> And frankly, even if there does turn out to be evidence, I do not see the relevance that this has to the Islamic faith as a whole. You would not see on the &quot;African American&quot; page that the majority of domestic violence cases occur within this ethnicity. It is just IRRELEVANT. [[User:89vanguard|89vanguard]] 9:53 11, March 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Consistency of Koran/Quran ==<br /> <br /> I noticed that the article is not consistent in its use of Koran and Quran. Could we make a decision as to which one to use, then use it throughout? I don't know enough about it to say which one to use, I am just pointing the inconsistency.{{unsigned|PatrickA}}<br /> :Good point. The correct spelling appears to be &quot;Qur’an&quot;, although I am under the impression that &quot;Koran&quot; is probably the acceptable Western spelling. Would you care to go ahead and standarise the article accordingly? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::Sorry for not getting there sooner, I had to get off. Thank you for standardizing the article. [[User:PatrickA|PatrickA]] 16:57, 17 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> ::Just as Chanukah has multiple spellings in english, Koran has no definite spelling using english characters.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:34, 23 June 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens) ==<br /> <br /> Can someone link the name in the prominent Muslim section, there is an article for him now.<br /> <br /> :I reverted a comment on this page by User:The Troll because it was nothing more than rude remarks and did nothing to add to the article. I know we usually do not revert talk page comments. If any Sysop feels I was wrong, please feel free to revert my deletion of the comment, thanks [[User:Taj|Taj]] 16:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Obvious trolling, as in this case where the user self-identified as a Troll, isn't protected. We are not a free bulletin board for those who disagree with conservative and Christian values are welcomed to disagree with us with impunity, or argue we are wrong without end. Respectful disagreement or questions are welcome. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == could you remove something ==<br /> <br /> I think the &quot;despite his illiteracy&quot; in the introduction is a little biased sounding. It's true he was illiterate, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like it didn't happen that way. While muslims believe that was a miracle in itself, you could always just put another sentence saying &quot;So-so people doubt this because so-so&quot;. Just to make it less biased. I would do it, but I wasn't sure exactly if i should because it's a change in tone, although I feel a more neutral one.--[[User:Panda|Panda]] 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *We are not unbiased. We are a conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia by definition. We have no interest in diluting the facts here, or making them &quot;politically correct&quot; so no one could possibly be offended. You should fight carrying over things you were indoctrinated with from Wikipedia and MSM. Someone saying God doesn't exist is a lie, and we don't mind saying so quite clearly. Too bad they don't agree; there are thousands of atheist/agnostic/secular wikis, boards and forums for them to participate in. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:21, 17 June 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Dilution of Conservative POV ==<br /> <br /> Please do not water this article down! By the tacit and explicit agreement of the so-called moderate elements of Islam, their failure to consistently and loudly speak out against violence, it is a violent religion. --&lt;big&gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;/big&gt;&lt;sub&gt;/Admin&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:46, 15 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> But there are several instances of Muslims and Muslim organizations speaking out against violence and terrorism. A notable example is here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter16.htm [[User:YNathanielsz|YNathanielsz]] 20:23, 8 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes, let's all be very careful not to water down the bias in this article! Neutrality is for liberals! Anyone who isn't willing to be held accountable for the actions of everyone even tangentially associated with them is just as guilty as a terrorist! [[User:Kamiwashinda|Kamiwashinda]] 18:03, 19 April 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Dialectical Logic of Islamists ==<br /> <br /> ''Dialectical logic'' [http://www.FrankHatchiii.com/The_Lost.html] is found in the core of Eastern and Western thought. It is a common flaw to the human species. Although the various human cultures have devloped their own methods of using this flaw, it is not simply a cultural defect. However, since each culture uses this flaw to defend and to define itself, every attempt to correct the flaw is perceived to be an attack on the culture itself. '''Islamists''' are particularly sensitive to this perceived attack; because the dialectical Absolute of the Koran is found in the attempt to synthesize the Old and New Testaments.[http://www.FrankHatchiii.com/Mayor.html]--[[User:FrankHatch|FrankHatch]] 13:32, 13 May 2011 (EDT)<br /> --[[User:FrankHatch|FrankHatch]] 13:36, 13 May 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Christianity never attacked the Islamic world.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> The Pope authorized the Crusades. Is the argument that they weren't an attack, the target wasn't the Islamic world, or that Catholics aren't Christians? [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 19:58, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :'Attack' in this context means to be the aggressor. Christendom didn't attack the Islamic empire, it defended itself against invasion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 03:06, 15 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Right. #1 then. Okay, thanks. [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 09:37, 15 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> I'd hardly call the crusades a defence against Islamic invasion. While Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike see Jerusalem and the surrounding areas as the holy land, the Islamic Kingdoms of the time had had control of the area for a very long time before the Crusades. All territorial claims aside, by any technical definition of the word, it was a Christian invasion. I think this is somewhat of a grey area, and is easily up for debate. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 15:31, 22 August 2011 (EDT)</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:NSmyth&diff=649826 User:NSmyth 2009-04-07T15:49:08Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>I am here to make sure the pages here are the truth and to remove all bias. I am a ... what's the word for someone who agrees with things from both sides but doesn't completely agree with everything from both sides? &amp; agnostic Canadian male. I believe in removing bias from the media and from informational webpages and other forms of educational/informative material. I'm pro-choice, I support equal rights, and I eat Shellfish, an abomination according to the bible. These views do not effect my edits, only facts and the removal of extreme bias do.<br /> <br /> Have a problem? Wish to discuss current events &amp; issues? Wish for my input on a debate? Edit my discussion page and voice your concerns. <br /> <br /> <br /> {{user Evo}}<br /> {{User bigbang}}<br /> {{User antigun}}<br /> {{User bothered}}<br /> {{User Donuthole}}<br /> {{User noracists}}<br /> {{User patriot questions authority}}<br /> {{User guns harm}} <br /> {{User Bible just book}} <br /> {{User pubschool}}in Canada<br /> {{User Earth}} <br /> {{User gay rights}} <br /> {{User cows tasty}} <br /> {{User Block|Zero}} <br /> {{User Barnstar?}}</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:NSmyth&diff=391642 User talk:NSmyth 2008-02-20T06:28:09Z <p>NSmyth: /* Welcome back */</p> <hr /> <div>==User Complaints==<br /> <br /> <br /> I think 1 week is a little weak considering the massive amounts of vandalism done by Liberatarian. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> I didn;t see it, I\\\'m probably going to expand it shortly.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Take a look at the past 100 changes or so. I\\\'m just glad a sysop showed up and blocked him. Users Sam, Jpaffett, and Bmn2008 were all vandalizing earlier too. I tried to mark each time they vandalized in the summary of changes. Thanks! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> I\\\'ll reblock him when the week is up, he\\\'ll probably have forgotten about the site by then anyway. .[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: '''Thanks for your blocks'''. For obscenity or clear vandals, I suggest blocks of infinite duration. We don't want those folks returning. Someone will tell us if we made a mistake and we can then undo an infinite block. But such mistakes are less than 1%. Thanks much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> [[User:Ilove69]] is a vandal.<br /> <br /> I\\\'m just sitting here patiently waiting for him to come back with a new account. But the infinite ban might just stick. [[USer:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 07:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> *lol that comment was the only reason i made those last 4 accounts. anyway as i said before, i\'m done, so i guess you\'re right the infinite ban will stick. I\'d love to find a way to do some serious mass vandalism, but yeah you\'ve got it locked down fairly well - i was actualy impressed with your response time on that last one! you got me before the minute was out! nice work [[User:Kfactor|Kfactor]] 09:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> Sam is a vandal also. He keeps trying to edit the censorship page. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 07:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If you\\\'re still online, Darrenissa is a vandal also. See Rudy Giuliani and NATO pages for explanation. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 07:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I saw that and have put a warning on her page.<br /> <br /> ==Vandal==<br /> Hey man i\'m your vandal: <br /> *Libertarian<br /> *ilove69<br /> *Water_cracker<br /> *Planner<br /> *Teratactile<br /> *lesbian sex lover<br /> But yeah game over man. Good luck in the future - I reckon due to the nature of the website you\'ll end up receiving way more vandalism than i could ever hope to dish out - and possibly not in the light hearted manner of my edits, but serious bot based vandalism. .I\'ll look into it. [[User:Kfactor|Kfactor]] 09:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==I understand... but==<br /> <br /> I understand your frustration and removal of the post that was placed on the Conservapedia Talk page. However, it was perfectly acceptable. I have restored it. If something is posted on a talk page it should really only be deleted if it violates the Commandments. Thanks [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 09:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :Yeah, I was about leave you a comment about that after I saw that you had changed it back. I didn't look at where I was before I wiped it. I thought it was another part of the spam attack I've been dealing with. My mistake, sorry. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 09:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Thanks ==<br /> <br /> For catching that idiot vandal on the Rudy page! When it happens, please post your actions on the talk page there, so we can all know whats been happening, ok? --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==A Liberal Editor?==<br /> <br /> Because I am so amazingly awsome I feel i should get my own area so I have taken the liberty of making one. Speaking of Liberty, I'm surprised that there's a liberal sysop on this site. Wouldn't joining something like conservapedia go against what you believe in? I mean after all, you're liberal, you should hate everything conservatives stand for. I think you're just a hypocrit, you say you're one thing but side with the other, how can anyone respect you? You can even stay true to your political beliefs, you're a traitor and you should be despised. Something like this would be considered treason and do you know what they used to do to people who committed treason? They would be executed... maybe we should adopt this into our times<br /> <br /> :I am a socialist, I actually have spent a good portion of my time removing bias(for either side) from pages and even more(almost all of it actually) time fighting the vandalism that goes on here. I don't know if you're one of those vandals or if you actually plan on making a difference here. I'm just here to help keep things factual.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]01:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT) P.S. I changed the name of this to something a touch more intelligent.<br /> <br /> :I can see why your here and that's all fine, but what would draw you to a conservative site to begin with? There is something wrong with that picture, I could understand if it was wikipedia or something like that but conservapedia? You can do better than that i'm sure. I lean more towards anarchy than anything but I have nothing else better to do. Good luck keeping things factual and dealing with vandals, I'm not here to vandalise anything, just here to challenge people's opinions and see if they can truly back up what they believe. Once again good luck... <br /> <br /> [[User:Maxpower|Maxpower]]<br /> <br /> ::If you want the truth(I mean, I base my existence on this site on it) I originally came here intending to be a vandal, but found that I could do good and make this a viable site unlike others. Please voice your opinions, just don't post them in the articles and it's all good. Post your opinions on the discussion pages and we won't have a problem.[[User:Nsmyth|Nsmyth]]01:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Thanks for helping me out when I was blocked, much appreciated<br /> [[User:Maxpower|Maxpower]]<br /> ::::No problem.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]<br /> <br /> == You hate cheese! ==<br /> <br /> I gobble cheese. Why do you hate it. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 03:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == God bless you for that block! ==<br /> <br /> Thank you for that quick block at 4 am NYC time of the user who gave himself the name of JEWS DID WTC. LOL JEWS. LOL WTC. !!!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Thanks. I just happened to click the recent changes link and it was at the top of the list.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 09:21, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Thanks for acting quickly on what you saw!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Thanks again, also fixed &quot;TheTruth&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Thanks again for your great blocks. I've de-Sysoped TheTruth after seeing your discussion about it and recalling that you have replaced the account. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Why==<br /> <br /> Kiowa was subtly vandalizing articles and changing facts to make them blatantly wrong. I found about five examples of it going back through his edits. For example, look at his edit on [[Americium]].<br /> <br /> Tmtoulouse was openly encouraging people to vandalize articles. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Ok, was just curious...*laughs at americium edit*. Thanks for clearing that up for me.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 04:07, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == If you like ==<br /> <br /> Enjoy the use of this template if you like &lt;nowiki&gt;{{liberal}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;. I was going to turn it into a six pointed star but I thought that would be too much. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :I honestly have no idea what to think of this lol.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 08:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Nirvana==<br /> <br /> Please enhance our entry on [[Nirvana]]. The article shows promise, but needs a good deal of work. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 16:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Unfortunately I don't know much about the subject.I cna try to find something on Google though I guess.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]]<br /> <br /> == Abomination? ==<br /> <br /> How exactly are shellfish an abomination?[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 16:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Because [[God]] says so:<br /> ::&quot;Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.&quot; (Leviticus 11:12) <br /> :Shellfish are in the waters and have neither fins nor scales.<br /> :Is that clear enough?<br /> ::&quot;He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.&quot; (Deuteronomy 32:4)<br /> :[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 06:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Somewhere in all of that, The New, and Everlasting Covenant seems to be missing......--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Sysop Pledge==<br /> <br /> As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 00:03, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Ok, Considering it makes sense and I don't believe I've gone agaisnt it yet, I have absolutely no problem putting it on my userpage.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 07:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> {{Sysop Pledge}}<br /> <br /> == Thanks ==<br /> <br /> Just a note of thanks to you, NSmyth, for your past efforts. As a matter of policy, we de-Sysop inactive or semi-retired users. Sysop status can be reconsidered at a future time.<br /> <br /> Thanks again and God bless your future efforts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :You're welcome. It was a pleasure to work with you and others here. I might be back when I can afford to have my internet turned back on(Gets turned off tomorrow). I might check up on the site whenever I have access to an internet equipped computer. [[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 19:20, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *I agree with Andy. Please come back when you can. You are a fair person. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 20:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Welcome back... ==<br /> <br /> I emailed Andy my support for restoring you to Sysop. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 12:28, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Thank you. It's good to be back. Thanks for the support.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 14:40, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Block privileges given==<br /> <br /> You have been given the ability to block users. Thanks! [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:45, 26 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Bless you, Philip! U have google mail, dude. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 21:48, 26 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Welcome back ==<br /> <br /> Welcome back. It's been awhile. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:24, 17 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Welcome back indeed. I hope you've been well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:31, 17 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> Thank you! Yes it has been a while, I've been really busy with other stuff for a while. I'm still busy a lot of the time so I won't be around too too much, but I'll actually be around now. I've been quite well, I'm actually about to go back to school to get my HS diploma and will hopefully be going to college to be a chef afterwards. Thanks again for the warm welcome, sorry it took so long to come back again and read it :( --[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 01:28, 20 February 2008 (EST)</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:NSmyth&diff=390063 User:NSmyth 2008-02-18T01:32:41Z <p>NSmyth: Just thought I'd check in as I have the time for once and fix something on my user page.</p> <hr /> <div>I am here to make sure the pages here are the truth and to remove all bias. I am a ... what's the word for someone who agrees with things from both sides but doesn't completely agree with everything from both sides? &amp; agnostic Canadian male. I believe in removing bias from the media and from informational webpages and other forms of educational/informative material. I'm pro-choice, I support equal rights, and I eat Shellfish, an abomination according to the bible. These views do not effect my edits, only facts and the removal of extreme bias do.<br /> <br /> Have a problem? Wish to discuss current events &amp; issues? Wish for my input on a debate? Edit my discussion page and voice your concerns. <br /> <br /> Pages I am actively working on when I have time(which I don't have much of):<br /> <br /> [[Emo]]<br /> [[Punk]]<br /> {{user Evo}}<br /> {{User bigbang}}<br /> {{User antigun}}<br /> {{User bothered}}<br /> {{User Donuthole}}<br /> {{User noracists}}<br /> {{User patriot questions authority}}<br /> {{User guns harm}} <br /> {{User Bible just book}} <br /> {{User pubschool}}in Canada<br /> {{User Earth}} <br /> {{User gay rights}} <br /> {{User cows tasty}} <br /> {{User Block|Zero}} <br /> {{User Barnstar?}}</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Punk&diff=363555 Punk 2008-01-03T20:46:22Z <p>NSmyth: Replacing removed name in article.</p> <hr /> <div>'''Punk music''' originated in the [[United Kingdom]] in the late 1970s, with bands such as the [[Sex Pistols]], [[The Clash]] and [[The Buzzcocks]], primarily as a response to the cultural sterility of [[progressive rock]]. It quickly spread to the [[USA]] where bands such as [[The Ramones]] helped punk to continue to rise in popularity.<br /> <br /> ==Musicality==<br /> <br /> Punk is charactarised by up-tempo [[guitar]]/bass arrangements. The lyrics can be concerned with any topic, generally, but are almost always written with a 1-2, 1-2 rhyme scheme. By design, the songs are usually structured to be very simplistic rock songs of the 1-4-5 chord progression variety. <br /> <br /> ==Dancing==<br /> <br /> Various methods of dancing to it have emerged, such as skanking and pogo-ing. Punk-style dance is typically designed to be synasthesically expressive of an emotion, not of a particular representational style, such as a jitterbug.<br /> <br /> ==Punk Culture==<br /> <br /> Punks typically distinguish themselves from others with their unmistakable appearances. This has included things such as Mohawk hairstyles, tight pants, studded leather jackets, bullet belts, combat boots, etc. Clothing and hairstyles vary widely throughout the punk scene, and often particular outfits denote particular strains of punk or core-beliefs. Most true punks however will claim that the punk subculture is more based on the idea of non-conformity.<br /> <br /> ==Sub-Genres==<br /> <br /> <br /> * [[hardcore]]<br /> * [[psychobilly]]<br /> * [[pop-punk]]<br /> * [[crust]]<br /> * [[emo]]<br /> <br /> == Notable Punk bands ==<br /> <br /> === United Kingdom===<br /> * [[Poison Girls]]<br /> * [[Subhumans]]<br /> * [[Crass]]<br /> * [[Sex Pistols]]<br /> * [[The Buzzcocks]]<br /> * [[The Damned]]<br /> * [[Adicts]]<br /> * [[U.K. Subs]]<br /> * [[The Exploited]]<br /> * [[The Clash]]<br /> * The [[Anti-Nowhere League]]<br /> * [[Flux of Pink Indians]]<br /> * [[Conflict]]<br /> * [[Siouxsie and the Banshees]]<br /> * [[The Stranglers]]<br /> * [[The Fall]]<br /> <br /> === United States ===<br /> * [[Pixies]]<br /> * [[The Ramones]]<br /> * [[Television(band)|Television]]<br /> * [[Dead Kennedys]]<br /> * [[Anti-Flag]]<br /> * [[Misfits]]<br /> * [[New York Dolls]]<br /> * [[Bad Religion]]<br /> * [[Dropkick Murphys]]<br /> * [[Black Flag]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Christianity in Punk Music==<br /> <br /> There are few bands that are considered to be Christian punk bands.<br /> <br /> Some examples are:<br /> <br /> *[[MxPx]]<br /> *[[Relient K]]<br /> *[[Slick Shoes]]<br /> <br /> However, these bands are not generally considered to be punk bands based on their sound.<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> [http://www.punkvoter.com Punkvoter.com]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Punk| ]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:NSmyth&diff=176813 User talk:NSmyth 2007-05-25T18:40:03Z <p>NSmyth: /* Welcome back... */</p> <hr /> <div>==User Complaints==<br /> <br /> <br /> I think 1 week is a little weak considering the massive amounts of vandalism done by Liberatarian. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> I didn;t see it, I\\\'m probably going to expand it shortly.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Take a look at the past 100 changes or so. I\\\'m just glad a sysop showed up and blocked him. Users Sam, Jpaffett, and Bmn2008 were all vandalizing earlier too. I tried to mark each time they vandalized in the summary of changes. Thanks! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> I\\\'ll reblock him when the week is up, he\\\'ll probably have forgotten about the site by then anyway. .[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: '''Thanks for your blocks'''. For obscenity or clear vandals, I suggest blocks of infinite duration. We don't want those folks returning. Someone will tell us if we made a mistake and we can then undo an infinite block. But such mistakes are less than 1%. Thanks much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> [[User:Ilove69]] is a vandal.<br /> <br /> I\\\'m just sitting here patiently waiting for him to come back with a new account. But the infinite ban might just stick. [[USer:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 07:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> *lol that comment was the only reason i made those last 4 accounts. anyway as i said before, i\'m done, so i guess you\'re right the infinite ban will stick. I\'d love to find a way to do some serious mass vandalism, but yeah you\'ve got it locked down fairly well - i was actualy impressed with your response time on that last one! you got me before the minute was out! nice work [[User:Kfactor|Kfactor]] 09:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> Sam is a vandal also. He keeps trying to edit the censorship page. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 07:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If you\\\'re still online, Darrenissa is a vandal also. See Rudy Giuliani and NATO pages for explanation. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 07:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I saw that and have put a warning on her page.<br /> <br /> ==Vandal==<br /> Hey man i\'m your vandal: <br /> *Libertarian<br /> *ilove69<br /> *Water_cracker<br /> *Planner<br /> *Teratactile<br /> *lesbian sex lover<br /> But yeah game over man. Good luck in the future - I reckon due to the nature of the website you\'ll end up receiving way more vandalism than i could ever hope to dish out - and possibly not in the light hearted manner of my edits, but serious bot based vandalism. .I\'ll look into it. [[User:Kfactor|Kfactor]] 09:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==I understand... but==<br /> <br /> I understand your frustration and removal of the post that was placed on the Conservapedia Talk page. However, it was perfectly acceptable. I have restored it. If something is posted on a talk page it should really only be deleted if it violates the Commandments. Thanks [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 09:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :Yeah, I was about leave you a comment about that after I saw that you had changed it back. I didn't look at where I was before I wiped it. I thought it was another part of the spam attack I've been dealing with. My mistake, sorry. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 09:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Thanks ==<br /> <br /> For catching that idiot vandal on the Rudy page! When it happens, please post your actions on the talk page there, so we can all know whats been happening, ok? --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==A Liberal Editor?==<br /> <br /> Because I am so amazingly awsome I feel i should get my own area so I have taken the liberty of making one. Speaking of Liberty, I'm surprised that there's a liberal sysop on this site. Wouldn't joining something like conservapedia go against what you believe in? I mean after all, you're liberal, you should hate everything conservatives stand for. I think you're just a hypocrit, you say you're one thing but side with the other, how can anyone respect you? You can even stay true to your political beliefs, you're a traitor and you should be despised. Something like this would be considered treason and do you know what they used to do to people who committed treason? They would be executed... maybe we should adopt this into our times<br /> <br /> :I am a socialist, I actually have spent a good portion of my time removing bias(for either side) from pages and even more(almost all of it actually) time fighting the vandalism that goes on here. I don't know if you're one of those vandals or if you actually plan on making a difference here. I'm just here to help keep things factual.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]01:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT) P.S. I changed the name of this to something a touch more intelligent.<br /> <br /> :I can see why your here and that's all fine, but what would draw you to a conservative site to begin with? There is something wrong with that picture, I could understand if it was wikipedia or something like that but conservapedia? You can do better than that i'm sure. I lean more towards anarchy than anything but I have nothing else better to do. Good luck keeping things factual and dealing with vandals, I'm not here to vandalise anything, just here to challenge people's opinions and see if they can truly back up what they believe. Once again good luck... <br /> <br /> [[User:Maxpower|Maxpower]]<br /> <br /> ::If you want the truth(I mean, I base my existence on this site on it) I originally came here intending to be a vandal, but found that I could do good and make this a viable site unlike others. Please voice your opinions, just don't post them in the articles and it's all good. Post your opinions on the discussion pages and we won't have a problem.[[User:Nsmyth|Nsmyth]]01:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Thanks for helping me out when I was blocked, much appreciated<br /> [[User:Maxpower|Maxpower]]<br /> ::::No problem.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]<br /> <br /> == You hate cheese! ==<br /> <br /> I gobble cheese. Why do you hate it. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 03:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == God bless you for that block! ==<br /> <br /> Thank you for that quick block at 4 am NYC time of the user who gave himself the name of JEWS DID WTC. LOL JEWS. LOL WTC. !!!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Thanks. I just happened to click the recent changes link and it was at the top of the list.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 09:21, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Thanks for acting quickly on what you saw!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Thanks again, also fixed &quot;TheTruth&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Thanks again for your great blocks. I've de-Sysoped TheTruth after seeing your discussion about it and recalling that you have replaced the account. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Why==<br /> <br /> Kiowa was subtly vandalizing articles and changing facts to make them blatantly wrong. I found about five examples of it going back through his edits. For example, look at his edit on [[Americium]].<br /> <br /> Tmtoulouse was openly encouraging people to vandalize articles. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Ok, was just curious...*laughs at americium edit*. Thanks for clearing that up for me.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 04:07, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == If you like ==<br /> <br /> Enjoy the use of this template if you like &lt;nowiki&gt;{{liberal}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;. I was going to turn it into a six pointed star but I thought that would be too much. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :I honestly have no idea what to think of this lol.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 08:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Nirvana==<br /> <br /> Please enhance our entry on [[Nirvana]]. The article shows promise, but needs a good deal of work. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 16:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Unfortunately I don't know much about the subject.I cna try to find something on Google though I guess.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]]<br /> <br /> == Abomination? ==<br /> <br /> How exactly are shellfish an abomination?[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 16:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Because [[God]] says so:<br /> ::&quot;Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.&quot; (Leviticus 11:12) <br /> :Shellfish are in the waters and have neither fins nor scales.<br /> :Is that clear enough?<br /> ::&quot;He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.&quot; (Deuteronomy 32:4)<br /> :[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 06:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Somewhere in all of that, The New, and Everlasting Covenant seems to be missing......--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Sysop Pledge==<br /> <br /> As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 00:03, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Ok, Considering it makes sense and I don't believe I've gone agaisnt it yet, I have absolutely no problem putting it on my userpage.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 07:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> {{Sysop Pledge}}<br /> <br /> == Thanks ==<br /> <br /> Just a note of thanks to you, NSmyth, for your past efforts. As a matter of policy, we de-Sysop inactive or semi-retired users. Sysop status can be reconsidered at a future time.<br /> <br /> Thanks again and God bless your future efforts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :You're welcome. It was a pleasure to work with you and others here. I might be back when I can afford to have my internet turned back on(Gets turned off tomorrow). I might check up on the site whenever I have access to an internet equipped computer. [[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 19:20, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *I agree with Andy. Please come back when you can. You are a fair person. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 20:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Welcome back... ==<br /> <br /> I emailed Andy my support for restoring you to Sysop. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 12:28, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Thank you. It's good to be back. Thanks for the support.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 14:40, 25 May 2007 (EDT)</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Angels_And_Airwaves&diff=175848 Angels And Airwaves 2007-05-24T21:14:46Z <p>NSmyth: spelling mistake</p> <hr /> <div>'''Angels &amp; Airwaves''' is an [[alternative rock]] band whose members include guitarist/vocalist [[Tom DeLonge]](formerly of [[Blink-182]]), guitarist [[David Kennedy]](formerly of [[Hazen Street]]), drummer [[Atom Willard]](formerly of [[Rocket From The Crypt]] and [[The Offspring]], and bassist [[Matt Wachter]](formerly of [[30 Seconds To Mars]]). They released their debut album &quot;We Don't Need To Whisper&quot; on May 23, 2006 and are currently working on a new album to be released in fall of 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> 1. http://www.last.fm/music/Angels%2B%2526%2BAirwaves/+wiki<br /> <br /> 2. http://music.yahoo.com/ar-31026662-bio--Angels-And-Airwaves</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Joseph_Lieberman&diff=175843 Joseph Lieberman 2007-05-24T21:11:57Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Joelieb.jpg|right|thumb]]<br /> '''Joseph Isadore Lieberman''' is an independent United States Senator of Connecticut in the [[Democratic Party]] Senate caucus in the 110th Congress.<br /> <br /> Joseph Lierberman was born in Stamford, Ct, on February 24, 1942 where he attended local public schools. He graduated from Yale University in 1964 and later received a law degree from Yale Law School in 1967.<br /> <br /> ==History in Politics==<br /> <br /> Joseph Lieberman served in the Connecticut State Senate from 1970 until 1980 and was majority leader from 1974 until 1980. He later served as the attorney general of Connecticut in 1983, and from 1986 until 1988. In 1988, he was elected as a democrat to the United States Senate and was reelected in 1994 and 2000. In 2006, he was reelected as an independent democrat.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[category:political people]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:NSmyth&diff=175661 User:NSmyth 2007-05-24T18:19:37Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>I am here to make sure the pages here are the truth and to remove all bias. I am a ... what's the word for someone who agrees with things from both sides but doesn't completely agree with everything from both sides? &amp; agnostic Canadian male. I believe in removing bias from the media and from informational webpages and other forms of educational/informative material. I'm pro-choice, I support equal rights, and I eat Shellfish, an abomination according to the bible. These views do not effect my edits, only facts and the removal of extreme bias do.<br /> <br /> Have a problem? Wish to discuss current events &amp; issues? Wish for my input on a debate? Edit my discussion page and voice your concerns. <br /> <br /> Pages I am actively working on:<br /> <br /> [[Emo]]<br /> [[Punk]]<br /> [[Angels And Airwaves]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{user Evo}}<br /> {{User bigbang}}<br /> {{User antigun}}<br /> {{User bothered}}<br /> {{User Donuthole}}<br /> {{User noracists}}<br /> {{User patriot questions authority}}<br /> {{User guns harm}} <br /> {{User Bible just book}} <br /> {{User pubschool}}in Canada<br /> {{User Earth}} <br /> {{User gay rights}} <br /> {{User cows tasty}} <br /> {{User Block|Zero}} <br /> {{User Barnstar?}}</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:NSmyth&diff=175660 User:NSmyth 2007-05-24T18:19:14Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>I am here to make sure the pages here are the truth and to remove all bias. I am a ... what's the word for someone who agrees with things from both sides but doesn't completely agree with everything from both sides? &amp; agnostic Canadian male. I believe in removing bias from the media and from informational webpages and other forms of educational/informative material. I'm pro-choice, I support equal rights, and I eat Shellfish, an abomination according to the bible. These views do not effect my edits, only facts and the removal of extreme bias do.<br /> <br /> Have a problem? Wish to discuss current events &amp; issues? Wish for my input on a debate? Edit my discussion page and voice your concerns. <br /> <br /> Pages I am actively working on:<br /> <br /> [[Emo]]<br /> [[Punk]]<br /> [[Angels and Airwaves]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{user Evo}}<br /> {{User bigbang}}<br /> {{User antigun}}<br /> {{User bothered}}<br /> {{User Donuthole}}<br /> {{User noracists}}<br /> {{User patriot questions authority}}<br /> {{User guns harm}} <br /> {{User Bible just book}} <br /> {{User pubschool}}in Canada<br /> {{User Earth}} <br /> {{User gay rights}} <br /> {{User cows tasty}} <br /> {{User Block|Zero}} <br /> {{User Barnstar?}}</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:NSmyth&diff=175659 User:NSmyth 2007-05-24T18:18:51Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>I am here to make sure the pages here are the truth and to remove all bias. I am a ... what's the word for someone who agrees with things from both sides but doesn't completely agree with everything from both sides? &amp; agnostic Canadian male. I believe in removing bias from the media and from informational webpages and other forms of educational/informative material. I'm pro-choice, I support equal rights, and I eat Shellfish, an abomination according to the bible. These views do not effect my edits, only facts and the removal of extreme bias do.<br /> <br /> Have a problem? Wish to discuss current events &amp; issues? Wish for my input on a debate? Edit my discussion page and voice your concerns. <br /> <br /> Pages I am actively working on:<br /> <br /> [[Emo]]<br /> [[Punk]]<br /> [[Angels &amp; Airwaves]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{user Evo}}<br /> {{User bigbang}}<br /> {{User antigun}}<br /> {{User bothered}}<br /> {{User Donuthole}}<br /> {{User noracists}}<br /> {{User patriot questions authority}}<br /> {{User guns harm}} <br /> {{User Bible just book}} <br /> {{User pubschool}}in Canada<br /> {{User Earth}} <br /> {{User gay rights}} <br /> {{User cows tasty}} <br /> {{User Block|Zero}} <br /> {{User Barnstar?}}</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Angels_And_Airwaves&diff=175583 Angels And Airwaves 2007-05-24T17:07:32Z <p>NSmyth: whoops</p> <hr /> <div>'''Angels &amp; Airwaves''' is an [[alternative rock]] band whose members include guitarist/vocalist [[Tom DeLonge]](formerly of [[Blink-182]]), guitarist[[David Kennedy]](formerly of [[Hazen Street]]), drummer [[Atom Willard]](formerly of [[Rocket From The Crypt]] and [[The Offspring]], and bassist [[Matt Wachter]](formerly of [[30 Seconds To Mars]]). They released their debut album &quot;We Don't Need To Whisper&quot; on May 23, 2006 and are currently working on a new album to be released in fall of 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> 1. http://www.last.fm/music/Angels%2B%2526%2BAirwaves/+wiki<br /> <br /> 2. http://music.yahoo.com/ar-31026662-bio--Angels-And-Airwaves</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Angels_And_Airwaves&diff=175582 Angels And Airwaves 2007-05-24T17:07:20Z <p>NSmyth: references</p> <hr /> <div>'''Angels &amp; Airwaves''' is an [[alternative rock]] band whose members include guitarist/vocalist [[Tom DeLonge]](formerly of [[Blink-182]]), guitarist[[David Kennedy]](formerly of [[Hazen Street]]), drummer [[Atom Willard]](formerly of [[Rocket From The Crypt]] and [[The Offspring]], and bassist [[Matt Wachter]](formerly of [[30 Seconds To Mars]]). They released their debut album &quot;We Don't Need To Whisper&quot; on May 23, 2006 and are currently working on a new album to be released in fall of 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> 1. http://www.last.fm/music/Angels%2B%2526%2BAirwaves/+wiki<br /> 2. http://music.yahoo.com/ar-31026662-bio--Angels-And-Airwaves</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Angels_And_Airwaves&diff=175579 Angels And Airwaves 2007-05-24T17:04:25Z <p>NSmyth: removing the picture until I can figure out how to put a description of it on the page itself.</p> <hr /> <div>'''Angels &amp; Airwaves''' is an [[alternative rock]] band whose members include guitarist/vocalist [[Tom DeLonge]](formerly of [[Blink-182]]), guitarist[[David Kennedy]](formerly of [[Hazen Street]]), drummer [[Atom Willard]](formerly of [[Rocket From The Crypt]] and [[The Offspring]], and bassist [[Matt Wachter]](formerly of [[30 Seconds To Mars]]). They released their debut album &quot;We Don't Need To Whisper&quot; on May 23, 2006 and are currently working on a new album to be released in fall of 2007.</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Angels_And_Airwaves&diff=175578 Angels And Airwaves 2007-05-24T17:03:59Z <p>NSmyth: A work in progress</p> <hr /> <div>'''Angels &amp; Airwaves''' is an [[alternative rock]] band whose members include guitarist/vocalist [[Tom DeLonge]](formerly of [[Blink-182]]), guitarist[[David Kennedy]](formerly of [[Hazen Street]]), drummer [[Atom Willard]](formerly of [[Rocket From The Crypt]] and [[The Offspring]], and bassist [[Matt Wachter]](formerly of [[30 Seconds To Mars]]). They released their debut album &quot;We Don't Need To Whisper&quot; on May 23, 2006 and are currently working on a new album to be released in fall of 2007.<br /> <br /> [[Image:0060249878861 500X500.jpg]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&diff=175208 Talk:Witchcraft 2007-05-24T06:32:41Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>== Inquisition? ==<br /> This article looks like it has been copied from a 15th century inquisition guidebook.<br /> <br /> Can someone who's knowledgeable on this subject insert something on which burnings, and witchcraft in other cultures/religion, besides Medieval Christian Europe?<br /> [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]<br /> <br /> <br /> Middleman, I have attempted to make factual changes, however I have been accused by another contributor as adding personal bias. If you have any ideas, i'm happy to listen to them!<br /> --[[User:Mistress|Mistress]] 21:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Witchcraft and the truth ==<br /> <br /> I have been watching this discussion for some time now. And I must say I am really amazed at what I have seen going on. I have watched as others repeatedly tried to explain that a witch is not evil and seen them be blocked from posting again. I have also read where this site is supposed to be based on the truth. Well if that is so why are the posts from ones that are telling the truth being banned? What do you not want the truth told? A witch is NOT evil. A witch does not worship the devil. Satanists worship the devil. A witch does not even believe in the devil. A witch might believe in Baal, an underworld god or a witch might believe in Gaia, the earth or a witch might believe in Hecate. the goddes of childbirth, but you will never hear a witch say she believes in the devil. I am also amazed at the christian undertones that are raging through this discussion. Is this a decision on what witchcraft truly is? Or is it a discussion based on Christian belief? I remember reading in the bible in Matthew 7:1 Judge not lest ye be judged. It would seem to me a lot of judging and casting of the first stone is being done in this discussion. I am also sure my ip address will be blocked by the time this posts. That is a shame because this could have been a good discussion with a chance at real knowledge being shared. {{unsigned|Ladyinred58}}<br /> <br /> :You claim that witches are not evil, and you claim that to be the truth, but all we appear to have is your word for that. On the other hand, we also have claims (in the Bible) that witchcraft ''is'' &quot;evil&quot; (i.e. wrong). So why should we believe you over the Bible? You are taking Matthew 7:1 out of context, by the way, as bibliosceptics typically do. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Actually I am far from a sceptic on the bible. As for taking Matt 7:1 out of context, I truly believe that in this context it is correct. How can any of us judge a witch to be evil unless we are truly free of evil ourselves. Doesn't Matt 7:2-5 say &quot;2.For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3.And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4.Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? 5.Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.&quot; Doesn't this mean that we should free ourselves from evilness before we state another is evil?&quot; [[User:ladyinred58|ladyinred58]] 11:26, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::First, my apologies for putting my message in a way that could be misunderstood. I normally avoid saying that a ''person'' is evil, as distinct from their ''actions''. Not that I said that witches were evil, but that could be inferred from my comments.<br /> ::Having said that, though, I didn't actually say that we should judge a witch to be evil. I said that the Bible says that witch''craft'' is evil. If we can't &quot;judge&quot; something to be evil on the basis of what the Bible declares to be evil, then as long as we are still sinners (which we are until we die), we can't &quot;judge&quot; anything at all, yet as the following verses that you quoted indicate, we ''can'' judge, as long as we don't do so hypocritically. We would be hypocritical to judge witchcraft as evil if we were practising witchcraft, but not if we are &quot;merely&quot; sinners/evil in a different way.<br /> ::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == &quot;Witchcraft&quot; article content ==<br /> <br /> The content of this article is a disgrace to this &quot;encyclopedia&quot; - there is no truth to be found about witchcraft in this piece of writing, save that the word 'witchcraft' is spelled correctly. In undoing the alleged &quot;biased vandalism&quot;, you have erased actual correct information. Perhaps one day you'll find out the truth - I hope it's sooner rather than later, so you can stop misinforming the world. Open your mind and consider the possibility you may be wrong.<br /> --[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 22:52, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Something I Noticed==<br /> <br /> &quot;You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. Please add factual and verifiable content, edit phrases to make them non problematic, or make this article more grammatically correct. Please remember to abide by The Conservapedia Commandments in your actions, though.&quot;<br /> <br /> It's impossible to add factual and verifiable content, edit phrases to make them non'''-'''problematic or correct grammar when the article is protected.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 02:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Is_evolution_a_scientific_theory%3F&diff=174502 Conservapedia:Is evolution a scientific theory? 2007-05-23T19:46:56Z <p>NSmyth: /* What is a Scientific Theory? */</p> <hr /> <div>{{debate}}<br /> <br /> <br /> ==YES==<br /> <br /> The [[Theory of evolution]] is a scientific theory which explains how purely natural processes brought about the full variety of species of life on Earth, including human beings.<br /> <br /> :Evolution employs the same methodology as any other science. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==NO==<br /> <br /> Evolution is not a scientific theory. It is just a guess, wishful thinking or an atheistic ideology.<br /> :Evolution is not a scientific theory. It's a scientific fact. It has been shown to happen (As with the [http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch.html| Galapagos finches]). What is still open for debate is whether it is the process which has led to the diversity of life we see today, or whether God created this diversity. What is no longer debatable is that within this universe (which god may or may not have created,) the phenotype and genotype of populations change from generation to generation in response to changes in their environment. That is evolution. Whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, there's no denying that it happens. [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]]<br /> <br /> :: The Galapagos finches were not evolution. They were an example of microevolution, which is a tried and true scientific theory. Macroevolution is a shaky hypothesis if anything at all. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 09:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> : If it contains the word evolution, with regards to a phenotypic or genotypic change within a population in response to an environmental stimulus, then it is evolution as far as this debate goes. If we would like to change the debate to 'Is Macroevolution a scientific thory?' Then so be it. Evolution, as is the subject of this debate, happens. [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 15:13, 17 April 2007, (BST)<br /> :::Can you point to a single mechanism of macroevolution that isn't also a mechanism of microevolution? What exactly is the difference? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::Tsumetai is right, macroevolution is merely many processes of microevolution. You can't have macro evolution without it!<br /> <br /> ==What is a Scientific Theory?==<br /> <br /> If you can clearly define what exactly is meant by a scientific theory, and have that definition accepted by the whole community, then this discussion might, just might, make some sort of sense. However, in the absence of a generally agreed definition of what constitutes a scientific theory, all that will happen is that this discussion will descend into the usual rants from both sides, quoting from Dawkins, AnswersinGenesis etc. and no-one will be any the wiser.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 09:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Note the definition from Conservapedia, which gives FIVE criteria for a scientific theory:<br /> <br /> 1. '''A scientific theory is more substantial than a conjecture or hypothesis, but may not be verified as consistent with empirical data. It is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable phenomena.'''<br /> : Evolution is clearly more than just a conjecture or hypothesis, as it is at least plausible, otherwise no-one would have taken it seriously during the past 150 years.<br /> <br /> :*That is just plain silly. Aristotle's dogmatic ideas about basic physics were taken seriously for 19 ''centuries'' but never tested until the early 1600s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:42, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :*I have to agree with Ed. You can't base something's truth on the fact that it's been taken seriously for many years. With that kind of thinking, many might still believe that the Earth is flat.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 15:46, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 2. '''To be considered scientific, a theory must be falsifiable. This means that there must be some way to do experiments that could counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory.'''<br /> : Evolution is falsifiable: if evolution is true, we should not find human remains and dinosaur bones in the same bed. If we do then the theory is wrong and would need to be revised. <br /> <br /> :*A clear example of &quot;changing the subject&quot; by using different [[definitions of evolution]]. What is proven by fossils is [[Old Earth Creationism]] ''or'' evolution. It does not prove evolution, unless one assumes ''a priori'' that supernatural intervention is impossible. (That would require evolutionists to add atheism to their [[methodological naturalism]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:45, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 3. '''Generally accepted scientific theories have been tested and survived over time, have evolved when appropriate, and modified toward consistency with newly discovered data, have not been shown to be false and can make predictions about natural phenomena.'''<br /> : Evolution as a theory is over 150 years old, has changed over time and has been modified via (eg Dawkins) to be more consistent with data, has so far not been shown to be false, and is able to make predictions, such as the age of a particular fossil, or what will happen in a particular environment if a preditor is removed.<br /> <br /> 4. '''A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. '''<br /> :Evolution is still contraversial (see most of the stuff on Conservapedia), it has some experimental support, but it does have a very strong evidential base.<br /> <br /> 5. '''Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or speculative, such as String Theory. '''<br /> :Evolution started out as being speculative, but is now considered by the majority of the scientific community to be very well confirmed.<br /> <br /> <br /> I can therefore state categorically that according to the definition of a Scientific Theory as defined within Conservapedia, that Evolution IS a scientific theory, of that there is absolutely no doubt.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 10:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Well done!</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:NSmyth&diff=174485 User:NSmyth 2007-05-23T19:33:06Z <p>NSmyth: I'm Back</p> <hr /> <div>I am here to make sure the pages here are the truth and to remove all bias. I am a ... what's the word for someone who agrees with things from both sides but doesn't completely agree with everything from both sides? &amp; agnostic Canadian male. I believe in removing bias from the media and from informational webpages and other forms of educational/informative material. I'm pro-choice, I support equal rights, and I eat Shellfish, an abomination according to the bible. These views do not effect my edits, only facts and the removal of extreme bias do.<br /> <br /> Have a problem? Wish to discuss current events &amp; issues? Wish for my input on a debate? Edit my discussion page and voice your concerns. <br /> <br /> To Vandals: Just because I lean to the left doesn't mean I'm not going to fix obvious liberal bias or propaganda here. So don't try it. I also won't hesitate to block you.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pages I am actively working on:<br /> <br /> [[Emo]]<br /> [[Punk]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{user Evo}}<br /> {{User bigbang}}<br /> {{User antigun}}<br /> {{User bothered}}<br /> {{User Donuthole}}<br /> {{User noracists}}<br /> {{User patriot questions authority}}<br /> {{User guns harm}} <br /> {{User Bible just book}} <br /> {{User pubschool}}in Canada<br /> {{User Earth}} <br /> {{User gay rights}} <br /> {{User cows tasty}} <br /> {{User Block|Zero}} <br /> {{User Barnstar?}}</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_Robertson&diff=173785 Talk:Pat Robertson 2007-05-23T07:08:31Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>This edit,<br /> : ''ignoring the facts that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews and that Satanim emerged with Anton Szandor LaVey''<br /> (a) assuming the claim that 10% of the general population is gay (Kinsey), given the premise &quot;killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews &quot; would amount to roughly slighly more than 1/3 of 10% of the population of Nazi occupied territories, including Germany proper; (b) Satanism did not begin with Anton LeVey. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I know that statistic. Its sort of right, or at least was at the time. Kinsy didn't use the gay-bi-straight classification, but a continuous scale. When he said &quot;10% of the population is gay&quot; he actually meant &quot;10% have some homosexual tendencies.&quot; That includes recuring fantasies, or past experiences. It includes bisexuals, too.<br /> <br /> The Nazis really didn't like homosexuals, just the same - anyone caught in a homosexual act would end up in prison at the very least, and quite possibly shipped off to the same concentration camps as the jews. The first figure I found was an estimate of 5,000-15,000 homosexuals imprisoned in those camps, an estimate by by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum. Their crime was indicated in the camp with a pink triangle, counterpart to the star-of-david worn by jews.<br /> <br /> &quot;A male who indulges in criminally indecent behavior with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment. &quot; - Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code. The full nazi policy was spread over many laws, but required imprisonment for all homosexuals. The concentration camps were the specified punishment for 'chronic' homosexuals, who were considered to be a minor threat to Germany as they did not contribute to the propagation of the master race. - Suricou. (Appologies for the lack of signing - I had signed, but mistakenly placed the signature on the previous paragraph.)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Disproportionate?==<br /> <br /> Is it just me, or is the fact that 95% of this article consists of a long list of controversial quotes probably not right? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> He said them all, so they should be on here, but the biography could be made more detailed. I suggest someone fill it out. - Suricou<br /> <br /> I have to question the use of extensive quotes. Robertson is flamboyant and speaks for hours a day over a period of decades. Under those circumstances anyone could have a list of quotes. I would rather see quotes for areas that he was asked about later and re-iterated. And filling out the biography would certainly be helpful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Liberal smear job ==<br /> <br /> This article is nothing more than a liberal smear job. I suggest getting rid of the gossip and quotes taken out of context and instead providing some actual biographical information.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Robertson is really a laughing stock among liberals, but those quotes... some of them, I just dont see any possible context you could put them in that would make them acceptable. And he did say all of them, to the best of my knowledge. Personally, I think conservatives should stop following people as crazy as Robertson and find some new and more credible idols. - Suricou<br /> ==Robertson is a nutjob==<br /> Robertson is a first class nut, he's almost as crazy as [[Fred Phelps]]. He says he's against oppressive dictators but if he were in power, America would become a Christian theocracy.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Fact Removal==<br /> <br /> &quot;He has called for the execution of the democratically elected President of Venezuela.&quot;<br /> <br /> If I'm not mistaken(which I admit I could be), he did in fact call for the execution of the President of Venezuela. I just thought I'd point that out.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 03:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hour_glass&diff=173784 Hour glass 2007-05-23T07:04:57Z <p>NSmyth: slight grammatical correction.</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:2699.jpeg|right|thumb|200px]]<br /> An '''hour glass''' is a time-keeping device.<br /> <br /> [[category:technology]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Science_of_global_warming&diff=173782 Talk:Science of global warming 2007-05-23T07:03:40Z <p>NSmyth: forgot the time and date</p> <hr /> <div>{{Protected|TK}}<br /> <br /> == Editing This Page ==<br /> <br /> *Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Biased Line ==<br /> <br /> &quot;Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him&quot;<br /> <br /> Whoever said this you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. source that please!<br /> <br /> Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)<br /> : Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (that he has problems trying to give away)<br /> <br /> See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> : How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I edited in a section called 'Evidence' that was solidly backed up with references to reputable scientific sites. I see they've been reverted for 'Liberal bias'. What's 'Liberal bias' about facts about glacier recession and sea level rise? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:10, 23 March 2007<br /> <br /> The article currently says &quot;The theory enjoys wide political support, but many climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it.&quot; This makes it sound as if there is an even balance between the number of climatologists and meteorologists who agree and disagree with the theory. This is inaccurate. The sentence should read &quot;a minority of climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it.&quot; I thought we were all about accuracy? The following sentence about 'consensus' is negated by the references to two out of that small minority of climatologists and meteorologists who disagree. By all means their names and views should be left in, to represent their disagreement, but their weight in the scale of scientific opinion should not be over-represented, and it should be balanced by reference to the names of proponents of the theory. I would be happy to make these changes, but the page is locked. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Points ==<br /> <br /> === Point 1 ===<br /> &quot;Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical.&quot; -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! &quot;Very widely accepted&quot;?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br /> : I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :: The first link says &quot;Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.&quot;. It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and &quot;ex-liberal&quot; discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the &quot;ex-liberal&quot; says: &quot;MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well&quot; (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning &quot;overwhelming scientific evidence&quot; but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is &quot;very widely accepted&quot; by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> === Point 4 ===<br /> I think this is wrong. &quot;Measures to combat global warming/climate change&quot; are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> : How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a &quot;fix it yourself&quot; policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == FYI ==<br /> The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]<br /> : Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Profit Motive ==<br /> While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> : Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the &lt;sub&gt;citations needed&lt;/sub&gt; in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Source #16 ==<br /> How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> : I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The whole article ==<br /> <br /> The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?<br /> : Global warming has become a new religion with Al Gore as the Pope of global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming &quot;religion&quot; similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled &quot;religions&quot; or &quot;agendas,&quot; etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.<br /> <br /> ==Did you know...==<br /> Does anyone here know that the polar ice caps have been shrinking considerably during the past three years? Now what on Mars could be doing that?<br /> <br /> Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> : Either it is a natural cycle on Mars, or solar activity increased and is generating more heat. If the later, it disproves pro-global warming scientists. Unless pro-global warming scientists want to claim that Martians are polluting CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; on Mars to cause global warming, in which there is no evidence of Martians. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> : It doesn't 'disprove' pro-global warming scientists. It just factors in increased solar activity as another aspect of global warming and says nothing about anthropogenic aspects. Scientists generally believe that solar forcing, as it's called, is in the neighbourhood of one tenth of the total contribution to the heating of the atmosphere. Even this skeptic is citing solar forcing as no more than one third to two thirds contribution, and feels that anthropogenic contributions will be more important over the next century. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar . What are your figures for the extent of polar ice cap recession on Mars compared to the extent of polar ice cap recession on Earth? Take into account too the very different atmospheric conditions prevailing on Mars. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]]1:15, 24 March 2007<br /> <br /> == Al Gore is no expert and no saint ==<br /> These lines were removed, but they paint a picture of Al Gore:<br /> In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; or electric trains to promote his books and videos. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&amp;contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.<br /> Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm <br /> Al Gore is no scientist, and he didn't do anything to halt global warming while in office. I think he does a lot of credibility damage to global warming because of these things. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Bias==<br /> Dang, this article is really biased. People need to realise that Earth is changing, and it is being caused by humans. It is sad to see how people are so disrespectful to the work of God. I think that destroying everything great that the Lord has made is a terrible sin and this website should recognise the harm that they are doing to this great gift that God has given us.<br /> --[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 19:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *I believe there is plenty of evidence, and scientists, who do not adopt the panic-mode of Gore and others. Many believe it is a natural occurrence, perhaps hastened by fossil fuel consumption, but nevertheless something that has occurred hundreds of times, in the life of the planet. It is your job, everyone, as contributors and posters here, to edit the page to strike some balance, rather than dismiss opposing thought as morons, and ignore what others say. ''If this cannot be done, I will lock the page''. I hate to do that, because supposedly adults, thinking people, should be able to arrive at a meaningful compromise. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Lots of things are &quot;perfectly natural&quot;.... like dying of [[cholera]] at age 28. We do our best to stop that from happening, too. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::The way we stopped cholera is by avoiding wishful thinking and carrying out careful experiments. There's a fascinating detective story about how the first researcher proved that it was contaminated water (from a single pump?) that was causing a cholera epidemic in London. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::On the other hand, if we render the planet TOTALLY unlivable, Jesus will HAVE to return and save us all!<br /> <br /> <br /> ::No need to lock the page. I know a lot about what both sides are saying and can perhaps help to craft a balanced article. (I am the original author of [[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Thanks Ed!! Thats the spirit! I posted some links below, so some can take a look, possibly add their own, of actual scientists who just hate all the alarmism. Feel free to IM me anytime. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :*'''Sorry, some felt the need for a fight tonight, I guess, and kept reverting. Just let me know, I will unlock it once the children have stopped their tantrums.''' --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Facts &amp; Links To Check Out... ==<br /> <br /> Whose Ox Is Gored? The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804]<br /> <br /> The Tempest<br /> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html]<br /> <br /> Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html]<br /> <br /> An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away: [http://newsbusters.org/node/9262]<br /> <br /> From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html] <br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> &quot;...But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.<br /> <br /> “I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”<br /> <br /> Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”<br /> <br /> Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims. <br /> <br /> '''Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.'''<br /> <br /> Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”<br /> <br /> '''While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”'''<br /> <br /> Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process. <br /> <br /> '''It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.'''<br /> <br /> Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”<br /> <br /> So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.<br /> <br /> Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”<br /> <br /> Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.<br /> <br /> “Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming. <br /> <br /> Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms. <br /> <br /> '''“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”<br /> <br /> In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.<br /> <br /> Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”''' <br /> <br /> Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”<br /> <br /> Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.<br /> <br /> '''“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”''' &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]<br /> <br /> == Al Gore Header ==<br /> <br /> *Is it really necessary? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> There are hundreds of people, some with star power and knowledge exceeding Al Gore, on both sides of this issue. Why is Al Gore given somemuch time and space in this catagory?<br /> <br /> &quot;So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming&quot;&quot; <br /> <br /> quoted from above. By whose notion is he the leading expert on Global Warming? Where is reference to Hansen, Broecker, Schmidt,Thompson et al, you know people who actually study this stuff for a living? Why focus on Gore? ''---The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Third Day''<br /> <br /> :The Democratic Party is largely Liberal, and global warming is a big issue for liberals. Al Gore is one of the most popular Democrats, and he has a book out called &quot;Earth in the Balance&quot;. Who else *but* Gore? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> *Were you speaking to me? If so, I am wondering why the info under the Gore heading couldn't be better placed in the body of the article rather than his own heading..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::More like, um, thinking aloud here. <br /> <br /> ::Conservatives have [[Richard Lindzen]], who is an actual scientist who makes sense and doesn't fudge the numbers. Liberals only have &lt;s&gt;[[Jim Hansen]],&lt;/s&gt; who will never live down his &quot;scary scenarios&quot; remark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::*Oops, I meant [[Stephen Schneider]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> I just added a line to the Gore header, to balance it some. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> =Some Liberal Bias=<br /> Under &quot;Conflicting Ideas/ Data&quot; someone wrote &quot;The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals.&quot; Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.<br /> <br /> :Then go in the history and find the source, and put it back in. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> *Exactly! And be sure to let either Hoji or me know if another revert war starts. ;-) ---~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Unlocking ==<br /> <br /> This article is far from complete. When will it be unlocked so we can add information about scientific data showing natural causes for warming, explanation of the solar flux theory, carbon dioxide tracking temps, cosmoclimatology, paleoclimatology, etc. As it stands it makes it look like all we care about is the political side of things. This can't be true, can it? &lt;small&gt;This unsigned comment was made by&lt;/small&gt; [[User:Third Day]]<br /> <br /> *You are right. I suppose for now, if you would like to post the additions here, they can be pasted over. Or you can contact me, and I could open it up for you to edit. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Obviously nothing was important enough to contact me about, or post here about. Makes me wonder why, upon locking a page, people want it open, for what? If they don't come back with a suggestion or contribution, what is the point? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> I've been on the road, hence I did not respond. Some of us have lives outside of this site. I will put together a summary of additions I feel worthy and post here in the talk section. I do wonder if the whole Wiki concept is undermined if the additions need to be vetted by a select few. It may take years for the articles to settle into a reflection of community knowledge, but thats the point, right? Nobody goes to a wiki, any kind of wiki, for the absolute truth on anything. No wiki is a valid source in a peer reviewed paper or even a college paper. It is a way to get a sense of the state of knowledge in a community of users. Wikipedia suffers from the fact that the community of users is so broad as to produce everchanging articles. There are Wikis that restrict the user base to members of certain communities - like a company or agency or users of a particular software. But if Conservapedia wants to surviv and not be mocked it needs to open itself up to slings and arrows. If indeed, we conservatives really believe that our point of view will dominate, then we need not be afraid to open up to liberal edits - cause enough of us will respond in force, and in time will overwhelm. If we just lock down the articles will never evolve (pardon the word) into a compleat, trustworthy wikipedia. OK, I'm done ranting. Off my soap box now :). - Third Day<br /> <br /> ==Are there any Wikipedia editors here?==<br /> An article on Scientific data withholding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_withholding] has been nominated for deletion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_data_withholding#.5B.5BScientific_data_withholding.5D.5D] If you are a Wikipedia editor, please read the article and vote. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 00:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Wrong question to ask here. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to canvas for votes. You're doing the right thing in the wrong way. Next step is RFC and/or an email to Jimbo. You don't win this kind of battle by stooping to their level. Stay here and work on the climate articles, instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Okay, I just learned about &quot;canvassing.&quot; I know Connelly is doing it because people are showing up to vote who have not read the article or the Talk page. Teach me the right way to handle this, Ed. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :This is off-topic, but since I brought it up I better finish it.<br /> <br /> :This is the type of battle that it's okay to lose. When people see that the process was followed on one side, but ignored or misused on the other side, then sympathy is genereated for the correct side. Think Rosa Parks. Think [[sit-ins at lunch counters]]. And also think about contributing more here. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> === Using &quot;Global Climate Change&quot; is not kosher ===<br /> <br /> This is a way for carbon alarmists to hedge their bets, and answer critics if there's a series of cold winters. In the 1970s they were ringing the Ice Age bell, now they've settled on warming so they can dial back the economies of the West (while ignoring China). [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The [[global warming controversy]] has replaced the [[Vietnam War]] and [[nuclear power]] as the big-ticket leftist issue. And now that Communism has faded from Europe and is morphing in [[China]], what are all the socialists going to get into but the [[Environment]]? It's the perfect materialistic cause, and there's plenty of money to go around. The US government alone spends over a billion dollars a year on &quot;research&quot; and the United Nations issues assessments every few years (see [[IPCC]]). We all know how objective and fair minded the UN [[General Assembly]] has been on non-environmental issues such as [[human rights]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::note that nuclear power is actully the best canidate for clean, alternative energy; yet, most enviornmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace are vehemently opposed to it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This article is a completely unsourced diatribe. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == pictures ==<br /> We need some pictures--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> Admin: Can we use wikipedia.org pictures? --[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :yes if it's public domain.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 04:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Ideological inconsistencies ==<br /> <br /> I don't think I would be too wrong in saying that conservative young-earth creationism and skepticism over human-induced climate change usually go together, not all the time of course, but on this site they seem to. Whats strange however, is that geological evidence is cited uncritically in this article in order to discredit human-induced climate change:<br /> <br /> :&quot;Global warming is a natural periodic increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and it has always been followed by period of global cooling ... According to geologists, the Earth has experience numerous ice ages.&quot;<br /> <br /> Even though this is incompatible with young earth creationism. To quote from Conservapedia's own [[Ice Age]] entry: <br /> :&quot;Mainstream geologists and Young Earth creationists are at odds over whether any ice ages have actually occurred.&quot; <br /> <br /> A clear demonstration, in my opinion, of the type of muddled thinking that conservative fundamentalist ideology generates. (These inconsistent portions of the articles were even added by the same author: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=124708 Global warming edit history] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ice_Age&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=113042 Ice Age edit history].)<br /> [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :No, it's more a typical demonstration of jumping to conclunions on the part of liberals. I'm the author of the current [[global warming]] article, and I'm not a YEC. :P --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::I would also point out that I am the main author of the [[Theory of evolution]] article which is definitely critical the macroevolutionary position, and I am undecided regarding the global warming issue in regards to its possible causes and its possible effects. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You still add criticism of mainstream geology when it suits you, and uncritically marshal it in your support when it doesn't. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 16:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Orgone has a very good point. A YEC should have no issue with global warming since the earth has not been around long enough to go through these climate changes that geologists say we have gone through.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''See also:''' [[Nineteen_Eighty-Four | Doublethink]]<br /> <br /> ==Liberal bias==<br /> <br /> I would like to ask anyone who disagrees with top U.S. climate experts - Harvard and MIT scientists and U.S. state climatologists - to go slowly and carefully when editing this article.<br /> <br /> My dad majored in physics, and I got top grades in math and physics. There is a lot of liberal misinformation about [[Anthropogenic global warming]] tied to the UN-promoted [[Kyoto Protocol]], the global warming treaty which seeks a &quot;[[carbon tax]]&quot; and other forms of [[emissions trading]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Well ''my'' dad is bigger than ''your'' dad so ''there''! (Childish of me i know, but i couldn't resist it!) :-p [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Java, I agree with some of your edits, but I think that the first paragraph should stick to undisputed facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I aded references. [[User:Java|Java]] 17:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Not all references tell the truth. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Is this a joke? I referenced from Nature, PNAS, Science and GISS. Why should the current references tell the truth? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::for 1 thing anything talking about &quot;the last 420,000 years&quot; is wrong. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I am a little vexed. Do you want to put me on? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Java, YEC's, since they don't believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years or so, won't accept those figures. RSchlafly, I have once again protected this article, so stop this kind of constant arguing. Please keep an eye peeled for our more Liberal Sysop's opening it up. Thanks! --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 17:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::As I pointed out above in '''Ideological Inconsistencies''', if this site is to view everything through the distorting mirror that is YEC, why do the references to [[Ice Age]]s stay in the introductory section? [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Um, please freeze on a version with facts ==<br /> <br /> Not to rock the boat or anything, but the current un-editable version of the Global Warming page has essentially no scientific merit. Could someone please revert to a version with some actual discussion of global warming. I'm happy to write it. It involves sunshine, blackbody radiation, the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide, and an explanation of climate feedbacks. -Ifixthings <br /> <br /> : I agree. Describe global warming accurately first. Get into the politics later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Cool, Roger. Open it, edit it, do whatever. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 00:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Okay, I unlocked it. Please keep science and politics separate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> I love the nice accurate new version. I give it five minutes before it's reverted.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> **Yeah, it didn't last long, which is stupid because it was much more correct.[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 17:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Oh Ed Poor... You make me an sad panda, those corrections you made are quite horrible. The version by Ifixthings was a good one, and the missing citations could be corrected quite fast, already found several good and reliable sources. Wikintrepeter at least fixed the most outrageous claims. But still some are left like: &quot;However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject&quot; Still at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries support the claim and only one to my knowledge opposes it, that being American Association of Petroleum Geologists. And to be honest, them opposing it isn't really surprising. Im seriously baffled how one can deny the scientific consensus here, and seeing what i claim to be intellectual dishonesty makes me really sad, as this is something which will directly affect our lives and if not ours then at least our children's. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Both of the APA's voted that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Does that make it true? Are you quite sure their votes were not politically motivated?<br /> <br /> :It doesn't matter how many '''groups''' take a stand on a matter of science. It only matters what the science actually is. But if you care about polls, what percent of climate scientists support or oppose the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] theory? If you know, do speak up. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Ed, at minimum it matters what groups take a position since you claimed that &quot;the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject&quot;. Even if that weren't the issue at hand, the number of people who are experts on an issue and have come to a conclusion a certain way about the issue does matter. While it doesn't alter who is correct in an absolute sense it does alter the estimated probability of an opinion being correct for someone who is trying to get some idea what to do and who does not have the time or resources to go through all the data that the experts do. That logic applies to any application of a scientific endeavor. For example there are still some geocentrists, the government when formulating policy does not need to worry about them. This is true for a politician whether or not that politician has bothered to understand what is wrong with geocentrism. Note that I'm not saying that global warming is equivalent to geocentrism but making the point that when evaluating claims on limited data or resources, the opinion of the vast majority matters. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::JoshuaZ allready gave so good answer that i have little to add to it. Im not sure if there has been done any exact polls on how many percentage of the experts on this area support or opposes anthropogenic global warming, but ill try to find one. Alltho i think that allready the number of supporting scientific societies and academies of science and the lack of opposing ones gives an quite good picture of the situation. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::A trustworthy article should give scientific facts, don't you agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::I really dont see where you are aiming at with this, as the link i just gave on the conversation bit below, shows that allready at year 2000 there where no studyes to be found that opposed the concencus, but offcourse there will allways be some &quot;scientists&quot; who disagree. if you are aiming for universal acceptance of an theory before it can be called an scientific fact, i must say we really dont have any. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ''The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years,'' YECs why don`t you delete this phrase and block the article? --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Joshua, the top experts say it's natural, and surveys of climatologists agree. What exactly is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::: That's simply false. The UN report which you dislike was written by the top experts, who signed off on it. Again, the vast majority of the relevant scientific organizations have agreed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I've asked you twice for proof of this. I ask you here one last time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::: Sigh. Did you read what I wrote on your talk page or not? Almost every single author of the reports(and I listed a few as examples) is a respected scientist and there are about 40 authors to each report. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Found atleast [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 this] as an partial answer to the question here and above, alltho the report is already quite old and rapid progress has been made during few years, even at year 2000 this study didn't found '''any''' studies that disagreed with the consensus. That should already tell something. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::: Hmm, interesting quote from that &quot;This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.&quot; [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> A literature search by a [[Kyoto Protocol]] supporter is not the same as a study or a survey. It means nothing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Celsius ==<br /> <br /> How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the [[Little Ice Age]] in 1850. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I would prefer Kelvin. --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). [[User:Human|Human]] 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary &quot;looks like&quot;. I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::: I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Political bias==<br /> <br /> The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And ''Science'' might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's &quot;not of interest to their readers&quot;. I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Um, what? Science isn't a &quot;popular journal&quot; but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No? ''This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.'' --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says &quot;I agree with the IPCC about (anything).&quot; --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.<br /> :And a recent examples: <br /> Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 [[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666<br /> <br /> == Independent scientists such as ... [[Fred Singer]] ==<br /> <br /> Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Oh, well by &quot;independent&quot; I just meant &quot;speaking for himself&quot;, &quot;not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line&quot;. Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Like [[James Hansen]] - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/][http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183]<br /> :::Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::False citation: #11 doesn't say he was told not to talk about global warming, it just says that official press releases would be scrutinized. #12 doesn't mention his ability to talk at all; in it Hansen accuses Bush of stifling evidence (but without giving any examples of this supposed stifling). #13 says &quot;Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing&quot; but doesn't give the wording of this supposed &quot;threat&quot; or even a summary of it. <br /> <br /> :::This is typical of liberals: they make claims which have no evidence. The entire case on global warming consists of claims that &quot;the world's top scientists agree&quot; but they give no polls to support this &quot;consensus&quot; claim. They say that &quot;models predict&quot; but when the models are contradicted by observations they say that &quot;models aren't predictions&quot;. They say it's carbon dioxide, but CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when there was cooling, and anyway the climate record of the last 400 million years show an 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change - CO2 '''follows''' temperature, rather than driving it. <br /> <br /> :::They are politicizing science while running a well orchestrated PR campaign of calling the kettle black. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so...... ==<br /> <br /> Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/what_happened_predictions.html][http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/failpred.html] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc). <br /> <br /> Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.asp?pr=2178] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.<br /> <br /> Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.<br /> :*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.<br /> :Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation? ==<br /> <br /> I removed this uncited statement:<br /> <br /> &quot;However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position.&quot; <br /> <br /> Can anyone give a citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the &quot;no proof&quot; claim should be taken out.<br /> <br /> :But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> : If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Strong criticism against one of the sources ==<br /> <br /> One of the citations: [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This &quot;study&quot; has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/FORUM.pdf] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Image ==<br /> <br /> I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Effects of global warming==<br /> <br /> Cut from end of article:<br /> <br /> :Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. &lt;ref&gt;Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> This paragraph does not distinguish between &quot;global warming&quot;, i.e., a rise in temperature and &quot;the Global Warming theory&quot;, i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.<br /> <br /> Also undefined is &quot;the effects of Global Warming&quot;. What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Vandalism Edit==<br /> I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :That's ok, no problem. I was just surprised when I looked and right after my edit it said 'removed vandalism'. ;-) I didn't catch it myself until I saw your change. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Ice ages and hypocrisy ==<br /> <br /> &quot;The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years&quot; - not according to this wiki's article on [[Ice Age]]. You can't have it both ways, did they occur, and is the earth at least 2,000,000 years old, or did they not and is it not? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ........--[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationary scientists]] believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf ''What about the Ice Age?''], ''The Creation Answers Book'', Chapter 16). I guess I was hoping for a clearer answer than &quot;........&quot;, which I don't understand. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Cite Leading Group of Climate Change Skeptics? ==<br /> <br /> As the IPCC is included in the introduction to this entry, it's appropriate that the leading group of climate change skeptics be cited, instead of individual scientists. Does anybody know what the appropriate body to cite is? I'm aware of &quot;The Friends of Science&quot;, but I believe they're exclusively Canadian. [[User:Dbarefoot|Dbarefoot]] 08:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==<br /> <br /> I posit that if we're going to lay out the groups on both side of the global warming debate, they ought to be qualified equally, or not at all. I don't think these qualifiers are appropriate in introductions--they belong in the particular entries about the individuals or groups.<br /> <br /> As I've queried above, I think it makes sense to describe the leading group of climate change skeptics or doubters, as they seem a natural counterpoint to the IPCC. Citing individual scientists seems too anecdotal for an encyclopedia, which ought to seek to be conclusive.<br /> <br /> == &quot; removing liberalness&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Is now given as a reason to alter an article? Ironically, the rather few &quot;non-liberal&quot; qualifiers I have ever typed were all reverted. Maybe because a liberal is not allowed to say these things? Or perhaps, just because since I can't understand them, I can't push the POV appropriately? [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::Look at the statement i removed. i removed it because it was unsourced. perhaps i should have said &quot;removing unsourced statement&quot;[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]<br /> :::Remember, liberal sources don't count! --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == How about these changes? ==<br /> <br /> Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.[Citation Needed] <br /> <br /> I was going to use -&gt; http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806 &lt;- this as a citation before the page got locked :)<br /> <br /> <br /> ....and also I must take issue with this statement. &quot;The scenario most postulated is dust storms.[4]&quot;<br /> <br /> Dust storms are not the &quot;most&quot; postulated -- The sun's solar cycles are just as much of a plausable theory....<br /> <br /> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html<br /> <br /> :I have no problem with that change, and I'm the one who entered the original information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Neptune ==<br /> <br /> I just read today that global warming has been found to be occurring on Neptune. It matches the same pattern for the time period found upon Mars and earth. It may be safe to assume that is not due to human intervention. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Where did you see this? I'd be very interested in reading about this in more detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950. I hope this is enough information to 'dig' it up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Found it. The paper is interesting. The correlation found was positive but not statistically significant between the brightness of Neptune and the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, from my reading it looks like one might expect a significant correlation even if most of the recent warming on earth is anthropogenic (note that this isn't my area of expertise so that could be painfully wrong). It should be interesting to see where this goes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: I take no personal position on the issue, but I do believe any information that could be meaningful to form a complete picture should be included. That Mars and Neptune are both heating up over the same time period as the earth, and in the case of Mars even the temperature amount is similar, is certainly notable. It seems to me there is too much of an effort to dismiss information that would appear to be at odds with the concept that global warming is caused by humans, and that is unfortunate. (Note: I don't count global warming on Pluto due to Pluto's strange orbit. It has too many oddities, from my point of view, to be put in the same category.) Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I changed the header title before posting here, I hope I didn't step on any toes. The Header ''was'' '''Global Warming on other Planets''' Which I changed to '''Warming ''of'' other Planets'''. I did this to prevent confusion, though indeed the other planets are ''also'' globes but usually, (in my experience) &quot;global&quot; means the sum and totality of Earth. Feel free to change it back if'n you want. - [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 14:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Thank you for the talk message, and no offense taken. I've found that articles that discuss other planets usually still use the term global warming. For instance it has been popular to talk about global warming on Venus over the last decade or so, and the term global warming is used. The source about global warming on Mars also used the words global warming and Mars in the title. For these reasons I felt it was appropriate to keep the header title with global warming. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Secular scientists 'believe'==<br /> <br /> This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have [[experiment]]al evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Is it an error? No. It is correct as it is. &quot;Belief&quot; means to give assent to an idea. It does not mean, despite the way some atheistic types think of it, as accepting an idea without evidence or good reason.<br /> :Is it the best way to word it? Maybe not, but I'm not happy with your suggestion either. If I remember, I'll have more of a think about it.<br /> :[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::How about &quot;Secular scientists think&quot;? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::To my mind, &quot;believe&quot; is the better word. &quot;Think&quot; to me indicates some doubt, whereas &quot;believe&quot; can be a very strong conviction. But not everybody sees it that way, so I'll agree to changing it to &quot;think&quot;, and in fact I've just done that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *This article has taken on drastic changes, it is a diluted, semi-neutral piece. It needs to be overhauled without the Liberal bias, and the removed material from warming skeptics added back. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> What is wrong with semi-neutral??? Is it only good if it carries a right wing arch-conservative bent?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Britnme, it is not true that getting peer-reviewed work published is a guarantee that it is based on experimental evidence. It only means that no obvious errors were found, and that the editor thinks it will interest his readers. <br /> <br /> :Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==AGW==<br /> <br /> Cut from article:<br /> <br /> :... contrasts with the effects predicted for [[anthropogenic global warming]].<br /> <br /> What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Scientists who believe in global warming ==<br /> <br /> Hi Dan, I'd like to point out that it is possible for Creation Scientists to believe in global warming as well, but they would not attach a 2 million year period of ice ages. ICR, for instance, takes a neutral view on global warming believing so far that the case has not been made satisfactorily, but they are open to ongoing evidence that may steer their opinion one way or the other if more concrete information is found. But even if they did feel global warming has been shown to be caused by humans, they still would not believe the earth is 2 million years old. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :First, the age issue would apply only to Young Earth Creationists. I will freely admit that more creation scientists are global warming skeptics than other scientists, but I don't think we need to make the distinction here, especially because, as you said, groups like ICR take a neutral stance on it, so it's a separate issue. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The edit was to a paragraph about ice ages, not about global warming itself. That's why it is appropriate to qualify it somehow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Liberal Falsehood==<br /> <br /> The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term &quot;liberal falsehood&quot; to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :I agree with DanH. You can't deny that global warming is happening. The real question is whether or not it's natural or if it's caused by us. An article about global warming itself and not about a specific cause of it can hardly be ca;;ed a &quot;liberal falsehood&quot; can it?[[User:Nsmyth|Nsmyth]] 03:03, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Hockey Stick ==<br /> <br /> This seems like an inappropriate graph to me. The gray are the real values, but they've been averaged to get a blue line to smooth out large fluctuations. Highlighting the ups and downs of the gray would give a very different picture. Also, it only deals with the northern hemisphere, which makes the overall numbers incomplete for the 'global' part of global warming. (I realize the ice samples were only taken from the north pole, but we've got another pole that needs to be checked for balance if those figures are to be as meaningful as they are made to appear.) Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==<br /> <br /> The linked citation reads: ''AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. ExxonMobil gave AEI approximately $925,000 between 1998 and 2003.''<br /> <br /> Jacques, why do you keep cutting out the part about the AEI trying to buy scientists? It's got a citation. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Clay mathematics institute also offer money rewards, do you think it's trying to buy scientists?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::I won't have any idea until you put a link in there for a cite, so I can read it for myself. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::::The Nobel Prize committee make their award on the basis of what someone has done (i.e. a reward) not on the basis of getting someone to prove or do something (i.e. a bribe). [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Let me guess--you own stock in Exxon? Such defensiveness ill-becomes someone with no money in this fight. --23:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::And you own stock in solar power companies.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I have a cite with a very long list of opponents to the global warming theory who have been sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. This is relevant to support the statement that such large oil industry companies are leading opponents of the theory. The line about offering $10,000 can be omitted if it's felt to be irrelevant.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Please do--then at least I won't get banned for an 'edit war'. And Jacques, PLEASE post a list of scientists being bankrolled by the massive Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, once you get it together. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::well, your thinking seems to be: tax money = good, donation = evil. Private donation automatically corrupt people and tax money does not, and any scientist who accept private donation is an Evil Communist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ::::::man what<br /> ::::::oooookay. Let me make sure I understand your 'logic' here. Basically, you're saying that all these scientists, both the goverment-funded and the Exxon-funded, are equally corrupt, and should be treated with exactly the same amount of credibility, the same way that 'researchers' for the [[Tobacco institute]] were treated when they were the only doctors on Earth who failed to find a connection between smoking and lung diseases. Am I understanding your 'reasoning' here, so far? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::So you are saying that you would have believed it when Soviet Union government funded Scientists claimed they have 'disproved' Darwinian evolution?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::Considering how many Darwinists they had to ship off to Siberia to do it? Maybe not. Anyway, working off of your apparent belief that the Government is funding Global Warming research for its own insidious ends, what's the Bush-controlled US government's incentive to _support_ the Global Warming Theory? (Especially seeing how George is an oilman himself.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::Of course, Soviet government would never tell you that they ship dissenters overseas now would they. And despite what you may think, George Bush does not control the distribution of science funding.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::You don't know where [[Siberia]] is, do you. And what's the rest of the [[Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy]]'s reason for their immense hoax? --00:34, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;equally corrupt&quot;, or &quot;equally likely to be corrupt&quot;? Surely nobody here is claiming that either side is corrupt, merely suggesting that they might be account where the money is coming from. From that point of view, I would say yes, each side is ''equally likely'' to be corrupt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I am quite happy with the current version, which is a simple statement of fact - thank you for the edit, Jaques, which I think improves it. Regarding tobacco/lung diseases mentioned, I wonder if on the article about [[Richard Lindzen]] it should be mentioned how much money he received from the tobacco industry to dispute the connection between tobacco and lung diseases. Not that I would suggest for one moment that the gentleman does not believe what he advocates. I'm sure he is quite sincere--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Oh, I'll bet he's sincere. Nothing produces true sincerity like a regular paycheck. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18121730/site/newsweek/ Richard Lindzen has already responded to this sort of smearing tactics by enviornmentalists.] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:07, 22 May 2007 (EDT) <br /> :::::&quot;If a man's paycheck depends on him not understanding something, you can pretty well depend on him not understanding it.&quot; -- Upton Sinclair's Law.<br /> <br /> :::::::The wording that Jaques keeps deleting was previously approved by sysop Phillip J Rayment. These deletions smack of vandalism are against the CP commandments. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Standard Wikipedia tactic. Come into channel, blame someone for rules violations, get him booted, take over, right? It worked for SlimVirgin over there. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *I will be the decider of that sock, not you. I suggest you keep to productive edits, and off the talk pages. Unfortunately, Arjen was a sock of BrianCo, and actually even posted on the user page. Both gone now. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 01:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I am still not getting what's wrong with an oil company funding global warming research. Or what is significant about some of that research being different from the consensus. What do the critics think -- that ExxonMobil should ignore the issue? That all research should just endorse what has already been published? I made a change to drop some of the goofy conspiratorial innuendo. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::There's no innuendo about a statement of fact - this company gave this much money to these organizations over this period of time, and the organizations all had one thing in common. It's not a conspiracy - it's a perfectly straightforward transaction as far as I can see. There's no secret about it and the figures are public. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :::: The innuendo is that that oil companies only gave money to skeptics, that they funded bad science, and that there is something improper about them funding research. Your sources don't prove any of those things, and are just goofy left-wing conspiracy rants. Can you please explain the point of the statement on the Talk page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::There is nothing improper at all about a company only funding researchers whose views are in their commercial interests and I don't think the statement says it's improper - it says E-M is opposed to this view and they fund people whose views agree with theirs but run counter to the mainstream. As I said, there's no conspiracy about it - conspiracy implies secrecy and this is no secret. Moreover, it could be argued that it's entirely proper for a company to defend its own commercial interests and that of its shareholders. I can't understand why there should be a problem about making their stance clear, as it's unarguable that this is their stance.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:02, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: The problem with your claim is that it is just not true that ExxonMobil only funds research that runs counter to the mainstream. It has given $100M to Stanford Univ. for mainstream research. Your sources on this do suggest a kooky conspiracy theory, it is just not plausible and not reported in any reliable source. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Thank you! It needs a because it is mostly inserted UN material. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 03:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> For the record, the fact that I copyedit something rather than remove it should not be taken as &quot;approval&quot; of it. It might just mean that I have no knowledge of its accuracy, or haven't bothered to research it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Philip, I didn't see anyone blaming you....the edits can all be seen. No worries. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 06:48, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> : No, no-one &quot;blamed&quot; me for anything, but Arjen cited me as approving the paragraph in question, simply because I edited it and didn't remove it, so I was just making clear that my editing should not imply approval. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Oh! Well it was his snippy remark that lead me to research him, and I found him to be a smelly old sock, Philip. So no need to bother with him anymore! ;-) --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 07:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Science_of_global_warming&diff=173781 Talk:Science of global warming 2007-05-23T07:02:46Z <p>NSmyth: /* Liberal Falsehood */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Protected|TK}}<br /> <br /> == Editing This Page ==<br /> <br /> *Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Biased Line ==<br /> <br /> &quot;Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him&quot;<br /> <br /> Whoever said this you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. source that please!<br /> <br /> Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)<br /> : Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (that he has problems trying to give away)<br /> <br /> See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> : How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I edited in a section called 'Evidence' that was solidly backed up with references to reputable scientific sites. I see they've been reverted for 'Liberal bias'. What's 'Liberal bias' about facts about glacier recession and sea level rise? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:10, 23 March 2007<br /> <br /> The article currently says &quot;The theory enjoys wide political support, but many climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it.&quot; This makes it sound as if there is an even balance between the number of climatologists and meteorologists who agree and disagree with the theory. This is inaccurate. The sentence should read &quot;a minority of climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it.&quot; I thought we were all about accuracy? The following sentence about 'consensus' is negated by the references to two out of that small minority of climatologists and meteorologists who disagree. By all means their names and views should be left in, to represent their disagreement, but their weight in the scale of scientific opinion should not be over-represented, and it should be balanced by reference to the names of proponents of the theory. I would be happy to make these changes, but the page is locked. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Points ==<br /> <br /> === Point 1 ===<br /> &quot;Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical.&quot; -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! &quot;Very widely accepted&quot;?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br /> : I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :: The first link says &quot;Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.&quot;. It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and &quot;ex-liberal&quot; discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the &quot;ex-liberal&quot; says: &quot;MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well&quot; (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning &quot;overwhelming scientific evidence&quot; but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is &quot;very widely accepted&quot; by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> === Point 4 ===<br /> I think this is wrong. &quot;Measures to combat global warming/climate change&quot; are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> : How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a &quot;fix it yourself&quot; policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == FYI ==<br /> The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]<br /> : Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Profit Motive ==<br /> While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> : Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the &lt;sub&gt;citations needed&lt;/sub&gt; in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Source #16 ==<br /> How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> : I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The whole article ==<br /> <br /> The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?<br /> : Global warming has become a new religion with Al Gore as the Pope of global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming &quot;religion&quot; similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled &quot;religions&quot; or &quot;agendas,&quot; etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.<br /> <br /> ==Did you know...==<br /> Does anyone here know that the polar ice caps have been shrinking considerably during the past three years? Now what on Mars could be doing that?<br /> <br /> Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> : Either it is a natural cycle on Mars, or solar activity increased and is generating more heat. If the later, it disproves pro-global warming scientists. Unless pro-global warming scientists want to claim that Martians are polluting CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; on Mars to cause global warming, in which there is no evidence of Martians. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> : It doesn't 'disprove' pro-global warming scientists. It just factors in increased solar activity as another aspect of global warming and says nothing about anthropogenic aspects. Scientists generally believe that solar forcing, as it's called, is in the neighbourhood of one tenth of the total contribution to the heating of the atmosphere. Even this skeptic is citing solar forcing as no more than one third to two thirds contribution, and feels that anthropogenic contributions will be more important over the next century. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar . What are your figures for the extent of polar ice cap recession on Mars compared to the extent of polar ice cap recession on Earth? Take into account too the very different atmospheric conditions prevailing on Mars. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]]1:15, 24 March 2007<br /> <br /> == Al Gore is no expert and no saint ==<br /> These lines were removed, but they paint a picture of Al Gore:<br /> In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; or electric trains to promote his books and videos. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&amp;contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.<br /> Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm <br /> Al Gore is no scientist, and he didn't do anything to halt global warming while in office. I think he does a lot of credibility damage to global warming because of these things. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Bias==<br /> Dang, this article is really biased. People need to realise that Earth is changing, and it is being caused by humans. It is sad to see how people are so disrespectful to the work of God. I think that destroying everything great that the Lord has made is a terrible sin and this website should recognise the harm that they are doing to this great gift that God has given us.<br /> --[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 19:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *I believe there is plenty of evidence, and scientists, who do not adopt the panic-mode of Gore and others. Many believe it is a natural occurrence, perhaps hastened by fossil fuel consumption, but nevertheless something that has occurred hundreds of times, in the life of the planet. It is your job, everyone, as contributors and posters here, to edit the page to strike some balance, rather than dismiss opposing thought as morons, and ignore what others say. ''If this cannot be done, I will lock the page''. I hate to do that, because supposedly adults, thinking people, should be able to arrive at a meaningful compromise. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Lots of things are &quot;perfectly natural&quot;.... like dying of [[cholera]] at age 28. We do our best to stop that from happening, too. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::The way we stopped cholera is by avoiding wishful thinking and carrying out careful experiments. There's a fascinating detective story about how the first researcher proved that it was contaminated water (from a single pump?) that was causing a cholera epidemic in London. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::On the other hand, if we render the planet TOTALLY unlivable, Jesus will HAVE to return and save us all!<br /> <br /> <br /> ::No need to lock the page. I know a lot about what both sides are saying and can perhaps help to craft a balanced article. (I am the original author of [[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Thanks Ed!! Thats the spirit! I posted some links below, so some can take a look, possibly add their own, of actual scientists who just hate all the alarmism. Feel free to IM me anytime. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :*'''Sorry, some felt the need for a fight tonight, I guess, and kept reverting. Just let me know, I will unlock it once the children have stopped their tantrums.''' --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Facts &amp; Links To Check Out... ==<br /> <br /> Whose Ox Is Gored? The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804]<br /> <br /> The Tempest<br /> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html]<br /> <br /> Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html]<br /> <br /> An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away: [http://newsbusters.org/node/9262]<br /> <br /> From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html] <br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> &quot;...But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.<br /> <br /> “I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”<br /> <br /> Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”<br /> <br /> Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims. <br /> <br /> '''Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.'''<br /> <br /> Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”<br /> <br /> '''While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”'''<br /> <br /> Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process. <br /> <br /> '''It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.'''<br /> <br /> Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”<br /> <br /> So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.<br /> <br /> Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”<br /> <br /> Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.<br /> <br /> “Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming. <br /> <br /> Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms. <br /> <br /> '''“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”<br /> <br /> In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.<br /> <br /> Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”''' <br /> <br /> Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”<br /> <br /> Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.<br /> <br /> '''“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”''' &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]<br /> <br /> == Al Gore Header ==<br /> <br /> *Is it really necessary? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> There are hundreds of people, some with star power and knowledge exceeding Al Gore, on both sides of this issue. Why is Al Gore given somemuch time and space in this catagory?<br /> <br /> &quot;So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming&quot;&quot; <br /> <br /> quoted from above. By whose notion is he the leading expert on Global Warming? Where is reference to Hansen, Broecker, Schmidt,Thompson et al, you know people who actually study this stuff for a living? Why focus on Gore? ''---The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Third Day''<br /> <br /> :The Democratic Party is largely Liberal, and global warming is a big issue for liberals. Al Gore is one of the most popular Democrats, and he has a book out called &quot;Earth in the Balance&quot;. Who else *but* Gore? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> *Were you speaking to me? If so, I am wondering why the info under the Gore heading couldn't be better placed in the body of the article rather than his own heading..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::More like, um, thinking aloud here. <br /> <br /> ::Conservatives have [[Richard Lindzen]], who is an actual scientist who makes sense and doesn't fudge the numbers. Liberals only have &lt;s&gt;[[Jim Hansen]],&lt;/s&gt; who will never live down his &quot;scary scenarios&quot; remark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::*Oops, I meant [[Stephen Schneider]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> I just added a line to the Gore header, to balance it some. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> =Some Liberal Bias=<br /> Under &quot;Conflicting Ideas/ Data&quot; someone wrote &quot;The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals.&quot; Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.<br /> <br /> :Then go in the history and find the source, and put it back in. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> *Exactly! And be sure to let either Hoji or me know if another revert war starts. ;-) ---~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Unlocking ==<br /> <br /> This article is far from complete. When will it be unlocked so we can add information about scientific data showing natural causes for warming, explanation of the solar flux theory, carbon dioxide tracking temps, cosmoclimatology, paleoclimatology, etc. As it stands it makes it look like all we care about is the political side of things. This can't be true, can it? &lt;small&gt;This unsigned comment was made by&lt;/small&gt; [[User:Third Day]]<br /> <br /> *You are right. I suppose for now, if you would like to post the additions here, they can be pasted over. Or you can contact me, and I could open it up for you to edit. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Obviously nothing was important enough to contact me about, or post here about. Makes me wonder why, upon locking a page, people want it open, for what? If they don't come back with a suggestion or contribution, what is the point? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> I've been on the road, hence I did not respond. Some of us have lives outside of this site. I will put together a summary of additions I feel worthy and post here in the talk section. I do wonder if the whole Wiki concept is undermined if the additions need to be vetted by a select few. It may take years for the articles to settle into a reflection of community knowledge, but thats the point, right? Nobody goes to a wiki, any kind of wiki, for the absolute truth on anything. No wiki is a valid source in a peer reviewed paper or even a college paper. It is a way to get a sense of the state of knowledge in a community of users. Wikipedia suffers from the fact that the community of users is so broad as to produce everchanging articles. There are Wikis that restrict the user base to members of certain communities - like a company or agency or users of a particular software. But if Conservapedia wants to surviv and not be mocked it needs to open itself up to slings and arrows. If indeed, we conservatives really believe that our point of view will dominate, then we need not be afraid to open up to liberal edits - cause enough of us will respond in force, and in time will overwhelm. If we just lock down the articles will never evolve (pardon the word) into a compleat, trustworthy wikipedia. OK, I'm done ranting. Off my soap box now :). - Third Day<br /> <br /> ==Are there any Wikipedia editors here?==<br /> An article on Scientific data withholding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_withholding] has been nominated for deletion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_data_withholding#.5B.5BScientific_data_withholding.5D.5D] If you are a Wikipedia editor, please read the article and vote. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 00:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Wrong question to ask here. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 00:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to canvas for votes. You're doing the right thing in the wrong way. Next step is RFC and/or an email to Jimbo. You don't win this kind of battle by stooping to their level. Stay here and work on the climate articles, instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Okay, I just learned about &quot;canvassing.&quot; I know Connelly is doing it because people are showing up to vote who have not read the article or the Talk page. Teach me the right way to handle this, Ed. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :This is off-topic, but since I brought it up I better finish it.<br /> <br /> :This is the type of battle that it's okay to lose. When people see that the process was followed on one side, but ignored or misused on the other side, then sympathy is genereated for the correct side. Think Rosa Parks. Think [[sit-ins at lunch counters]]. And also think about contributing more here. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> === Using &quot;Global Climate Change&quot; is not kosher ===<br /> <br /> This is a way for carbon alarmists to hedge their bets, and answer critics if there's a series of cold winters. In the 1970s they were ringing the Ice Age bell, now they've settled on warming so they can dial back the economies of the West (while ignoring China). [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The [[global warming controversy]] has replaced the [[Vietnam War]] and [[nuclear power]] as the big-ticket leftist issue. And now that Communism has faded from Europe and is morphing in [[China]], what are all the socialists going to get into but the [[Environment]]? It's the perfect materialistic cause, and there's plenty of money to go around. The US government alone spends over a billion dollars a year on &quot;research&quot; and the United Nations issues assessments every few years (see [[IPCC]]). We all know how objective and fair minded the UN [[General Assembly]] has been on non-environmental issues such as [[human rights]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::note that nuclear power is actully the best canidate for clean, alternative energy; yet, most enviornmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace are vehemently opposed to it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This article is a completely unsourced diatribe. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == pictures ==<br /> We need some pictures--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> Admin: Can we use wikipedia.org pictures? --[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :yes if it's public domain.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 04:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Ideological inconsistencies ==<br /> <br /> I don't think I would be too wrong in saying that conservative young-earth creationism and skepticism over human-induced climate change usually go together, not all the time of course, but on this site they seem to. Whats strange however, is that geological evidence is cited uncritically in this article in order to discredit human-induced climate change:<br /> <br /> :&quot;Global warming is a natural periodic increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and it has always been followed by period of global cooling ... According to geologists, the Earth has experience numerous ice ages.&quot;<br /> <br /> Even though this is incompatible with young earth creationism. To quote from Conservapedia's own [[Ice Age]] entry: <br /> :&quot;Mainstream geologists and Young Earth creationists are at odds over whether any ice ages have actually occurred.&quot; <br /> <br /> A clear demonstration, in my opinion, of the type of muddled thinking that conservative fundamentalist ideology generates. (These inconsistent portions of the articles were even added by the same author: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=124708 Global warming edit history] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ice_Age&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=113042 Ice Age edit history].)<br /> [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :No, it's more a typical demonstration of jumping to conclunions on the part of liberals. I'm the author of the current [[global warming]] article, and I'm not a YEC. :P --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::I would also point out that I am the main author of the [[Theory of evolution]] article which is definitely critical the macroevolutionary position, and I am undecided regarding the global warming issue in regards to its possible causes and its possible effects. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You still add criticism of mainstream geology when it suits you, and uncritically marshal it in your support when it doesn't. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 16:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Orgone has a very good point. A YEC should have no issue with global warming since the earth has not been around long enough to go through these climate changes that geologists say we have gone through.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''See also:''' [[Nineteen_Eighty-Four | Doublethink]]<br /> <br /> ==Liberal bias==<br /> <br /> I would like to ask anyone who disagrees with top U.S. climate experts - Harvard and MIT scientists and U.S. state climatologists - to go slowly and carefully when editing this article.<br /> <br /> My dad majored in physics, and I got top grades in math and physics. There is a lot of liberal misinformation about [[Anthropogenic global warming]] tied to the UN-promoted [[Kyoto Protocol]], the global warming treaty which seeks a &quot;[[carbon tax]]&quot; and other forms of [[emissions trading]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Well ''my'' dad is bigger than ''your'' dad so ''there''! (Childish of me i know, but i couldn't resist it!) :-p [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Java, I agree with some of your edits, but I think that the first paragraph should stick to undisputed facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I aded references. [[User:Java|Java]] 17:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Not all references tell the truth. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Is this a joke? I referenced from Nature, PNAS, Science and GISS. Why should the current references tell the truth? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::for 1 thing anything talking about &quot;the last 420,000 years&quot; is wrong. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I am a little vexed. Do you want to put me on? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Java, YEC's, since they don't believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years or so, won't accept those figures. RSchlafly, I have once again protected this article, so stop this kind of constant arguing. Please keep an eye peeled for our more Liberal Sysop's opening it up. Thanks! --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 17:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::As I pointed out above in '''Ideological Inconsistencies''', if this site is to view everything through the distorting mirror that is YEC, why do the references to [[Ice Age]]s stay in the introductory section? [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Um, please freeze on a version with facts ==<br /> <br /> Not to rock the boat or anything, but the current un-editable version of the Global Warming page has essentially no scientific merit. Could someone please revert to a version with some actual discussion of global warming. I'm happy to write it. It involves sunshine, blackbody radiation, the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide, and an explanation of climate feedbacks. -Ifixthings <br /> <br /> : I agree. Describe global warming accurately first. Get into the politics later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Cool, Roger. Open it, edit it, do whatever. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 00:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Okay, I unlocked it. Please keep science and politics separate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> I love the nice accurate new version. I give it five minutes before it's reverted.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> **Yeah, it didn't last long, which is stupid because it was much more correct.[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 17:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Oh Ed Poor... You make me an sad panda, those corrections you made are quite horrible. The version by Ifixthings was a good one, and the missing citations could be corrected quite fast, already found several good and reliable sources. Wikintrepeter at least fixed the most outrageous claims. But still some are left like: &quot;However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject&quot; Still at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries support the claim and only one to my knowledge opposes it, that being American Association of Petroleum Geologists. And to be honest, them opposing it isn't really surprising. Im seriously baffled how one can deny the scientific consensus here, and seeing what i claim to be intellectual dishonesty makes me really sad, as this is something which will directly affect our lives and if not ours then at least our children's. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Both of the APA's voted that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Does that make it true? Are you quite sure their votes were not politically motivated?<br /> <br /> :It doesn't matter how many '''groups''' take a stand on a matter of science. It only matters what the science actually is. But if you care about polls, what percent of climate scientists support or oppose the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] theory? If you know, do speak up. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Ed, at minimum it matters what groups take a position since you claimed that &quot;the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject&quot;. Even if that weren't the issue at hand, the number of people who are experts on an issue and have come to a conclusion a certain way about the issue does matter. While it doesn't alter who is correct in an absolute sense it does alter the estimated probability of an opinion being correct for someone who is trying to get some idea what to do and who does not have the time or resources to go through all the data that the experts do. That logic applies to any application of a scientific endeavor. For example there are still some geocentrists, the government when formulating policy does not need to worry about them. This is true for a politician whether or not that politician has bothered to understand what is wrong with geocentrism. Note that I'm not saying that global warming is equivalent to geocentrism but making the point that when evaluating claims on limited data or resources, the opinion of the vast majority matters. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::JoshuaZ allready gave so good answer that i have little to add to it. Im not sure if there has been done any exact polls on how many percentage of the experts on this area support or opposes anthropogenic global warming, but ill try to find one. Alltho i think that allready the number of supporting scientific societies and academies of science and the lack of opposing ones gives an quite good picture of the situation. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::A trustworthy article should give scientific facts, don't you agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::I really dont see where you are aiming at with this, as the link i just gave on the conversation bit below, shows that allready at year 2000 there where no studyes to be found that opposed the concencus, but offcourse there will allways be some &quot;scientists&quot; who disagree. if you are aiming for universal acceptance of an theory before it can be called an scientific fact, i must say we really dont have any. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ''The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years,'' YECs why don`t you delete this phrase and block the article? --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Joshua, the top experts say it's natural, and surveys of climatologists agree. What exactly is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::: That's simply false. The UN report which you dislike was written by the top experts, who signed off on it. Again, the vast majority of the relevant scientific organizations have agreed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I've asked you twice for proof of this. I ask you here one last time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::: Sigh. Did you read what I wrote on your talk page or not? Almost every single author of the reports(and I listed a few as examples) is a respected scientist and there are about 40 authors to each report. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Found atleast [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 this] as an partial answer to the question here and above, alltho the report is already quite old and rapid progress has been made during few years, even at year 2000 this study didn't found '''any''' studies that disagreed with the consensus. That should already tell something. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::: Hmm, interesting quote from that &quot;This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.&quot; [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> A literature search by a [[Kyoto Protocol]] supporter is not the same as a study or a survey. It means nothing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Celsius ==<br /> <br /> How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the [[Little Ice Age]] in 1850. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I would prefer Kelvin. --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). [[User:Human|Human]] 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary &quot;looks like&quot;. I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::: I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Political bias==<br /> <br /> The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And ''Science'' might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's &quot;not of interest to their readers&quot;. I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Um, what? Science isn't a &quot;popular journal&quot; but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No? ''This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.'' --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says &quot;I agree with the IPCC about (anything).&quot; --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.<br /> :And a recent examples: <br /> Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 [[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666<br /> <br /> == Independent scientists such as ... [[Fred Singer]] ==<br /> <br /> Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Oh, well by &quot;independent&quot; I just meant &quot;speaking for himself&quot;, &quot;not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line&quot;. Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Like [[James Hansen]] - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/][http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183]<br /> :::Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::False citation: #11 doesn't say he was told not to talk about global warming, it just says that official press releases would be scrutinized. #12 doesn't mention his ability to talk at all; in it Hansen accuses Bush of stifling evidence (but without giving any examples of this supposed stifling). #13 says &quot;Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing&quot; but doesn't give the wording of this supposed &quot;threat&quot; or even a summary of it. <br /> <br /> :::This is typical of liberals: they make claims which have no evidence. The entire case on global warming consists of claims that &quot;the world's top scientists agree&quot; but they give no polls to support this &quot;consensus&quot; claim. They say that &quot;models predict&quot; but when the models are contradicted by observations they say that &quot;models aren't predictions&quot;. They say it's carbon dioxide, but CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when there was cooling, and anyway the climate record of the last 400 million years show an 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change - CO2 '''follows''' temperature, rather than driving it. <br /> <br /> :::They are politicizing science while running a well orchestrated PR campaign of calling the kettle black. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so...... ==<br /> <br /> Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/what_happened_predictions.html][http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/failpred.html] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc). <br /> <br /> Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.asp?pr=2178] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.<br /> <br /> Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.<br /> :*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.<br /> :Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation? ==<br /> <br /> I removed this uncited statement:<br /> <br /> &quot;However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position.&quot; <br /> <br /> Can anyone give a citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the &quot;no proof&quot; claim should be taken out.<br /> <br /> :But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> : If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Strong criticism against one of the sources ==<br /> <br /> One of the citations: [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This &quot;study&quot; has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/FORUM.pdf] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Image ==<br /> <br /> I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0000CC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;00FFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Effects of global warming==<br /> <br /> Cut from end of article:<br /> <br /> :Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. &lt;ref&gt;Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> This paragraph does not distinguish between &quot;global warming&quot;, i.e., a rise in temperature and &quot;the Global Warming theory&quot;, i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.<br /> <br /> Also undefined is &quot;the effects of Global Warming&quot;. What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Vandalism Edit==<br /> I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :That's ok, no problem. I was just surprised when I looked and right after my edit it said 'removed vandalism'. ;-) I didn't catch it myself until I saw your change. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Ice ages and hypocrisy ==<br /> <br /> &quot;The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years&quot; - not according to this wiki's article on [[Ice Age]]. You can't have it both ways, did they occur, and is the earth at least 2,000,000 years old, or did they not and is it not? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ........--[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationary scientists]] believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf ''What about the Ice Age?''], ''The Creation Answers Book'', Chapter 16). I guess I was hoping for a clearer answer than &quot;........&quot;, which I don't understand. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Cite Leading Group of Climate Change Skeptics? ==<br /> <br /> As the IPCC is included in the introduction to this entry, it's appropriate that the leading group of climate change skeptics be cited, instead of individual scientists. Does anybody know what the appropriate body to cite is? I'm aware of &quot;The Friends of Science&quot;, but I believe they're exclusively Canadian. [[User:Dbarefoot|Dbarefoot]] 08:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==<br /> <br /> I posit that if we're going to lay out the groups on both side of the global warming debate, they ought to be qualified equally, or not at all. I don't think these qualifiers are appropriate in introductions--they belong in the particular entries about the individuals or groups.<br /> <br /> As I've queried above, I think it makes sense to describe the leading group of climate change skeptics or doubters, as they seem a natural counterpoint to the IPCC. Citing individual scientists seems too anecdotal for an encyclopedia, which ought to seek to be conclusive.<br /> <br /> == &quot; removing liberalness&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Is now given as a reason to alter an article? Ironically, the rather few &quot;non-liberal&quot; qualifiers I have ever typed were all reverted. Maybe because a liberal is not allowed to say these things? Or perhaps, just because since I can't understand them, I can't push the POV appropriately? [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::Look at the statement i removed. i removed it because it was unsourced. perhaps i should have said &quot;removing unsourced statement&quot;[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]<br /> :::Remember, liberal sources don't count! --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == How about these changes? ==<br /> <br /> Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.[Citation Needed] <br /> <br /> I was going to use -&gt; http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806 &lt;- this as a citation before the page got locked :)<br /> <br /> <br /> ....and also I must take issue with this statement. &quot;The scenario most postulated is dust storms.[4]&quot;<br /> <br /> Dust storms are not the &quot;most&quot; postulated -- The sun's solar cycles are just as much of a plausable theory....<br /> <br /> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html<br /> <br /> :I have no problem with that change, and I'm the one who entered the original information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Neptune ==<br /> <br /> I just read today that global warming has been found to be occurring on Neptune. It matches the same pattern for the time period found upon Mars and earth. It may be safe to assume that is not due to human intervention. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Where did you see this? I'd be very interested in reading about this in more detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950. I hope this is enough information to 'dig' it up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Found it. The paper is interesting. The correlation found was positive but not statistically significant between the brightness of Neptune and the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, from my reading it looks like one might expect a significant correlation even if most of the recent warming on earth is anthropogenic (note that this isn't my area of expertise so that could be painfully wrong). It should be interesting to see where this goes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: I take no personal position on the issue, but I do believe any information that could be meaningful to form a complete picture should be included. That Mars and Neptune are both heating up over the same time period as the earth, and in the case of Mars even the temperature amount is similar, is certainly notable. It seems to me there is too much of an effort to dismiss information that would appear to be at odds with the concept that global warming is caused by humans, and that is unfortunate. (Note: I don't count global warming on Pluto due to Pluto's strange orbit. It has too many oddities, from my point of view, to be put in the same category.) Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I changed the header title before posting here, I hope I didn't step on any toes. The Header ''was'' '''Global Warming on other Planets''' Which I changed to '''Warming ''of'' other Planets'''. I did this to prevent confusion, though indeed the other planets are ''also'' globes but usually, (in my experience) &quot;global&quot; means the sum and totality of Earth. Feel free to change it back if'n you want. - [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]&lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 14:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Thank you for the talk message, and no offense taken. I've found that articles that discuss other planets usually still use the term global warming. For instance it has been popular to talk about global warming on Venus over the last decade or so, and the term global warming is used. The source about global warming on Mars also used the words global warming and Mars in the title. For these reasons I felt it was appropriate to keep the header title with global warming. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Secular scientists 'believe'==<br /> <br /> This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have [[experiment]]al evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Is it an error? No. It is correct as it is. &quot;Belief&quot; means to give assent to an idea. It does not mean, despite the way some atheistic types think of it, as accepting an idea without evidence or good reason.<br /> :Is it the best way to word it? Maybe not, but I'm not happy with your suggestion either. If I remember, I'll have more of a think about it.<br /> :[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::How about &quot;Secular scientists think&quot;? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::To my mind, &quot;believe&quot; is the better word. &quot;Think&quot; to me indicates some doubt, whereas &quot;believe&quot; can be a very strong conviction. But not everybody sees it that way, so I'll agree to changing it to &quot;think&quot;, and in fact I've just done that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *This article has taken on drastic changes, it is a diluted, semi-neutral piece. It needs to be overhauled without the Liberal bias, and the removed material from warming skeptics added back. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> What is wrong with semi-neutral??? Is it only good if it carries a right wing arch-conservative bent?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Britnme, it is not true that getting peer-reviewed work published is a guarantee that it is based on experimental evidence. It only means that no obvious errors were found, and that the editor thinks it will interest his readers. <br /> <br /> :Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==AGW==<br /> <br /> Cut from article:<br /> <br /> :... contrasts with the effects predicted for [[anthropogenic global warming]].<br /> <br /> What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Scientists who believe in global warming ==<br /> <br /> Hi Dan, I'd like to point out that it is possible for Creation Scientists to believe in global warming as well, but they would not attach a 2 million year period of ice ages. ICR, for instance, takes a neutral view on global warming believing so far that the case has not been made satisfactorily, but they are open to ongoing evidence that may steer their opinion one way or the other if more concrete information is found. But even if they did feel global warming has been shown to be caused by humans, they still would not believe the earth is 2 million years old. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :First, the age issue would apply only to Young Earth Creationists. I will freely admit that more creation scientists are global warming skeptics than other scientists, but I don't think we need to make the distinction here, especially because, as you said, groups like ICR take a neutral stance on it, so it's a separate issue. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The edit was to a paragraph about ice ages, not about global warming itself. That's why it is appropriate to qualify it somehow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Liberal Falsehood==<br /> <br /> The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term &quot;liberal falsehood&quot; to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :I agree with DanH. You can't deny that global warming is happening. The real question is whether or not it's natural or if it's caused by us. An article about global warming itself and not about a specific cause of it can hardly be ca;;ed a &quot;liberal falsehood&quot; can it?[[User:Nsmyth|Nsmyth]]<br /> <br /> == Hockey Stick ==<br /> <br /> This seems like an inappropriate graph to me. The gray are the real values, but they've been averaged to get a blue line to smooth out large fluctuations. Highlighting the ups and downs of the gray would give a very different picture. Also, it only deals with the northern hemisphere, which makes the overall numbers incomplete for the 'global' part of global warming. (I realize the ice samples were only taken from the north pole, but we've got another pole that needs to be checked for balance if those figures are to be as meaningful as they are made to appear.) Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==<br /> <br /> The linked citation reads: ''AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. ExxonMobil gave AEI approximately $925,000 between 1998 and 2003.''<br /> <br /> Jacques, why do you keep cutting out the part about the AEI trying to buy scientists? It's got a citation. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Clay mathematics institute also offer money rewards, do you think it's trying to buy scientists?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::I won't have any idea until you put a link in there for a cite, so I can read it for myself. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::::The Nobel Prize committee make their award on the basis of what someone has done (i.e. a reward) not on the basis of getting someone to prove or do something (i.e. a bribe). [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Let me guess--you own stock in Exxon? Such defensiveness ill-becomes someone with no money in this fight. --23:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::And you own stock in solar power companies.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I have a cite with a very long list of opponents to the global warming theory who have been sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. This is relevant to support the statement that such large oil industry companies are leading opponents of the theory. The line about offering $10,000 can be omitted if it's felt to be irrelevant.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Please do--then at least I won't get banned for an 'edit war'. And Jacques, PLEASE post a list of scientists being bankrolled by the massive Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, once you get it together. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::well, your thinking seems to be: tax money = good, donation = evil. Private donation automatically corrupt people and tax money does not, and any scientist who accept private donation is an Evil Communist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ::::::man what<br /> ::::::oooookay. Let me make sure I understand your 'logic' here. Basically, you're saying that all these scientists, both the goverment-funded and the Exxon-funded, are equally corrupt, and should be treated with exactly the same amount of credibility, the same way that 'researchers' for the [[Tobacco institute]] were treated when they were the only doctors on Earth who failed to find a connection between smoking and lung diseases. Am I understanding your 'reasoning' here, so far? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::So you are saying that you would have believed it when Soviet Union government funded Scientists claimed they have 'disproved' Darwinian evolution?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::Considering how many Darwinists they had to ship off to Siberia to do it? Maybe not. Anyway, working off of your apparent belief that the Government is funding Global Warming research for its own insidious ends, what's the Bush-controlled US government's incentive to _support_ the Global Warming Theory? (Especially seeing how George is an oilman himself.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::Of course, Soviet government would never tell you that they ship dissenters overseas now would they. And despite what you may think, George Bush does not control the distribution of science funding.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::You don't know where [[Siberia]] is, do you. And what's the rest of the [[Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy]]'s reason for their immense hoax? --00:34, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;equally corrupt&quot;, or &quot;equally likely to be corrupt&quot;? Surely nobody here is claiming that either side is corrupt, merely suggesting that they might be account where the money is coming from. From that point of view, I would say yes, each side is ''equally likely'' to be corrupt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I am quite happy with the current version, which is a simple statement of fact - thank you for the edit, Jaques, which I think improves it. Regarding tobacco/lung diseases mentioned, I wonder if on the article about [[Richard Lindzen]] it should be mentioned how much money he received from the tobacco industry to dispute the connection between tobacco and lung diseases. Not that I would suggest for one moment that the gentleman does not believe what he advocates. I'm sure he is quite sincere--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Oh, I'll bet he's sincere. Nothing produces true sincerity like a regular paycheck. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18121730/site/newsweek/ Richard Lindzen has already responded to this sort of smearing tactics by enviornmentalists.] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:07, 22 May 2007 (EDT) <br /> :::::&quot;If a man's paycheck depends on him not understanding something, you can pretty well depend on him not understanding it.&quot; -- Upton Sinclair's Law.<br /> <br /> :::::::The wording that Jaques keeps deleting was previously approved by sysop Phillip J Rayment. These deletions smack of vandalism are against the CP commandments. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Standard Wikipedia tactic. Come into channel, blame someone for rules violations, get him booted, take over, right? It worked for SlimVirgin over there. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *I will be the decider of that sock, not you. I suggest you keep to productive edits, and off the talk pages. Unfortunately, Arjen was a sock of BrianCo, and actually even posted on the user page. Both gone now. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 01:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I am still not getting what's wrong with an oil company funding global warming research. Or what is significant about some of that research being different from the consensus. What do the critics think -- that ExxonMobil should ignore the issue? That all research should just endorse what has already been published? I made a change to drop some of the goofy conspiratorial innuendo. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::There's no innuendo about a statement of fact - this company gave this much money to these organizations over this period of time, and the organizations all had one thing in common. It's not a conspiracy - it's a perfectly straightforward transaction as far as I can see. There's no secret about it and the figures are public. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :::: The innuendo is that that oil companies only gave money to skeptics, that they funded bad science, and that there is something improper about them funding research. Your sources don't prove any of those things, and are just goofy left-wing conspiracy rants. Can you please explain the point of the statement on the Talk page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::There is nothing improper at all about a company only funding researchers whose views are in their commercial interests and I don't think the statement says it's improper - it says E-M is opposed to this view and they fund people whose views agree with theirs but run counter to the mainstream. As I said, there's no conspiracy about it - conspiracy implies secrecy and this is no secret. Moreover, it could be argued that it's entirely proper for a company to defend its own commercial interests and that of its shareholders. I can't understand why there should be a problem about making their stance clear, as it's unarguable that this is their stance.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:02, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: The problem with your claim is that it is just not true that ExxonMobil only funds research that runs counter to the mainstream. It has given $100M to Stanford Univ. for mainstream research. Your sources on this do suggest a kooky conspiracy theory, it is just not plausible and not reported in any reliable source. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Thank you! It needs a because it is mostly inserted UN material. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 03:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> For the record, the fact that I copyedit something rather than remove it should not be taken as &quot;approval&quot; of it. It might just mean that I have no knowledge of its accuracy, or haven't bothered to research it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Philip, I didn't see anyone blaming you....the edits can all be seen. No worries. --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 06:48, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> : No, no-one &quot;blamed&quot; me for anything, but Arjen cited me as approving the paragraph in question, simply because I edited it and didn't remove it, so I was just making clear that my editing should not imply approval. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Oh! Well it was his snippy remark that lead me to research him, and I found him to be a smelly old sock, Philip. So no need to bother with him anymore! ;-) --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 07:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Emo&diff=173780 Emo 2007-05-23T06:58:57Z <p>NSmyth: Added a bit more while I can.</p> <hr /> <div>'''Emo''' is a sub-genre of [[punk|punk rock]]. It is thought that the term emo was derived from the fact that, on occasion, members of a band would become spontaneously and strongly emotional during performances. Though it originally emerged in the mid-to-late [[1980]]'s, the genre has recently gained popularity thanks to bands such as: [[Fall Out Boy]], [[Dashboard Confessional]], [[Taking Back Sunday]], [[Brand New]], and many others.<br /> <br /> =Early Days =<br /> <br /> ==&quot;Emo-Core&quot;==<br /> <br /> In [[1983]], the DC [[punk]] scene began to lose popularity and many of the bands of the [[era]] had started to break up. In [[1984]], the band [[Husker Dü]] began the slow start of the early emo movement with the release of their album, [[Zen Arcade]]. The album featured melodic songwriting, intense vocals, and punkish guitars. Soon afterwards, bands such as =[[Rites Of Spring]] and [[Embrace]] began to perfect the &quot;DC Sound&quot; with their music. Later on, this style of music begins to be referred to as &quot;emo-core&quot;.<br /> <br /> ==&quot;Emo&quot;==<br /> <br /> In [[1987]], several new bands inspired by the &quot;emo-core&quot; bands of a few years before began to emerge in several areas around [[North America]]. These bands added their own unique sound to the genre, including softer and sometimes whispered vocals, louder guitars, screaming vocals, and the most recognizable element of the genre, octave chords. The vocal style for this genre could range from normal singing, to screaming and even crying at some parts. <br /> <br /> Much of the lyrics for this genre were somewhat abstract poetry which were often inaudible because of the volume of the instruments. When playing live, many bands would keep their backs to the audience while playing the quiet parts and would jump around and knock things over and scream at the top of their lungs during the loud parts.<br /> <br /> There was almost no commercialism at all for this genre as most bands did not make t-shirts and only sold records at their shows.<br /> <br /> Most &quot;emo&quot; bands would only be around for a short time. Many bands only released their first records posthumously.<br /> <br /> ==Noteworthy Early Bands==<br /> <br /> * [[Husker Du]],<br /> * [[Rites Of Spring]],<br /> * [[Embrace]],<br /> * [[Dag Nasty]],<br /> * [[Jawbreaker]],<br /> * [[Moss Icon]],<br /> * [[Shotmaker]],<br /> * [[Still Life]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==&quot;Hardcore Emo&quot;==<br /> <br /> &quot;Emo&quot; played harder, faster and louder beginning in the early [[1990]]s with bands such as [[Mohinder]], [[Heroin]], and [[Swing Kids]].<br /> <br /> <br /> =References=<br /> <br /> 1. http://www.fourfa.com/<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Music]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:NSmyth&diff=154391 User:NSmyth 2007-05-10T23:21:07Z <p>NSmyth: removing the sysop userbox.</p> <hr /> <div>THIS USER IS NOW SEMI-RETIRED FROM CONSERVAPEDIA<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I am here to make sure the pages here are the truth and to remove all bias. I am a ... what's the word for someone who agrees with things from both sides but doesn't completely agree with everything from both sides? &amp; agnostic Canadian male. I believe in removing bias from the media and from informational webpages and other forms of educational/informative material. I'm pro-choice, I support equal rights, and I eat Shellfish, an abomination according to the bible. These views do not effect my edits, only facts and the removal of extreme bias do.<br /> <br /> Have a problem? Wish to discuss current events &amp; issues? Wish for my input on a debate? Edit my discussion page and voice your concerns. <br /> <br /> To Vandals: Just because I lean to the left doesn't mean I'm not going to fix obvious liberal bias or propaganda here. So don't try it. I also won't hesitate to block you.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pages I am actively working on:<br /> <br /> [[Emo]]<br /> [[Punk]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{user Evo}}<br /> {{User bigbang}}<br /> {{User antigun}}<br /> {{User bothered}}<br /> {{User Donuthole}}<br /> {{User noracists}}<br /> {{User patriot questions authority}}<br /> {{User guns harm}} <br /> {{User Bible just book}} <br /> {{User pubschool}}in Canada<br /> {{User Earth}} <br /> {{User gay rights}} <br /> {{User cows tasty}} <br /> {{User Block|Zero}} <br /> {{User Barnstar?}}</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:NSmyth&diff=154389 User talk:NSmyth 2007-05-10T23:20:28Z <p>NSmyth: /* Thanks */</p> <hr /> <div>==User Complaints==<br /> <br /> <br /> I think 1 week is a little weak considering the massive amounts of vandalism done by Liberatarian. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> I didn;t see it, I\\\'m probably going to expand it shortly.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Take a look at the past 100 changes or so. I\\\'m just glad a sysop showed up and blocked him. Users Sam, Jpaffett, and Bmn2008 were all vandalizing earlier too. I tried to mark each time they vandalized in the summary of changes. Thanks! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> I\\\'ll reblock him when the week is up, he\\\'ll probably have forgotten about the site by then anyway. .[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 06:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: '''Thanks for your blocks'''. For obscenity or clear vandals, I suggest blocks of infinite duration. We don't want those folks returning. Someone will tell us if we made a mistake and we can then undo an infinite block. But such mistakes are less than 1%. Thanks much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> [[User:Ilove69]] is a vandal.<br /> <br /> I\\\'m just sitting here patiently waiting for him to come back with a new account. But the infinite ban might just stick. [[USer:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 07:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> *lol that comment was the only reason i made those last 4 accounts. anyway as i said before, i\'m done, so i guess you\'re right the infinite ban will stick. I\'d love to find a way to do some serious mass vandalism, but yeah you\'ve got it locked down fairly well - i was actualy impressed with your response time on that last one! you got me before the minute was out! nice work [[User:Kfactor|Kfactor]] 09:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> Sam is a vandal also. He keeps trying to edit the censorship page. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 07:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If you\\\'re still online, Darrenissa is a vandal also. See Rudy Giuliani and NATO pages for explanation. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 07:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I saw that and have put a warning on her page.<br /> <br /> ==Vandal==<br /> Hey man i\'m your vandal: <br /> *Libertarian<br /> *ilove69<br /> *Water_cracker<br /> *Planner<br /> *Teratactile<br /> *lesbian sex lover<br /> But yeah game over man. Good luck in the future - I reckon due to the nature of the website you\'ll end up receiving way more vandalism than i could ever hope to dish out - and possibly not in the light hearted manner of my edits, but serious bot based vandalism. .I\'ll look into it. [[User:Kfactor|Kfactor]] 09:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==I understand... but==<br /> <br /> I understand your frustration and removal of the post that was placed on the Conservapedia Talk page. However, it was perfectly acceptable. I have restored it. If something is posted on a talk page it should really only be deleted if it violates the Commandments. Thanks [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 09:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :Yeah, I was about leave you a comment about that after I saw that you had changed it back. I didn't look at where I was before I wiped it. I thought it was another part of the spam attack I've been dealing with. My mistake, sorry. [[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 09:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Thanks ==<br /> <br /> For catching that idiot vandal on the Rudy page! When it happens, please post your actions on the talk page there, so we can all know whats been happening, ok? --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==A Liberal Editor?==<br /> <br /> Because I am so amazingly awsome I feel i should get my own area so I have taken the liberty of making one. Speaking of Liberty, I'm surprised that there's a liberal sysop on this site. Wouldn't joining something like conservapedia go against what you believe in? I mean after all, you're liberal, you should hate everything conservatives stand for. I think you're just a hypocrit, you say you're one thing but side with the other, how can anyone respect you? You can even stay true to your political beliefs, you're a traitor and you should be despised. Something like this would be considered treason and do you know what they used to do to people who committed treason? They would be executed... maybe we should adopt this into our times<br /> <br /> :I am a socialist, I actually have spent a good portion of my time removing bias(for either side) from pages and even more(almost all of it actually) time fighting the vandalism that goes on here. I don't know if you're one of those vandals or if you actually plan on making a difference here. I'm just here to help keep things factual.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]01:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT) P.S. I changed the name of this to something a touch more intelligent.<br /> <br /> :I can see why your here and that's all fine, but what would draw you to a conservative site to begin with? There is something wrong with that picture, I could understand if it was wikipedia or something like that but conservapedia? You can do better than that i'm sure. I lean more towards anarchy than anything but I have nothing else better to do. Good luck keeping things factual and dealing with vandals, I'm not here to vandalise anything, just here to challenge people's opinions and see if they can truly back up what they believe. Once again good luck... <br /> <br /> [[User:Maxpower|Maxpower]]<br /> <br /> ::If you want the truth(I mean, I base my existence on this site on it) I originally came here intending to be a vandal, but found that I could do good and make this a viable site unlike others. Please voice your opinions, just don't post them in the articles and it's all good. Post your opinions on the discussion pages and we won't have a problem.[[User:Nsmyth|Nsmyth]]01:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Thanks for helping me out when I was blocked, much appreciated<br /> [[User:Maxpower|Maxpower]]<br /> ::::No problem.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]<br /> <br /> == You hate cheese! ==<br /> <br /> I gobble cheese. Why do you hate it. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 03:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == God bless you for that block! ==<br /> <br /> Thank you for that quick block at 4 am NYC time of the user who gave himself the name of JEWS DID WTC. LOL JEWS. LOL WTC. !!!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Thanks. I just happened to click the recent changes link and it was at the top of the list.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 09:21, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Thanks for acting quickly on what you saw!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Thanks again, also fixed &quot;TheTruth&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Thanks again for your great blocks. I've de-Sysoped TheTruth after seeing your discussion about it and recalling that you have replaced the account. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Why==<br /> <br /> Kiowa was subtly vandalizing articles and changing facts to make them blatantly wrong. I found about five examples of it going back through his edits. For example, look at his edit on [[Americium]].<br /> <br /> Tmtoulouse was openly encouraging people to vandalize articles. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Ok, was just curious...*laughs at americium edit*. Thanks for clearing that up for me.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 04:07, 25 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == If you like ==<br /> <br /> Enjoy the use of this template if you like &lt;nowiki&gt;{{liberal}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;. I was going to turn it into a six pointed star but I thought that would be too much. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :I honestly have no idea what to think of this lol.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 08:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Nirvana==<br /> <br /> Please enhance our entry on [[Nirvana]]. The article shows promise, but needs a good deal of work. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 16:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Unfortunately I don't know much about the subject.I cna try to find something on Google though I guess.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]]<br /> <br /> == Abomination? ==<br /> <br /> How exactly are shellfish an abomination?[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 16:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Because [[God]] says so:<br /> ::&quot;Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.&quot; (Leviticus 11:12) <br /> :Shellfish are in the waters and have neither fins nor scales.<br /> :Is that clear enough?<br /> ::&quot;He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.&quot; (Deuteronomy 32:4)<br /> :[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 06:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Somewhere in all of that, The New, and Everlasting Covenant seems to be missing......--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Sysop Pledge==<br /> <br /> As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 00:03, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Ok, Considering it makes sense and I don't believe I've gone agaisnt it yet, I have absolutely no problem putting it on my userpage.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 07:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> {{Sysop Pledge}}<br /> <br /> == Thanks ==<br /> <br /> Just a note of thanks to you, NSmyth, for your past efforts. As a matter of policy, we de-Sysop inactive or semi-retired users. Sysop status can be reconsidered at a future time.<br /> <br /> Thanks again and God bless your future efforts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :You're welcome. It was a pleasure to work with you and others here. I might be back when I can afford to have my internet turned back on(Gets turned off tomorrow). I might check up on the site whenever I have access to an internet equipped computer. [[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 19:20, 10 May 2007 (EDT)</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:NSmyth&diff=154198 User:NSmyth 2007-05-10T21:29:20Z <p>NSmyth: I might come back...</p> <hr /> <div>{{User Sysop}} <br /> <br /> <br /> THIS USER IS NOW SEMI-RETIRED FROM CONSERVAPEDIA<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I am here to make sure the pages here are the truth and to remove all bias. I am a ... what's the word for someone who agrees with things from both sides but doesn't completely agree with everything from both sides? &amp; agnostic Canadian male. I believe in removing bias from the media and from informational webpages and other forms of educational/informative material. I'm pro-choice, I support equal rights, and I eat Shellfish, an abomination according to the bible. These views do not effect my edits, only facts and the removal of extreme bias do.<br /> <br /> Have a problem? Wish to discuss current events &amp; issues? Wish for my input on a debate? Edit my discussion page and voice your concerns. <br /> <br /> To Vandals: Just because I lean to the left doesn't mean I'm not going to fix obvious liberal bias or propaganda here. So don't try it. I also won't hesitate to block you.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pages I am actively working on:<br /> <br /> [[Emo]]<br /> [[Punk]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{user Evo}}<br /> {{User bigbang}}<br /> {{User antigun}}<br /> {{User bothered}}<br /> {{User Donuthole}}<br /> {{User noracists}}<br /> {{User patriot questions authority}}<br /> {{User guns harm}} <br /> {{User Bible just book}} <br /> {{User pubschool}}in Canada<br /> {{User Earth}} <br /> {{User gay rights}} <br /> {{User cows tasty}} <br /> {{User Block|Zero}} <br /> {{User Barnstar?}}</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Homosexuality_and_free_will&diff=137398 Debate:Homosexuality and free will 2007-04-30T21:26:03Z <p>NSmyth: Reverted edits by Conservative (Talk); changed back to last version by AmesG</p> <hr /> <div>Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out [[homosexual act]]s? Are homosexuals &quot;born that way&quot;? Would it outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex?<br /> <br /> :Would it outrage you, Ed, to be told not to have sex with women, because it's wrong? Would it outrage the personhood to be told you could never have a family, or engage guilt-free in sex with a life partner?-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 17:19, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Dr. [[James Dobson]], a Christian media personality and author, told [[Larry King]]:<br /> <br /> :I don’t blame homosexuals for being angry when people say they’ve made a choice to be gay, because they don’t. It usually comes out of very, very early childhood, and this is very controversial, but this is what I believe and many other people believe, that it has to do with an [[identity crisis]] that occurs too early to remember it, where a boy is born with an attachment to his mother and she is everything to him for about 18 months, and between 18 months and five years, he needs to detach from her and to reattach to his father. It’s a very important developmental task, and if his dad is gone or abusive or disinterested or maybe there’s just not a good fit there, what’s he going to do? He remains bonded to his mother ... [http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20061125_james_dobson_identifies_homosexuality/]<br /> <br /> &quot;DR.&quot; Dobson is not authoritative, but as biased as AiG. And let's get to the root. Let's say it's not inborn. Let's say it's deeply personality rooted. If it's that deeply rooted, it's for all practical purposes immutable. If it's immutable, but based on a change after birth, does that matter at all?</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Punk&diff=131116 Punk 2007-04-27T12:01:58Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Punk music''' originated in the late 1970s, primarily as a response to the cultural sterility of [[progressive rock]], in the [[United Kingdom]] with bands such as the [[Sex Pistols]], [[The Clash]] and [[The Buzzcocks]]. It quickly spread to the [[USA]] and has continued to rise in popularity.<br /> <br /> ==Musicality==<br /> <br /> Punk is charactarised by up-tempo guitar/bass arrangements. The lyrics can be concerned with any topic, generally, but are almost always written with a 1-2, 1-2 rhyme scheme. By design, the songs are usually structured to be very simplistic [[rock]] songs of the 1-4-5 chord progression variety. <br /> <br /> ==Dancing==<br /> <br /> Various methods of dancing to it have emerged, such as skanking and pogo-ing. Punk-style dance is typically designed to be synasthesically expressive of an emotion, not of a particular representational style, such as a jitterbug.<br /> <br /> ==Punk Culture==<br /> <br /> The Punk subculture is typified by core beliefs and ethos.<br /> <br /> * DIY ethic<br /> * individualism<br /> * progressive thought<br /> <br /> Punks typically distinguish themselves from others with their unmistakable appearances. this has included things such as Mohawk hairstyles, tight pants, studded leather jackets, bullet belts, combat boots, ect. Clothing and hairstyles vary widely throught the punk scene, and often paticular outfits denote paticular strains of punk or core-beliefs. Most true punks however will claim that the punk subculture is more based on the idea of non-conformity, community, and progressive thought (particularly in politics).<br /> <br /> Not all punks are political, and likewise not all political punks advocate anarchy. While most punks are considered liberal, some are conservative ([[Nazi-punks]]). <br /> <br /> ==Sub-Genres==<br /> <br /> * [[emo]]<br /> * [[hardcore]]<br /> * [[psychobilly]]<br /> * [[pop-punk]]<br /> <br /> <br /> == Notable Punk bands ==<br /> <br /> === United Kingdom===<br /> * [[Sex Pistols]]<br /> * [[The Buzzcocks]]<br /> * [[The Damned]]<br /> * [[Adicts]]<br /> * [[U.K. Subs]]<br /> * [[The Exploited]]<br /> * [[Crass]]<br /> * [[Subhumans]]<br /> * [[The Clash]]<br /> * The [[Anti-Nowhere League]]<br /> * [[The Stranglers]]<br /> * [[The Fall]]<br /> <br /> === United States ===<br /> * [[The Ramones]]<br /> * [[Blondie]]<br /> * [[Television(band)|Television]]<br /> * [[Dead Kennedys]]<br /> * [[Anti-Flag]]<br /> * [[Misfits]]<br /> * [[New York Dolls]]<br /> * [[Bad Religion]]<br /> * [[Death By Stereo]]<br /> * [[Dropkick Murphys]]<br /> * [[Green Day]]<br /> * [[NOFX]] <br /> * [[Black Flag]]<br /> * [[Pixies]]<br /> <br /> ==Christianity in Punk Music==<br /> <br /> Some Christians claim punk to have satanic roots, although none of the mainstream bands admit that they adhere to such a faith. There are also many punk bands who are Christians as well as punk bands that play Christian Punk music.<br /> <br /> Some examples of Punk bands who are Christians and Christian Punk bands are:<br /> <br /> *[[MxPx]]<br /> *[[Relient K]]<br /> *[[Slick Shoes]]<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> [http://www.punkvoter.com]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Music]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ethiopia&diff=126512 Talk:Ethiopia 2007-04-25T09:19:24Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>I have to question the assertion that Ethiopia is the only African country never to be colonized. I don't think Liberia was ever colonized. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Liberia was set up as an American colony for the repatriation of black American slaves. While it was not run as a settler colony or administered from the metropole on the French or British models, it was still very much a colonial state built on land that was previously the domain of Africans.[[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 01:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Since the statement in the article cites the CIA Factbook, which I consider to be a very reliable source, I'm satisfied with that explanation. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Inaccurate Info==<br /> <br /> I can't believe that no one caught the inaccurate info about Ethiopia's location in Africa. It had to be pointed out by someone who is likely another vandal.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 05:19, 25 April, 2007</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ethiopia&diff=126511 Talk:Ethiopia 2007-04-25T09:19:09Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>I have to question the assertion that Ethiopia is the only African country never to be colonized. I don't think Liberia was ever colonized. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Liberia was set up as an American colony for the repatriation of black American slaves. While it was not run as a settler colony or administered from the metropole on the French or British models, it was still very much a colonial state built on land that was previously the domain of Africans.[[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 01:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Since the statement in the article cites the CIA Factbook, which I consider to be a very reliable source, I'm satisfied with that explanation. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I can't believe that no one caught the inaccurate info about Ethiopia's location in Africa. It had to be pointed out by someone who is likely another vandal.[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 05:19, 25 April, 2007</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ethiopia&diff=126509 Ethiopia 2007-04-25T09:17:14Z <p>NSmyth: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Ethiopia''' is an [[African]] [[country]] located between [[Sudan]] and [[Somalia]]. With the exception of the Italian occupation of 1936-1941, Ethiopia is the only African country to never have been colonised by a European imperialist power.(see CIA World Fact Book:[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/et.html]) a bloody border dispute with [[Eritrea]] following that country's secession in 1991 has claimed many lives, and the country has experienced a number of [[famine]]s in the past century. Perhaps most notable of thse are the 1974 famine that led to the Marxist ouster of Emperor [[Haile Selassie]] and the 1984-1985 famine that inspired [[Bob Geldof]] to begin the Band Aid/Live Aid project.<br /> <br /> <br /> =References=<br /> <br /> http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/mapcenter/map.aspx - An interactive map of the world</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ethiopia&diff=126504 Ethiopia 2007-04-25T09:12:10Z <p>NSmyth: It's not great, but at least it's ACCURATE now. Do try to look things up before writing them.</p> <hr /> <div>'''Ethiopia''' is an [[African]] [[country]] located between [[Sudan]] and [[Somalia]]. With the exception of the Italian occupation of 1936-1941, Ethiopia is the only African country to never have been colonised by a European imperialist power.(see CIA World Fact Book:[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/et.html]) a bloody border dispute with [[Eritrea]] following that country's secession in 1991 has claimed many lives, and the country has experienced a number of [[famine]]s in the past century. Perhaps most notable of thse are the 1974 famine that led to the Marxist ouster of Emperor [[Haile Selassie]] and the 1984-1985 famine that inspired [[Bob Geldof]] to begin the Band Aid/Live Aid project.</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Republican_Party&diff=118155 Republican Party 2007-04-20T05:09:44Z <p>NSmyth: Removed one more thing. Citation needed</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|right|thumb|200px|Official logo of the Republican Party.]]<br /> The '''Republican Party''' is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]]. The current [[President of the United States]], [[George W. Bush]], is a member of the party &amp;ndash; and by rules common to both major U.S. parties, its head. Of the two major U.S. parties, the Republican party is the moderate/center-right party. The party could be considered &quot;America's natural presidential party&quot;, since 18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and that since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections.<br /> <br /> The party was born in the early 1850s by anti-[[slavery]] activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, [[Wisconsin]], a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6, 1854 in Jackson, [[Michigan]]. The name &quot;Republican&quot; was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. At the Jackson convention, the new party adopted a platform and nominated candidates for office in Michigan. Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the [[Democratic Party]].<br /> == Symbol ==<br /> <br /> The official symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol&lt;ref&gt;http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&amp;Month=November&amp;Date=7&lt;/ref&gt;. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in Midwestern states such as Indiana and Ohio was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic cock. This symbol still appears on Indiana ballots.<br /> <br /> ==Ideology==<br /> The outstanding difference between the mind set and political ideals of the Republicans and that of the Democrats is that the Republican Party tends to emphasize more the ideal that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the mindset that all material things are earned, not owed. This mindset is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.<br /> <br /> Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. The much revered president [[Ronald Reagan]] who became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a fervent [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying &quot;Government is not the solution, it is the problem.&quot;<br /> <br /> The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a neoconservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberations of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], strong support for democracy especially in the [[Middle East]], and distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, it also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty. <br /> <br /> It generally supports free trade, especially NAFTA and CAFTA. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], oppose the legalization of gender-neutral marriage, favor faith-based initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose racial quotas.<br /> <br /> In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the &quot;No Child Left behind Act&quot; of 2001 (which also increased federal funding for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos, with many seeing it as unethical to force tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in individualism, limited government, and business entrepreneurship.<br /> <br /> == History ==<br /> John C. Frémont ran as the first Republican for President in 1856, using the political slogan: &quot;Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Frémont.&quot; Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party grew especially rapidly in Northeastern and Midwestern states, where slavery had long been prohibited, culminating in a sweep of victories in the Northern states and the election of Lincoln in 1860, ending 60 years of dominance by the slavery-supporting Democrats and ushering in a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial north and on the end of slavery.<br /> <br /> With the end of the Civil War came the upheavals of Reconstruction under Democratic President [[Andrew Johnson]] (who had bitter disputes with the Republicans in Congress, who eventually impeached him) and [[Ulysses S. Grant]], a Republican. For a brief period, Republicans assumed control of Southern politics (due especially to the former slaves receiving the vote while it was denied to many whites who had participated in the Confederacy), forcing drastic reforms and frequently giving former slaves positions in government. After Reconstruction came to an end, the southern states became known as the &quot;Solid South&quot;, giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964.<br /> <br /> Though states' rights was a cause of both Northern and Southern states before the War, control of the federal government led the Republican Party down a national line. The patriotric unity that developed in the North because of the war led to a string of military men as President, and an era of international expansion and domestic protectionism. As the rural Northern antebellum economy mushroomed with industry and immigration, supporting innovation, invention, entrepreneurship and business became the hallmarks of Republican policy proposals. From the Reconstruction era up to the turn of the century, the Republicans benefitted from the Democrats' racist origin and their association with the Confederate States of America. The Republican Party, therefore dominated national politics--albeit with strong competition from the Democrats, especially during the 1880s. With the two-term presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, the party became known for its strong advocacy of commerce, industry, and veterans' rights, which continues to this day.<br /> <br /> During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to [[Grover Cleveland]] (in 1884 and 1892).<br /> <br /> The election of [[William McKinley]] in 1896 is widely seen as a resurgence of Republican dominance and is sometimes cited as a realigning election. The progressive, protectionist, political and beloved McKinley was the last Civil War veteran elected President and embodied the Republican ideals of economic progress, invention, education, and patriotism. He confirmed the Republicans as a pro-enterprise party; his campaign manager, Marcus Hanna was a highly effective political strategist and fund-raiser which meant McKinley outspent his radical rival William Jennings Bryan by a large margin.<br /> <br /> After McKinley's assassination, President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] tapped McKinley's Industrial Commission for his trust-busting ideas and continued the federal and nationalist policies of his predecessor. In order to ensure fair competition in the economy Roosevelt took steps to abolish &quot;trusts&quot; or cartels which then dominated many key markets within the economy. This led Republicans into conflict with the most powerful commercial interests in the country, led by John D. Rockefeller, the richest man in the world.<br /> <br /> Roosevelt decided not to run again in 1908 and chose [[William Howard Taft]] to replace him, but the widening division between progressive and conservative forces in the party resulted in a third-party candidacy for Roosevelt on the United States Progressive Party, or &quot;Bull Moose&quot; ticket in the election of 1912. Roosevelt finished ahead of Taft, but the split in the Republican vote resulted in a decisive victory for Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], temporarily interrupting the Republican era.<br /> <br /> The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of high tariffs, the promotion of business interests, opposition to the League of Nations, and overall isolationism after Wilson's turbulent internationalism. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in 1920, 1924, and 1928 respectively. These years saw the party firmly committed to laissez-faire economics, but the Great Depression cost it the presidency with the election of [[Socialism|socialist]] Democrat [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] in 1932. Roosevelt's New Deal Coalition controlled American politics for the next two decades, concluding with the two-term presidency of popular Republican World War II General [[Dwight Eisenhower]].<br /> <br /> The post-war emergence of the United States as one of two superpowers and rapid social change caused the Republican Party to divide into a conservative wing (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal wing (dominant in New England) - combined with a residual base of inherited Midwestern Republicanism active throughout the century. A Republican like Senator Robert Taft of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose New Deal reforms and continued to champion isolationism. Thomas Dewey of New York represented the Northeastern wing of the party that was closer to Democratic liberalism and internationalism. In the end, the isolationists were marginalized by those who supported a strong U.S. role in opposing the Soviet Union throughout the world, as embodied by President Eisenhower. However, this development did not represent the end of the story. The seeds of conservative dominance in the Republican party were planted in the nomination of conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] over liberal [[Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller|Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate for the 1964 presidential election.<br /> <br /> Any enduring Republican majority, however, was put on hold when the Watergate Scandal forced [[Richard Nixon]] to resign under a threat of impeachment created by elements within the Democratic Party opposed to U.S efforts to fight [[Communism|communist]] totalitarianism. Gerald Ford succeeded Nixon under the 25th Amendment and struggled to forge a political identity separate from his predecessor. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976, a Washington outsider who would later be regarded as the worst president of the 20th century.<br /> <br /> In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes &lt;ref&gt;http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&amp;fips=27&amp;f=1&amp;off=0&amp;elect=0&lt;/ref&gt;, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.<br /> <br /> The so-called &quot;Reagan Democrats&quot; were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were lived in the Northeast and were attracted to Reagan's libertarian-conservative views, and to his strong stance on national security issues.<br /> <br /> Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 to [[Bill Clinton]] who repositioned the Democrats subsantially to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his policies of zero deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics, was able to win the election due to Perot splitting the Republican vote in many states. Despite his defeat, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.<br /> <br /> House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the &quot;Republican Revolution&quot; of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, has been retained through the present time. This capture and subsequent holding of Congress represented a major legislative turnaround, as Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate). <br /> <br /> In that mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of major reforms of government with measures such as a balanced budget amendment and welfare reform. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. The Republicans passed some of their proposals, which lead to economic growth during the second half of the 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives also failed to muster the two-thirds majority required to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress. <br /> <br /> In 1995, a budget battle with Clinton led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.<br /> <br /> With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.<br /> <br /> In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a &quot;War on Terrorism&quot; that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated &quot;Operation Iraqi Freedom&quot; to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal. <br /> <br /> The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934). <br /> <br /> Bush was renominated without opposition for the 2004 election and titled his political platform &quot;A Safer World and a More Hopeful America&quot;. It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world. <br /> <br /> On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected emphatically, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], carried a mere 19 states and the District of Columbia, earning him 251 Electoral College votes and only 48 percent of the popular vote to Bush's 51 percent, the first popular majority since his father was elected in 1988. That election also marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold. <br /> <br /> The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by borough/census area, but had all electoral districts but one of the two in Juneau vote for Bush). <br /> <br /> The election marked the first time an incumbent president was reelected while his political party increased its numbers in both houses of Congress since Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election.<br /> <br /> ==Presidential dominance==<br /> In terms of winning presidential elections, the Republican Party has been the most successful political party in U.S. history. Since the American Civil War, Grover Cleveland is the only non-incumbent Democrat who has won the office of President of the United States under &quot;ordinary&quot; circumstances (meaning no third party, no Great Depression, no disputed count in Illinois, no assassination of the previous president, no Watergate).<br /> <br /> From 1860 through 1912, 10 men were elected President of the United States -- Grover Cleveland being the only Democrat.<br /> <br /> Woodrow Wilson, who won in 1912, only won because William Howard Taft (the Republican incumbent) split the party vote with former President Theodore Roosevelt who ran as the Progressive Party candidate. Wilson only garnered 41.6% of the popular vote, compared to a combined 50.6% of Roosevelt and Taft.<br /> <br /> Following Wilson, there were three more Republicans. It took a major economic depression to get another Democrat elected (in 1932).<br /> <br /> John F. Kennedy (the next Democratic non-incumbent to win the White House) won the 1960 election as the result of voter fraud in Chicago (and several other locations), with a mere 0.2% difference in the popular vote.<br /> <br /> It took the aftermath of the Watergate scandal to get the next, non-incumbent Democrat elected in 1976 in a very close election in which Democrat Jimmy Carter received 50.1% of the popular vote to Gerald Ford's 48.0%. 5,000 popular votes in the State of Ohio would have made the difference.<br /> <br /> The next non-incumbent Democrat victory occured in 1992, in which third party candidate H. Ross Perot took away 19% of the popular vote from the Republican candidate, incumbent George H.W. Bush. And even though Bill Clinton was twice elected, he never once had a majority of the vote (43.0% in 1992; 49.2% in 1996). More people (the majority of voters) voted against Clinton for President than ever voted for him.<br /> <br /> Since the birth of the Republican Party, the average Republican margin of victory over their opponents in Presidential elections has been around 12% to the Democrat's margin of victory over their opponents at around 8%. Also since the birth of the Republican Party, Democrats only garnered a majority of the vote a total of 7 times in 38 elections, while Republicans earned a majority 17 times in those same 38 elections.<br /> <br /> In the 20th century, only 7 U.S. Presidents gained a larger margin of victory over their opponents in their second election. Five of those seven were Republicans. It must be noted that this statistic cannot be applied to incumbents who entered office without being elected, as their re-election was actually their first election -- i.e. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford)<br /> <br /> *Nixon from a 0.7% margin of victory in 1968 to a 23.2% MOV in 1972.<br /> *Reagan from a 9.7% MOV in 1980 to a 18.2% MOV in 1984.<br /> *FDR from a 17.% MOV in 1932 to a 24.3% MOV in 1936.<br /> *Eisenhower from a 10.7% MOV in 1952 to a 15.4% MOV in 1956.<br /> *McKinley from a 4.2% MOV in 1896 to a 6.1% MOV in 1900.<br /> *Clinton from a 5.6% MOV in 1992 to a 8.5% MOV in 1996.<br /> *GWB from a -0.5% MOV in 2000 to a 2.8% MOV in 2004.<br /> <br /> Of the 11 U.S. presidents to be re-elected (i.e. elected a second time) since the Civil War, 7 were Republicans and only 4 Democrats. All seven of those Republicans were re-elected with a higher percentage of the vote , while only 3 of those Democrats received a greater percentage for their re-election bid. And this doesn't even include Franklin Delano Roosevelt's third and fourth terms, where victory margins diminished in his third and forth terms.)<br /> <br /> == Contemporary Party ==<br /> <br /> The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration.<br /> <br /> ==Presidents from the party==<br /> # [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)<br /> # [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)<br /> # [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)<br /> # [[James Garfield]] (1881)<br /> # [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)<br /> # [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)<br /> # [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)<br /> # [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)<br /> # [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)<br /> # [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)<br /> # [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)<br /> # [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)<br /> # [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)<br /> # [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)<br /> # [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)<br /> # [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)<br /> # [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)<br /> # [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:United States]]<br /> [[Category:Political Parties]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Republican_Party&diff=118154 Republican Party 2007-04-20T05:08:25Z <p>NSmyth: Last edit, fixed for clarity, grammar, and removed an uncited reference</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|right|thumb|200px|Official logo of the Republican Party.]]<br /> The '''Republican Party''' is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]]. The current [[President of the United States]], [[George W. Bush]], is a member of the party &amp;ndash; and by rules common to both major U.S. parties, its head. Of the two major U.S. parties, the Republican party is the moderate/center-right party. The party could be considered &quot;America's natural presidential party&quot;, since 18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and that since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections.<br /> <br /> The party was born in the early 1850s by anti-[[slavery]] activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, [[Wisconsin]], a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6, 1854 in Jackson, [[Michigan]]. The name &quot;Republican&quot; was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. At the Jackson convention, the new party adopted a platform and nominated candidates for office in Michigan. Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the [[Democratic Party]], which supported slavery.<br /> <br /> == Symbol ==<br /> <br /> The official symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol&lt;ref&gt;http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&amp;Month=November&amp;Date=7&lt;/ref&gt;. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in Midwestern states such as Indiana and Ohio was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic cock. This symbol still appears on Indiana ballots.<br /> <br /> ==Ideology==<br /> The outstanding difference between the mind set and political ideals of the Republicans and that of the Democrats is that the Republican Party tends to emphasize more the ideal that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the mindset that all material things are earned, not owed. This mindset is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.<br /> <br /> Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. The much revered president [[Ronald Reagan]] who became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a fervent [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying &quot;Government is not the solution, it is the problem.&quot;<br /> <br /> The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a neoconservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberations of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], strong support for democracy especially in the [[Middle East]], and distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, it also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty. <br /> <br /> It generally supports free trade, especially NAFTA and CAFTA. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], oppose the legalization of gender-neutral marriage, favor faith-based initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose racial quotas.<br /> <br /> In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the &quot;No Child Left behind Act&quot; of 2001 (which also increased federal funding for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos, with many seeing it as unethical to force tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in individualism, limited government, and business entrepreneurship.<br /> <br /> == History ==<br /> John C. Frémont ran as the first Republican for President in 1856, using the political slogan: &quot;Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Frémont.&quot; Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party grew especially rapidly in Northeastern and Midwestern states, where slavery had long been prohibited, culminating in a sweep of victories in the Northern states and the election of Lincoln in 1860, ending 60 years of dominance by the slavery-supporting Democrats and ushering in a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial north and on the end of slavery.<br /> <br /> With the end of the Civil War came the upheavals of Reconstruction under Democratic President [[Andrew Johnson]] (who had bitter disputes with the Republicans in Congress, who eventually impeached him) and [[Ulysses S. Grant]], a Republican. For a brief period, Republicans assumed control of Southern politics (due especially to the former slaves receiving the vote while it was denied to many whites who had participated in the Confederacy), forcing drastic reforms and frequently giving former slaves positions in government. After Reconstruction came to an end, the southern states became known as the &quot;Solid South&quot;, giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964.<br /> <br /> Though states' rights was a cause of both Northern and Southern states before the War, control of the federal government led the Republican Party down a national line. The patriotric unity that developed in the North because of the war led to a string of military men as President, and an era of international expansion and domestic protectionism. As the rural Northern antebellum economy mushroomed with industry and immigration, supporting innovation, invention, entrepreneurship and business became the hallmarks of Republican policy proposals. From the Reconstruction era up to the turn of the century, the Republicans benefitted from the Democrats' racist origin and their association with the Confederate States of America. The Republican Party, therefore dominated national politics--albeit with strong competition from the Democrats, especially during the 1880s. With the two-term presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, the party became known for its strong advocacy of commerce, industry, and veterans' rights, which continues to this day.<br /> <br /> During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to [[Grover Cleveland]] (in 1884 and 1892).<br /> <br /> The election of [[William McKinley]] in 1896 is widely seen as a resurgence of Republican dominance and is sometimes cited as a realigning election. The progressive, protectionist, political and beloved McKinley was the last Civil War veteran elected President and embodied the Republican ideals of economic progress, invention, education, and patriotism. He confirmed the Republicans as a pro-enterprise party; his campaign manager, Marcus Hanna was a highly effective political strategist and fund-raiser which meant McKinley outspent his radical rival William Jennings Bryan by a large margin.<br /> <br /> After McKinley's assassination, President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] tapped McKinley's Industrial Commission for his trust-busting ideas and continued the federal and nationalist policies of his predecessor. In order to ensure fair competition in the economy Roosevelt took steps to abolish &quot;trusts&quot; or cartels which then dominated many key markets within the economy. This led Republicans into conflict with the most powerful commercial interests in the country, led by John D. Rockefeller, the richest man in the world.<br /> <br /> Roosevelt decided not to run again in 1908 and chose [[William Howard Taft]] to replace him, but the widening division between progressive and conservative forces in the party resulted in a third-party candidacy for Roosevelt on the United States Progressive Party, or &quot;Bull Moose&quot; ticket in the election of 1912. Roosevelt finished ahead of Taft, but the split in the Republican vote resulted in a decisive victory for Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], temporarily interrupting the Republican era.<br /> <br /> The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of high tariffs, the promotion of business interests, opposition to the League of Nations, and overall isolationism after Wilson's turbulent internationalism. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in 1920, 1924, and 1928 respectively. These years saw the party firmly committed to laissez-faire economics, but the Great Depression cost it the presidency with the election of [[Socialism|socialist]] Democrat [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] in 1932. Roosevelt's New Deal Coalition controlled American politics for the next two decades, concluding with the two-term presidency of popular Republican World War II General [[Dwight Eisenhower]].<br /> <br /> The post-war emergence of the United States as one of two superpowers and rapid social change caused the Republican Party to divide into a conservative wing (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal wing (dominant in New England) - combined with a residual base of inherited Midwestern Republicanism active throughout the century. A Republican like Senator Robert Taft of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose New Deal reforms and continued to champion isolationism. Thomas Dewey of New York represented the Northeastern wing of the party that was closer to Democratic liberalism and internationalism. In the end, the isolationists were marginalized by those who supported a strong U.S. role in opposing the Soviet Union throughout the world, as embodied by President Eisenhower. However, this development did not represent the end of the story. The seeds of conservative dominance in the Republican party were planted in the nomination of conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] over liberal [[Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller|Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate for the 1964 presidential election.<br /> <br /> Any enduring Republican majority, however, was put on hold when the Watergate Scandal forced [[Richard Nixon]] to resign under a threat of impeachment created by elements within the Democratic Party opposed to U.S efforts to fight [[Communism|communist]] totalitarianism. Gerald Ford succeeded Nixon under the 25th Amendment and struggled to forge a political identity separate from his predecessor. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976, a Washington outsider who would later be regarded as the worst president of the 20th century.<br /> <br /> In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes &lt;ref&gt;http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&amp;fips=27&amp;f=1&amp;off=0&amp;elect=0&lt;/ref&gt;, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.<br /> <br /> The so-called &quot;Reagan Democrats&quot; were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were lived in the Northeast and were attracted to Reagan's libertarian-conservative views, and to his strong stance on national security issues.<br /> <br /> Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 to [[Bill Clinton]] who repositioned the Democrats subsantially to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his policies of zero deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics, was able to win the election due to Perot splitting the Republican vote in many states. Despite his defeat, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.<br /> <br /> House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the &quot;Republican Revolution&quot; of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, has been retained through the present time. This capture and subsequent holding of Congress represented a major legislative turnaround, as Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate). <br /> <br /> In that mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of major reforms of government with measures such as a balanced budget amendment and welfare reform. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. The Republicans passed some of their proposals, which lead to economic growth during the second half of the 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives also failed to muster the two-thirds majority required to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress. <br /> <br /> In 1995, a budget battle with Clinton led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.<br /> <br /> With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.<br /> <br /> In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a &quot;War on Terrorism&quot; that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated &quot;Operation Iraqi Freedom&quot; to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal. <br /> <br /> The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934). <br /> <br /> Bush was renominated without opposition for the 2004 election and titled his political platform &quot;A Safer World and a More Hopeful America&quot;. It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world. <br /> <br /> On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected emphatically, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], carried a mere 19 states and the District of Columbia, earning him 251 Electoral College votes and only 48 percent of the popular vote to Bush's 51 percent, the first popular majority since his father was elected in 1988. That election also marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold. <br /> <br /> The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by borough/census area, but had all electoral districts but one of the two in Juneau vote for Bush). <br /> <br /> The election marked the first time an incumbent president was reelected while his political party increased its numbers in both houses of Congress since Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election.<br /> <br /> ==Presidential dominance==<br /> In terms of winning presidential elections, the Republican Party has been the most successful political party in U.S. history. Since the American Civil War, Grover Cleveland is the only non-incumbent Democrat who has won the office of President of the United States under &quot;ordinary&quot; circumstances (meaning no third party, no Great Depression, no disputed count in Illinois, no assassination of the previous president, no Watergate).<br /> <br /> From 1860 through 1912, 10 men were elected President of the United States -- Grover Cleveland being the only Democrat.<br /> <br /> Woodrow Wilson, who won in 1912, only won because William Howard Taft (the Republican incumbent) split the party vote with former President Theodore Roosevelt who ran as the Progressive Party candidate. Wilson only garnered 41.6% of the popular vote, compared to a combined 50.6% of Roosevelt and Taft.<br /> <br /> Following Wilson, there were three more Republicans. It took a major economic depression to get another Democrat elected (in 1932).<br /> <br /> John F. Kennedy (the next Democratic non-incumbent to win the White House) won the 1960 election as the result of voter fraud in Chicago (and several other locations), with a mere 0.2% difference in the popular vote.<br /> <br /> It took the aftermath of the Watergate scandal to get the next, non-incumbent Democrat elected in 1976 in a very close election in which Democrat Jimmy Carter received 50.1% of the popular vote to Gerald Ford's 48.0%. 5,000 popular votes in the State of Ohio would have made the difference.<br /> <br /> The next non-incumbent Democrat victory occured in 1992, in which third party candidate H. Ross Perot took away 19% of the popular vote from the Republican candidate, incumbent George H.W. Bush. And even though Bill Clinton was twice elected, he never once had a majority of the vote (43.0% in 1992; 49.2% in 1996). More people (the majority of voters) voted against Clinton for President than ever voted for him.<br /> <br /> Since the birth of the Republican Party, the average Republican margin of victory over their opponents in Presidential elections has been around 12% to the Democrat's margin of victory over their opponents at around 8%. Also since the birth of the Republican Party, Democrats only garnered a majority of the vote a total of 7 times in 38 elections, while Republicans earned a majority 17 times in those same 38 elections.<br /> <br /> In the 20th century, only 7 U.S. Presidents gained a larger margin of victory over their opponents in their second election. Five of those seven were Republicans. It must be noted that this statistic cannot be applied to incumbents who entered office without being elected, as their re-election was actually their first election -- i.e. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford)<br /> <br /> *Nixon from a 0.7% margin of victory in 1968 to a 23.2% MOV in 1972.<br /> *Reagan from a 9.7% MOV in 1980 to a 18.2% MOV in 1984.<br /> *FDR from a 17.% MOV in 1932 to a 24.3% MOV in 1936.<br /> *Eisenhower from a 10.7% MOV in 1952 to a 15.4% MOV in 1956.<br /> *McKinley from a 4.2% MOV in 1896 to a 6.1% MOV in 1900.<br /> *Clinton from a 5.6% MOV in 1992 to a 8.5% MOV in 1996.<br /> *GWB from a -0.5% MOV in 2000 to a 2.8% MOV in 2004.<br /> <br /> Of the 11 U.S. presidents to be re-elected (i.e. elected a second time) since the Civil War, 7 were Republicans and only 4 Democrats. All seven of those Republicans were re-elected with a higher percentage of the vote , while only 3 of those Democrats received a greater percentage for their re-election bid. And this doesn't even include Franklin Delano Roosevelt's third and fourth terms, where victory margins diminished in his third and forth terms.)<br /> <br /> == Contemporary Party ==<br /> <br /> The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration.<br /> <br /> ==Presidents from the party==<br /> # [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)<br /> # [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)<br /> # [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)<br /> # [[James Garfield]] (1881)<br /> # [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)<br /> # [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)<br /> # [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)<br /> # [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)<br /> # [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)<br /> # [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)<br /> # [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)<br /> # [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)<br /> # [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)<br /> # [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)<br /> # [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)<br /> # [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)<br /> # [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)<br /> # [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:United States]]<br /> [[Category:Political Parties]]</div> NSmyth https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Republican_Party&diff=118149 Republican Party 2007-04-20T05:06:03Z <p>NSmyth: Irrelevant to the article</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|right|thumb|200px|Official logo of the Republican Party.]]<br /> The '''Republican Party''' is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]]. The current [[President of the United States]], [[George W. Bush]], is a member of the party &amp;ndash; and by rules common to both major U.S. parties, its head. Of the two major U.S. parties, the Republican party is the moderate/center-right party. The party could be considered &quot;America's natural presidential party&quot;, since 18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and that since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections.<br /> <br /> The party was born in the early 1850s by anti-[[slavery]] activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, [[Wisconsin]], a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6, 1854 in Jackson, [[Michigan]]. The name &quot;Republican&quot; was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. At the Jackson convention, the new party adopted a platform and nominated candidates for office in Michigan. Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the [[Democratic Party]].<br /> <br /> == Symbol ==<br /> <br /> The official symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol&lt;ref&gt;http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&amp;Month=November&amp;Date=7&lt;/ref&gt;. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in Midwestern states such as Indiana and Ohio was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic cock. This symbol still appears on Indiana ballots.<br /> <br /> ==Ideology==<br /> The outstanding difference between the mind set and political ideals of the Republicans and that of the Democrats is that the Republican Party tends to emphasize more the ideal that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the mindset that all material things are earned, not owed. This mindset is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.<br /> <br /> Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. The much revered president [[Ronald Reagan]] became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a fervent [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying &quot;Government is not the solution, it is the problem.&quot;<br /> <br /> The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a neoconservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberations of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], strong support for democracy especially in the [[Middle East]], and distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, it also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty. <br /> <br /> It generally supports free trade, especially NAFTA and CAFTA. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], oppose the legalization of gender-neutral marriage, favor faith-based initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose racial quotas.<br /> <br /> In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the &quot;No Child Left behind Act&quot; of 2001 (which also increased federal funding for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos, with many seeing it as unethical to force tens of millions of tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in individualism, limited government, and business entrepreneurship.<br /> <br /> == History ==<br /> John C. Frémont ran as the first Republican for President in 1856, using the political slogan: &quot;Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Frémont.&quot; Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party grew especially rapidly in Northeastern and Midwestern states, where slavery had long been prohibited, culminating in a sweep of victories in the Northern states and the election of Lincoln in 1860, ending 60 years of dominance by the slavery-supporting Democrats and ushering in a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial north and on the end of slavery.<br /> <br /> With the end of the Civil War came the upheavals of Reconstruction under Democratic President [[Andrew Johnson]] (who had bitter disputes with the Republicans in Congress, who eventually impeached him) and [[Ulysses S. Grant]], a Republican. For a brief period, Republicans assumed control of Southern politics (due especially to the former slaves receiving the vote while it was denied to many whites who had participated in the Confederacy), forcing drastic reforms and frequently giving former slaves positions in government. After Reconstruction came to an end, the southern states became known as the &quot;Solid South&quot;, giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964.<br /> <br /> Though states' rights was a cause of both Northern and Southern states before the War, control of the federal government led the Republican Party down a national line. The patriotric unity that developed in the North because of the war led to a string of military men as President, and an era of international expansion and domestic protectionism. As the rural Northern antebellum economy mushroomed with industry and immigration, supporting innovation, invention, entrepreneurship and business became the hallmarks of Republican policy proposals. From the Reconstruction era up to the turn of the century, the Republicans benefitted from the Democrats' racist origin and their association with the Confederate States of America. The Republican Party, therefore dominated national politics--albeit with strong competition from the Democrats, especially during the 1880s. With the two-term presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, the party became known for its strong advocacy of commerce, industry, and veterans' rights, which continues to this day.<br /> <br /> During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to [[Grover Cleveland]] (in 1884 and 1892).<br /> <br /> The election of [[William McKinley]] in 1896 is widely seen as a resurgence of Republican dominance and is sometimes cited as a realigning election. The progressive, protectionist, political and beloved McKinley was the last Civil War veteran elected President and embodied the Republican ideals of economic progress, invention, education, and patriotism. He confirmed the Republicans as a pro-enterprise party; his campaign manager, Marcus Hanna was a highly effective political strategist and fund-raiser which meant McKinley outspent his radical rival William Jennings Bryan by a large margin.<br /> <br /> After McKinley's assassination, President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] tapped McKinley's Industrial Commission for his trust-busting ideas and continued the federal and nationalist policies of his predecessor. In order to ensure fair competition in the economy Roosevelt took steps to abolish &quot;trusts&quot; or cartels which then dominated many key markets within the economy. This led Republicans into conflict with the most powerful commercial interests in the country, led by John D. Rockefeller, the richest man in the world.<br /> <br /> Roosevelt decided not to run again in 1908 and chose [[William Howard Taft]] to replace him, but the widening division between progressive and conservative forces in the party resulted in a third-party candidacy for Roosevelt on the United States Progressive Party, or &quot;Bull Moose&quot; ticket in the election of 1912. Roosevelt finished ahead of Taft, but the split in the Republican vote resulted in a decisive victory for Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], temporarily interrupting the Republican era.<br /> <br /> The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of high tariffs, the promotion of business interests, opposition to the League of Nations, and overall isolationism after Wilson's turbulent internationalism. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in 1920, 1924, and 1928 respectively. These years saw the party firmly committed to laissez-faire economics, but the Great Depression cost it the presidency with the election of [[Socialism|socialist]] Democrat [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] in 1932. Roosevelt's New Deal Coalition controlled American politics for the next two decades, concluding with the two-term presidency of popular Republican World War II General [[Dwight Eisenhower]].<br /> <br /> The post-war emergence of the United States as one of two superpowers and rapid social change caused the Republican Party to divide into a conservative wing (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal wing (dominant in New England) - combined with a residual base of inherited Midwestern Republicanism active throughout the century. A Republican like Senator Robert Taft of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose New Deal reforms and continued to champion isolationism. Thomas Dewey of New York represented the Northeastern wing of the party that was closer to Democratic liberalism and internationalism. In the end, the isolationists were marginalized by those who supported a strong U.S. role in opposing the Soviet Union throughout the world, as embodied by President Eisenhower. However, this development did not represent the end of the story. The seeds of conservative dominance in the Republican party were planted in the nomination of conservative [[Barry Goldwater]] over liberal [[Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller|Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate for the 1964 presidential election.<br /> <br /> Any enduring Republican majority, however, was put on hold when the Watergate Scandal forced [[Richard Nixon]] to resign under a threat of impeachment created by elements within the Democratic Party opposed to U.S efforts to fight [[Communism|communist]] totalitarianism. Gerald Ford succeeded Nixon under the 25th Amendment and struggled to forge a political identity separate from his predecessor. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976, a Washington outsider who would later be regarded as the worst president of the 20th century.<br /> <br /> In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes &lt;ref&gt;http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&amp;fips=27&amp;f=1&amp;off=0&amp;elect=0&lt;/ref&gt;, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.<br /> <br /> The so-called &quot;Reagan Democrats&quot; were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were lived in the Northeast and were attracted to Reagan's libertarian-conservative views, and to his strong stance on national security issues.<br /> <br /> Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 to [[Bill Clinton]] who repositioned the Democrats subsantially to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his policies of zero deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics, was able to win the election due to Perot splitting the Republican vote in many states. Despite his defeat, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.<br /> <br /> House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the &quot;Republican Revolution&quot; of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, has been retained through the present time. This capture and subsequent holding of Congress represented a major legislative turnaround, as Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate). <br /> <br /> In that mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of major reforms of government with measures such as a balanced budget amendment and welfare reform. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. The Republicans passed some of their proposals, which lead to economic growth during the second half of the 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives also failed to muster the two-thirds majority required to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress. <br /> <br /> In 1995, a budget battle with Clinton led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.<br /> <br /> With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.<br /> <br /> In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a &quot;War on Terrorism&quot; that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated &quot;Operation Iraqi Freedom&quot; to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal. <br /> <br /> The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934). <br /> <br /> Bush was renominated without opposition for the 2004 election and titled his political platform &quot;A Safer World and a More Hopeful America&quot;. It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world. <br /> <br /> On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected emphatically, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], carried a mere 19 states and the District of Columbia, earning him 251 Electoral College votes and only 48 percent of the popular vote to Bush's 51 percent, the first popular majority since his father was elected in 1988. That election also marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold. <br /> <br /> The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by borough/census area, but had all electoral districts but one of the two in Juneau vote for Bush). <br /> <br /> The election marked the first time an incumbent president was reelected while his political party increased its numbers in both houses of Congress since Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election.<br /> <br /> ==Presidential dominance==<br /> In terms of winning presidential elections, the Republican Party has been the most successful political party in U.S. history. Since the American Civil War, Grover Cleveland is the only non-incumbent Democrat who has won the office of President of the United States under &quot;ordinary&quot; circumstances (meaning no third party, no Great Depression, no disputed count in Illinois, no assassination of the previous president, no Watergate).<br /> <br /> From 1860 through 1912, 10 men were elected President of the United States -- Grover Cleveland being the only Democrat.<br /> <br /> Woodrow Wilson, who won in 1912, only won because William Howard Taft (the Republican incumbent) split the party vote with former President Theodore Roosevelt who ran as the Progressive Party candidate. Wilson only garnered 41.6% of the popular vote, compared to a combined 50.6% of Roosevelt and Taft.<br /> <br /> Following Wilson, there were three more Republicans. It took a major economic depression to get another Democrat elected (in 1932).<br /> <br /> John F. Kennedy (the next Democratic non-incumbent to win the White House) won the 1960 election as the result of voter fraud in Chicago (and several other locations), with a mere 0.2% difference in the popular vote.<br /> <br /> It took the aftermath of the Watergate scandal to get the next, non-incumbent Democrat elected in 1976 in a very close election in which Democrat Jimmy Carter received 50.1% of the popular vote to Gerald Ford's 48.0%. 5,000 popular votes in the State of Ohio would have made the difference.<br /> <br /> The next non-incumbent Democrat victory occured in 1992, in which third party candidate H. Ross Perot took away 19% of the popular vote from the Republican candidate, incumbent George H.W. Bush. And even though Bill Clinton was twice elected, he never once had a majority of the vote (43.0% in 1992; 49.2% in 1996). More people (the majority of voters) voted against Clinton for President than ever voted for him.<br /> <br /> Since the birth of the Republican Party, the average Republican margin of victory over their opponents in Presidential elections has been around 12% to the Democrat's margin of victory over their opponents at around 8%. Also since the birth of the Republican Party, Democrats only garnered a majority of the vote a total of 7 times in 38 elections, while Republicans earned a majority 17 times in those same 38 elections.<br /> <br /> In the 20th century, only 7 U.S. Presidents gained a larger margin of victory over their opponents in their second election. Five of those seven were Republicans. It must be noted that this statistic cannot be applied to incumbents who entered office without being elected, as their re-election was actually their first election -- i.e. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford)<br /> <br /> *Nixon from a 0.7% margin of victory in 1968 to a 23.2% MOV in 1972.<br /> *Reagan from a 9.7% MOV in 1980 to a 18.2% MOV in 1984.<br /> *FDR from a 17.% MOV in 1932 to a 24.3% MOV in 1936.<br /> *Eisenhower from a 10.7% MOV in 1952 to a 15.4% MOV in 1956.<br /> *McKinley from a 4.2% MOV in 1896 to a 6.1% MOV in 1900.<br /> *Clinton from a 5.6% MOV in 1992 to a 8.5% MOV in 1996.<br /> *GWB from a -0.5% MOV in 2000 to a 2.8% MOV in 2004.<br /> <br /> Of the 11 U.S. presidents to be re-elected (i.e. elected a second time) since the Civil War, 7 were Republicans and only 4 Democrats. All seven of those Republicans were re-elected with a higher percentage of the vote , while only 3 of those Democrats received a greater percentage for their re-election bid. And this doesn't even include Franklin Delano Roosevelt's third and fourth terms, where victory margins diminished in his third and forth terms.)<br /> <br /> == Contemporary Party ==<br /> <br /> The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration.<br /> <br /> ==Presidents from the party==<br /> # [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)<br /> # [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)<br /> # [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)<br /> # [[James Garfield]] (1881)<br /> # [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)<br /> # [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)<br /> # [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)<br /> # [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)<br /> # [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)<br /> # [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)<br /> # [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)<br /> # [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)<br /> # [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)<br /> # [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)<br /> # [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)<br /> # [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)<br /> # [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)<br /> # [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:United States]]<br /> [[Category:Political Parties]]</div> NSmyth