Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2009-06-21T05:01:32Z

Osiris1723: /* Hitler and Obama */ new section

[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1]]

==Improvement Proposals==
*'''''Due to vandalism, please post ''MAJOR'' improvement proposals here, in this section. '''''

----

I know you are keen to point out other things, but could the summary maybe mention that he was also ultimately responsible as the commander of the German army for a large number of war crimes, including the execution of POWs, the leveling of civilian cities and the extermination squads killing whole civilian villages. Could we mention that his main philosophy was that enemies of the German people do not possess any rights, which even applied to citizens of Germany. And he did not only use "threat, intimidation, and outright violence" but he had brilliant polemic propaganda. He was, in the beginning elected in a democratic election. He was grossly misunderstanding and abusing scientific theories (Evolution theory may be the most known one which he perverted, but there are other branches of science as well, like medicine).

I suggest a summary like this: After gaining power trough polemics and tactics in politics, he systematically undermined the constitution and the civil rights. With his power growing he used increasingly violence and threats. His philosophy was governed by the hate toward enemies of the German people, which he defined by race, religious or political attitude. He was an antisemitist, and explicitely hated Jews. He was responsible for the killings of millions in concentration camps and for war crimes like the use of chemical weapons, execution of POWs, use of extermination squads in conquered regions, and sieges against civilian cities. He defined the term "racial hygiene" in a perversion of science under which marriages between German and non Germans or German Jews had been restricted and which he used to justify killings of disabled and other people (the largest group being the Jews).

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 00:31, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Path to power ==

I see that the Hayek quote got back. So, the paragraph now explains in detail, but briefly, what van Papen did, what Hitler did, what Hindenburg did, all referring to actual events.

Then the article quotes Hayek out of context, and unrelated to the rest, to the effect that its is all just the socialists fault. I guess this means Conservapedia thinks that good ordinary Germans are and cannot not be blamed for what happened in the Third Reich. Is this true? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 8:40 (AEST)

:It will be integrated. Hayek is the historical narrator here. Here's more regarding Roosevelt:

:::Whatever you do don't integrate it there. It is ruining the article. All paragraphs of the article except for the introduction contain historical facts and no significant interpretion. The paragraphs, The Beginning Of His Political Life, Beer Hall Putsch, Path to Power, Consolidation of Power, Holocaust, 1944 Assassination Attempt, Marriage, and Death all are fairly factual, and the Hayek quote is the only part of it offering a interpretation. If you want to discuss Hayek's contribution to the discussion on the causes of the Third Reich, do it somewhere else, but not in the factual account. Make an article, introduce a section at the end, whatever. And then, citing Hayek as only scholar with an opinion on this issue is also insufficient. Numerous history wars were fought about this one. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:30

::"The system he (FDR) blundered us into is more like the managed and bureaucratized, state supported system of Germany before World War I than our own traditional order. Before his regime we lived in a system which depended for its expansion upon private investment in private enterprise. Today we live in a system which depends for its expansion and vitality upon the government. This is a prewar European importation imported at the moment when it had fallen into complete disintegration in Europe. ...Americans trapped in the economic disasters and the political quarrels of every nation on earth and a system of permanent militarism closely resembling that we beheld with horror in Europe for decades, bureaucrats swarming over every field of life and the President calling for more power, more pricefixing, more regulations and more billions. Does this look like the traditional American scene? Or does it not look rather like the system built by Bismarck in Germany in the last century and imitated by all the lesser Bismarcks in Europe? ...No, Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."

:Actually, we already had this discussion, how the ''real'' anti-Semites & racists came from the former territorries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. [[Franz Leopold Neumann]] of the Frankfurt School of [[critical thinking]] and Chief Nurmberg Prosecution Researcher said it clearly, and most would agree (exept brainwashed Americans who believed wartime Hollywood propaganda and still do), and that is, Germany was the last place in Europe that anyone ever expect the Holocaust to take place. And that is because nowhere in Europe had Jews been accepted and made as much social progress as in Germany. The real fact is, it is Germany's lack of development as a Democracy that would respect everybody's rights including minorities, and the lack of citizen participation and involvement, and not racism, is how a foreigner like Hitler could get in power, import his racist ideas from Austro-Hungary which were not commonly held in Imperial or Wiemar Germany, and carry out the program he did.

:And as Hayek points out, it is the Socialist who snuffed out any feelings for, or movement toward, a liberal democracy ''prior to WWI''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

First, what has FDR to with this discussion? Other than Germany wasn't the only country with a planned economy during WWII.

Second, the Emperor and his political allies weren't to fond about liberal democracy either.

Third, we had the discussion that they were all Austrians, and is was already debunked, because many of the main centers of Nazi support were in the Lutheran North of Germany.

Fourth, don't hide all the time behind Hayek. His work is definitely interesting, especially because he was neither conservative nor socialist, but states in his work "Why I am not a conservative", that he is an (old-school) liberal, which exists in a different political dimension. Anyway, whatever Hayek might have said, the question is what you think about the matter. Hayek isn't a Conservapedia editor, you are, and you took his sentence out of context, and put it there. So, what is you opinion on this matter?

Finally, do you say that the Third Reich was Austrian Catholic Socialist venture, and the Germans had no part in it?

And as an aside, I'd like to ask you if you are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:26
:So the fact Hayek stated he was not a conservative still does not place fascism at the polar end as an opposite of Communism and Socialism. We are writing historical narrative. We are using primary source, eyewitness accounts of educated and objective observers, not wartime propagandists. A lie that was told in 1933 or 1943, whether it was told by [[Josef Goebbels]], the US [[Office of War Information]], the Hollywood [[Screen Writers Guild]] or [[Franklin Roosevelt]] is as much a lie today as it was in 1933 or 1943. I'm sorry, I make no appologies for this. Facts are facts. We need to explain to the youth of the planet (a) what happened, and (b) ''why'' it happened. Sourcing, and the ''credibility'' of sourcing is paramount. Simply because a myth has been handed down by popular culture or proven liars means nothing. In fact, we have every obligation to correct the record. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:41, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with this matter?

* I am not sure to which lie you refer? Can you be precise? Do you mean to say that it is a lie that a broad section of German society was bearing responsibility for the Third Reich, and not just a group of Austrian catholic crypto-socialists? Can you answer this please?

* I never said that because Nazism wasn't socialist, it must have been conservative. To the contrary. And I didn't say that Socialism was the anti-thesis of Nazism. And therefore good. I repeatedly said that it was neither socialist, nor conservative, and that communism and Nazism were both totalitarian. I said it repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. So don't make stuff up. But just because they were both totalitarian doesn't mean that they are the same.

* The article was factual, until you added the Hayek quote giving an interpretation by Hayek. What you report isn't an eyewitness account, but the interpretation of a contemporary. I agree that should tell the youth first what happened. And that is exactly why the Hayek quote is at it a wrong place, because it not describing a factual event, it is interpretation. Feel free to add a section on the "history wars" that discussed the causes of the Third Reich. However, I see no need to single out Hayek as only scholar who had something to contribute to the discussion. Other scholars were contemporaries too, and have made equally credible contributions.

* And finally, I am still curious if are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 13:36

#FDR & Hitler articles are part of the WWII series.
#We're actually not that far off on the [[political spectrum theory]] aspects of National Socialism; the tradional telling is Communism & Fascism are polar opposites. This isn't what happened. Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with which parts of the German society bears responsibility?

* Nazism wasn't anti-god. Sure, Hitler wasn't what you would a good Christian, and he was anti-clerical when it interfered with his business, but he was a theist, and Nazism as ideology was in favor of "positive Christianity". Unlike its socialist roots, this principle has never been been amended. Before you get all excited, I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach. I don't not say that all Christians are Nazis, but just that Nazism wasn't anti-God.

* I never said that they are polar opposites, and the article didn't say it either. But just because they are not polar opposites, doesn't means that they are the same. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 15:00

::One of the very important aspects of National Socialism is, Nazi's were enlightend Socialists who got thier enlgihtened, athiestic doctrines from Socialsim. This enlightened, athiestic doctrine, i.e. to overthrow the existing order, or to promote "change" in social organization and institutions that challenged the power of the church, and exisitng Christian morality, such as the commandment to love thine enemies, the Nazi's got from their Socialist roots.

::Socialism preached hate and envy, and destruction of alleged "oppressors;" Christianity, or the "old social order" preached tolerence and acceptance of all, Greek and Jew alike. This is where Jewish doctine and Christian doctrine separate--Jews adhered to the old Mosaic command to love thine friend and hate thine enemy. Christian doctrine, or the "established order" taught "love thine enemies", even those who oppose themselves. When God was rejected wholesale in the [[French Revolution]], and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of ''Natural Selection of '''Favored Races''''', [[class hate]] and [[class war]], and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (whom it was percieved) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to. '''''It is the enlightened doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races being applied in its most logical, and rational, form.''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* First, it Nazi apologetic to say that Nazism is the most logical and rational. What essential say is that everybody who doesn't share your views '''must''' kill other people based on race. This is a call for genocide, as I see it. And excuses them. Because you say that there is only one logical conclusion, the Nazis had no choice. Which is not true, because they had a choice. You did put into quotes, so I don't know who said it, but since you post it without comment, I have to assume that it also your opinion.
:*I didn't say this at all. I said Nazism is the natural consequence and outgrowth of enlighten Socialism. That is, more specifically, Naxism is the natural consequence of ''both'' the [[Enlightenment]] and [[Karl Marx]], (and [[Darwinism]], an enlightened subfield of 19th century thought). Let me put it quite specifically, it is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the Enlightenment which caused the overthrow of the ''Ancien Regime'' to the Holocaust. There are no divergent paths. It is the natural process and outgrowth of logical thought along that path. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::What you say is that Nazism was unavoidable, it was the logical consequence of the 19th century. This lets all the people of the hook who helped the Nazis to power in the 1930; this lets all the people of the hook who imprisoned, tortured, and killed people during the Third Reich, and it lets all the people off who invaded other countries an bombed and burned their population in WWII. Because it was inevitable in your reasoning. This a very extreme position withing the already disputed Sonderweg theory, and generally rejected, even by other adherents of the Sonderweg theory. It is generally accepted that some important people had the choice to act differently, but they didn't, and if they had acted different, history would be different as well. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 12:26

:::Not at all. What I am saying is worshipping at the altar of science, logic, and reason, in lieu of God, is what the progressive development of 19th century ''thought'' was all about. And yes, destruction is unavoidable when secularism rejected the Jewish God, that is to say, Jehovah - as a Jewish conspiracy, which is what led [[Marie Antoinette]] to the gallows.

:::: Can you point us to an [[atheism|atheist]] who reject all gods, because they think that it is all a jewish conspiracy? Russel? Dawkins? Or Sam Harris? I guess there is none. They reject gods, because they think that they are inconsistent with what they assume to know about the world. Just because you don't like them, and maybe disagree with their reasoning, doesn't mean that you have to vilify them and make up reasons for their atheism, that are not true. The "positive Christianity", advocated by the Nazis, didn't think that it was all a conspiracy, but they thought, that Christ original message, was corrupted by Jews and jewish thought. [[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

:::::I think most of the Nazi's writers certainly make that case, and some point to earlier, 19th century writers to support their arguments. All of them, Hitler & Hess in ''Mien Kampf'', Goebbels, several others all make this central agrument. In particular, read the outline of Hitler's unpublished second book, editied by Joachim Fest, tentative title was ''The Monumental History of Mankind''. It's unmistakeable, "Judah" is responsible for all the planet's problems since time immemorial according to Hitler. Folks like Voltaire, Marx, and Darwin just paved the path for Hitler & Hess (actually Rudolf Hess did write most of ''Mein Kampf''), Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, ''et al''. Betrand Russell and Vladimir Lenin are simply first cousins of this line of "intellectual thought." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And I didn't deny that the Nazis and their "Positive Christianity" did blame Jews, to the contrary I '''did'' actually say it. Problem is "Positive Christianity" is theist, not atheist. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 11:35
::::::::You're going to have to prompt my memory with this one, I really have been away from most of these primary sources since the late 1970s. A link might help, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::And just because secular athiesm has unavoidable consequence does not mean at all that that those consequences are justified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I didn't mean to say that you justified the consequence, I meant to say that it was inevitable, such that in the end no p[erson is personally responsible for the committed crimes.[[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

* Second. Did you call Nazism enlightened? Just because they respected private property, and sold human beings as raw material to the companies to keep their production running?
:*Yes. Nazi's were enlightened atheists who viewed Christianity, as it had been viewed since the time of Voltaire, as a Jewish conspiracy which the Jews themselves did not beleive in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::(1) What has Voltaire to do with the matter? (2) As is said on this page already, Hitlers view was apparently that the true theistic faith that later became Christianity was corrupted by Jews, but he didn't reject the notion of a god. He wanted a religion that was cleansed from the jewish influences. But even if he wasn't an atheist, he still was a bad person. Bin Laden isn't an atheist either. Why are you hung up about proving that he is an atheist, if he said himself that he wasn't. [[User:Order]] 2 August 00:08 (AEST)

:::See above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::This really is a digression, some atheists who do not worship Jehovah worship self or Satan as their god. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

* Third. Even if you keep repeating it, it is wrong to call a movement that had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt when went out to war atheist, or even anti-God. And how do you explain the following sentence from their party program "Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden." Doesn't strike me as anti-God. And I repeat it again, in case you didn't get it, this I do not say that their view of Christianity is in any way compatible with your view on Christianity.
:*The old "Gott mit uns" argument. Actually, that was the inscription on the Imperial German belts '''''in the Erste Welt Krieg'''''; the Nazi's substituted the swastika, and later brought back the old imperial inscription. Further, if you look, it is quotation from the Hebrew scriptures: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for '''God is with us'''." [http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/8-10.htm] And there is a famous photograph of none other than Ernest Hemingway with a First World War (i.e. no swastika) "Gott mit uns" belt buckle in the 1930s. Do an internet search if you want to see it. Finally, if you're reaching for this argument, it means you're running out of gas. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::* It seem like you can buy those belt buckles of the internet. I don't want to post neo-nazi sites on this page, but google for ''' "gott mit uns" hakenkreuz''', and you will find where you can buy them.
:::*For the second time "Gott mit uns" is (a) from the Hebrew scriptures, and (b) from Imperial Germany. Using this logic, we should abandoned the Hebrew scriptures because the Nazi's ripped them off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure how long will take until it get through to you, but I still didn't say that Christianity is Nazism. And I also did not say that Christianity is using Nazi symbols. I said that Nazis used references to God. And that many Nazis, and among them quite likely Hitler himself, were theists. This means that they weren't atheists. You might know that "theist" is not the same as being a "Christian". And you might also know that not being a "Christian" following your particular interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean that you are an "atheist". The Nazis advocated "positive Christianity", something which should be different from your version of Christianity, but which is still decidedly theist. This is something different from saying that Christians are Nazis. What is so difficult to understand about that? you are barking up the wrong tree. For days. And I am telling you for days. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 23:58

:::::Ok, this argument is difficult for obvious reason. Hitler certainly did not accept the existence or soveriegnty of the Jewish God, Jehovah. Neither did Hitler accept the old Nordic gods like Wotan, despite some rumors (Ludendorf perhaps did). Hitler may have believed in some sort of Providence, as Menachim Begin referred to, also. Who is this "Providence"? IMHO, it is was most likely Satan, however if Hitler were here, and if you asked him, he'd probably most certainly deny it and laugh, as most Hollywood movie producers would laugh also at the same question.
:::::So, we're at the crossroads in examining where a person may actually be admitting to some divine supernatural being greater then themselves that they are in subservience to. Most spiritually decieved people never even get this far, laboring under the notion that they themselves are god, i.e. that their life purpose is to serve themself. Now, if a deluded soul arrives at the point where they recognize a supernatural power apart from themself, more powerful than themself, and to whom they owe some sort of debt even, and at the same time pointedly denying this supernatural power is Jehovah, for all intents and purposes we can conclude they are avowed Satanists. So the only remaining question is, when Hitler survived the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, and Goebbels convinced Hitler Providence intervened, did he really believe it, or was he just going along with another propaganda scheme?

:::::Whatever you conclude from all this, you're not going to find a very widely accepted doctrine, even among Nazi party members. The vast majority of Nazi party members, and even sympathetic non-party members, were simply garden variety athiestic socialists, who would laugh at the idea they worshipped and/or served Satan. Yes, there were occultists, like Himmler and many top Nazi's, but the vast majortiy of the public just looked on this behavior not very different from the seances [[Hillary Clinton]] used to hold on the [[White House]] roof. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:40, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
::*And what about point 24 in the progam of the NSDAP? About "positive christianity" [[User:Order]]

* Thanks for proving my point. I said: '''I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach''', but you still could help giving me the spiel that Nazism and Christianity is different. Read my postings for a change, instead of making stuff. It seems that you can only argue against stuff I didn't say. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:23

:*Wikipedia, believe it or not, has a good article on Hanns Kerrl. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Kerrl] This could be expanded upon, and I hope to do so here in CP. For now, here's a quote from Hitler in ''Tischgesprache'', 14th December 1941 Midday,
::*"Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity...is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* Nice quote. Of course there is a dispute about the "Tischgespraeche itself. whether they took place in the form Kerrl reported. But lets no go down this road. Lets take it at face value. It say that he doesn't like the Christian message of forgivenes and compassion. And guess what, that is what I told now already countable time myself. So why do you keep on hammering this point?
* Actually, a very nice quote. Because he actually says that he reject Bolshevism wholeheartedly. That the he sees a Bolshevistic aspect in Christianity, and that it is exactly this aspect that is incompatible with Nazism. This quote proves that the Fuehrer himself believed that bolshevism and Nazism were incompatible. You made my point, Rob. Thanks. [[User:Order]] 1 August 14:00
:*Yes. Nazism simply replaced the word "bourgeois" in [[Marxist]] rhetoric, with "Jewish", but all the other rhetoric remained the same (incidentally, the [[DNC]] does this very same thing, instead of "rich Jew", they simply use "The Rich.") [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
You didn't answer one my questions, and I am still curious: Are you by any chance of Conservative Lutheran North German descent? [[User:Order|Order]] 23:35, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:I am of mixed race: 50% German 50% Slavic. I was raised Catholic, but today am moreless a Dispensationalist Christian. Some roots come from Stetin (Szczecin) which was mixed German/Polish & defintiely devout Catholic when they arrived in America; others come from Slovakia. And there were "mixed marriages" in the US, i.e. my mothers father was Lutheran. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
===contemporaneous corroboration===
Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the [[Phoney War]] which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

<center>'''From 1905 to 1940'''</center>
:'''The downfall of bourgeois democracy in Europe did not begin with Hitler. Hitler is a result not a cause'''. The crisis of Europe first showed itself in the Russian revolution of 1905. That it was a world crisis and not a European crisis was proved by the course of the war in 1914. That war neither ended nor made the world safe for democracy. '''The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy''' in country after country, with or '''without the violent defeat of the socialist movement''', and the steady preparation for the second imperialist war. '''Without socialism, the war of 1939''', Hitler victory or no Hitler victory, '''must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''' all over Europe, the development of the totalitarian state in America, and still further battles for the re-division of the world.

:'''The question that faces us, therefore, as Marxian socialists, is to estimate soberly, at this critical moment, what are the possibilities for the socialist revolution''', the only force that can check the descent into the abyss and reverse the process of disintegration. The possibility of an early Hitler victory, the tremendous power displayed by the German military machine, the inevitable demoralization of the anti-Hitler forces in Germany by his uninterrupted march of success – these things undoubtedly have altered the former perspective of a long drawn-out war ending in immediate revolution. Let us, however, before we speculate on the future, examine the past.
*Source:[http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol06/no04/editorial.htm#s1 ''Blitzkrieg and Revolution''], An Editorial, From New International, Vol.6 No.4, May 1940, pp.83-87.

And here is the Hayek quote:

:"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it."

'''Analysis of comparison;''' while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the ''New International'' editorial uses "democracy." In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the ''New International''. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: ''Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the ''New International''. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 10:00 (AET)

::The question simply is over blame. Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement." Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it. But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:So all you wanted to say it that democracies in 1920/30s democracies in Europe failed. I don't need Hayek or the New International to tell that. In Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, and even in Poland and Austria, democracy wasn't going too well. If this is what you want to say both quotes aren't that great to make that point. Given that the other paragraphs in the article are referring to actual events, and not to interpretations from 30 years later, or from a contemporary opinion pieces, you should refer to events in the other countries to make your point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 18:00

::A reading of both documents is illuminating (and other materials could support it, too). We extracted just one sentence from Hayek, but the whole paragraph sheds even more light, and other quotes, too. Hayek says something to the effect of "fascism is the result when people realize Communism does not work" (to put it another way, Socialism, which evolves into Communism, does not bring democracy, it brings fascism). ''The New International'' quote above says the same thing, "Hitler is a result not a cause." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:58, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

It is agreed that, if not the idea of fascism, then at least the rise of fascism in Europe was a reaction to communism, especially to the rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. But even for that their are better quotes to find that support this.

Anyway, what we have now are eight sections on Hitlers life. Look at them one by one:

* ''The Beginning Of His Political Life'': 2 paragraphs, both on fact and events.
* ''Beer Hall Putsch'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''Path to Power'' 2 paragaphs on fact and events. And '''one''' sentence of interpretation, the Hayek quote.
* ''Consolidation of Power'': 4 paragraphs on fact and events.
* ''Holocaust'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''1944 Assassination Attempt'': 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Marriage'' : 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Death'' :: 1 paragraph on facts and events.

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go. [[User:Order]] 6 august 10:20

:Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading. What we know is, that communism and fascism ''do not'' represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a ''process'' who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'. The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.

:: Where does 'reaction' implies polar opposites? Where? Every person in his right mind knows that both were totalitarian. [[User:Order]]
:::The problem with this one is the usual misinformation taught at the junior high school level in definition of "reactionary;" while on one level, fascim indeed was a "reaction" to communism, it was actually part of a progressive process, not a reactionary polar opposite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
:There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism. I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

You are applying the cold-war and 1980's US definition of "Liberal", because actual Liberals of that time, and Hayek is a prime example, would strongly disagree with you. They would probably hit you with a stick. Liberals like Hayek were firmly the opposed to both socialism and fascism, because both were totalitarian. Also it is provably wrong to say that people first embraced socialism, before they became fascists. Many embraced fascism right away, from being national conservative, or monarchist, or whatever other -ism you had in that time. Often out of fear of Bolshevism. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:30

:I agree the contemporary, popular use of the term "liberal" is a misnomer, particularly in the United States. The correct term is "socialist," even with its US shading to mean "treasonous," which is becoming more apparant as time goes by. It is unfortunate, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Boris Yeltsin, all [[classical liberal]]s, did somewhat rehabitilate the term in the 1980s & early 90s, but the old perjoritives all came back to stick (most probably through Rush Limbaugh and the lifting of the [[Fairness Doctrine]], which is very well explained in CP's entry). FWIW, it looks like we're stuck with the pejoritive, contemporary American meaning of the term liberal. Of course, the [[MSM]] and the [[DNC]] have been of little help in clarifing its real meaning. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==von Papen==

I see that the Hayek quote is still in there. I also saw that you portrayed the period of imperial Germany as one in which it was a socialist paradise. And also there you quote Hayek. Hayek would hit you with a stick for this, because he knew perfectly well that this is plain ridiculous. Imperial Germany was Bismarck, Kulturkampf, Nationalismus, Demokratiedefizit, Sozialistenerlaesse, Sozialversicherung, Flottenausbau, Wilhelm Zwo.

And when it comes to the beginnings of the Third Reich you might want check which party van Papen belonged to, which parties did vote, under pressure but they did, in favour of his empowerment laws, which party the rest of Hitlers first cabinet belong too, which parties were part of the Harzburg front, the political background of Hugenberg, Schacht, and others who actually helped Hitler to power. You can impossibly claim that it was all just a socialist endeavor. But it seems that fact don't count here, while I had hope that we could keep spin out of the a subject as important as Hitler. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting premise; one of the charges against von Papen at Nuremberg was he was part of the Nazi conspiracy, but as you just pointed out, he was never a member of the Nazi Party. Why can't these things ever be discussed dispassionately? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Exactly, my point. He wasn't a member of the Nazi party, he was a prominent member of the Zentrum party, a Catholic Party, and he still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, dare I ask the question, is it unfair to refer to him as a "Nazi War Criminal"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
It might be unfair, not sure what the Nuremberg Trial decided. Did I call him "Nazi War Criminal"? To the contrary, the point is that he probably isn't, but that he was a fairly normal German centrist politician, who still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Truth is, he really had a disdain for Hitler, and Hitler didn't care much for von Papen either. And their mutual distrust and resentment had little to do with politics. It was a class difference. Von Papen regarded Hitler as an ill-mannered low-life, and Hitler thought von Papen an artistocratic snob. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:There is famous newsreel footage with no audio of [[Treaty of Munich]] that reveals the difference between the two. Von Papen and Hitler are leading the guests which include Ciano & Chamberlain into a room. Hitler plops himself down in a chair, while von Papen observes the diplomatic nicities of remaining standing until all the guests are in the room and seated. Hitler clearly is embarassed the moment he sits down and sees von Papen remaining standing, and its all caught on film. He knows he looks crude, rude, selfish, and inexperienced in just simple manners, let alone protocol, or "high class" manners. And it's almost as if he feels deliberately tricked by von Papen into making himself look bad. Very revealing, if uyou ever get a chance to see it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
So, van Papen didn't even like this guy, and still helped him to get to power, and worked for him until Munich. So, we found already one person who wasn't an ideologue but was still working for the third Reich. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::So the Foreign Minster of the Third Riech wasn't even a Nazi, was not one of the 22 Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg (although history remembers him that way), was found innocent at Nuremberg of being part of the Nazi conspiracy to (a) sieze power (b) make aggresive war (c) etc., although you persist in making that charge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Did the Nuremberg trail say that it was a conspiracy? I doubt so. And indeed, van Papen helped Hitler to power, I guess there is little discussion about it. One might argue about his motivation, but seems to not much of a mystery either. [[User:Order|Order]] 04:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it did. The [[Treaty of Munich]] was a "conspiracy against Peace", as well as all the other events (re-occupation of Rhineland, Invasion of Poland, etc.) Then there was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", etc.
:One should read the Nuremberg Indictment in its entirety [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count.htm]. It really is not that long. And it sets out all the major issues to be dealt with prior and afterwards. (One writer has explained why the charge of "conspiracy", Britian needed it to CYA for thier policy of appeasement, i.e. Britian couldn't live up to treaty obligations because it was a victim of a conspiracy--and von Papen's aquittal addresses that argument).
:You will see, for example, the Katyn massacre. Peculiar, isn't it, that while the Western Powers knew this Soviet charge was false, and that indeed one of the Administators of Justice in this case himself was guilty of the charge, allowed it to become part of the historical record (this record, which then was resurrected in the mid 1990's as the model of Administering International Justice for War Crimes); also, after reading the horrors that the Soviet's present, we almost get comic relief at France's idea of Crimes Against Humanity, like plunder of property [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm#sec8e]

:Wine..................................................................7,647,000 hectolitres.

:Champagne...................................................87,000,000 bottles

:Beer...................................................................3,821,520 hectolitres

:Various kinds of alcohol.................................1,830,000 hectolitres

:The myth of France as a "Great Power" (or for that matter, a "victim" when France provided more manpower, and more [[GDP]] to the Nazi cause than it did to defend, or liberate, itself, is something that at some point needs to clarified in the English language.

:Another point, the various charges of "mass deportation of populations", while Germans were being deported east of the Oder-Niese, the Keelhaul Agreement, the Crimean Taters, the Volga Germans etc. etc. etc. were occuring, has never been addressed (outside of Solzhenitsyn's ''Gulag Archipeligo''), or "systematic malnutrition", which Lenin & Stalin perfected long before Hitler adopted [[Bolshevik]] methods. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

The [[Treaty of Munich]] happened after the seizure of power. And saying the this treaty was "a conspiracy against peace", is also something slightly different than claiming that "Nazism is a conspiracy". And the rest are tangents. The question was still about who helped Hitler to power, not what happened afterwards or elsewhere. And von Papen was still one of the people who brought Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:04, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, all we have is the historical record. And the Nuremberg trial rendered its verdict. You are arguing the case that everyone deficient in psychic powers in 1933 is complicit in genocide.

:It's not unlike the recent book on IBM; because Nazi's purchased IBM equipment, all the shareholders, employees, and Board of Directors past and present who "did business with the Nazi's" are complicit in genocide. By this line of argument, if Nazi's purchased Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toilet Paper, Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toiler Paper likewise "did business with the Nazi's." Don't forget Hitler's shoeshine boy, he must have been involved, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:25, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Did I somewhere say that van Papen is responsible for genocide? I agreed that the Nuremberg trial is probably the instance that had to decide on this. So but what you say that that van Papen is as responsible for Hitlers rise to power as Hitler shoe shine boy. Did the shoe shine boy go to Hindenburg and convince him to make Hitler chancellor? I doubt it. What I see that you go on all kinds tangents, just because you are unable to accept the historical fact that there were centrist and conservative politicians who helped Hitler to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the probelm: Hitler was legally came to power under the then Wiemar Constitution. He overwhelmingly won a popular election as well. The Wiemar Constitution wasn't even indigenous, it was imposed as a "liberal reform."

:Now, if you are to allege that Hitler, a common scum, came to power outside of some secret Masonic Illuminati cabal that really controls things, and therefore Hitler and the Nazis claim on power was illigimate, we have a problem there. As it is, Hitler was never invited by the French government to visit Paris anytime from the day he came to power. Why is this? Because he was illigitmate? Because he was outside of a clique of insiders who determine who should hold power? Do you see where this line of rhetoric is going to lead you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

You try to get the discussion on all kinds of tangents, like whether the constitution was indigenous, Masonic Illuminati, French inviting Hitler for supper, IBM, Crest tooth paste. Rob, you are alleging all kinds of things that I never said, and that frankly do not even matter. Fact is Hitler came to power under the Weimar constitution. Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Fact is also that he didn't win a majority of seats, so he needed the help of others. And van Papen was one of then who helped. And Hugenberg another. BTW: While van Papen wasn't found guilty in the Nuremberg trial to be one of the main criminals, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison during denazification for his role as collaborator and enabler. Why is it so hard for you to admit the fact that there were conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. No, you rather talk about Illuminati to not to have admit this simple fact. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:56, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, welfare queens & labor unions help Bill Clinton get into power, despite the fact he sold them down the river with NAFTA & Welfare Reform. Do you think they might have voted any different if they knew they'd be "stabbed in the back"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
For discussing Bill Clinton, go to the entry [[Bill Clinton]]. We are discussing Hitler's path to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK. What's wrong with this text:
:*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.

:Seems to say what you want it to say. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

No surprise. I wrote it.

Problem is still the Hayek quote that you took out of context. It suggests that the path to power was purely a socialist endeavor. However, and I cite you citing me:
*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.''

See, it wasn't just the socialists who brought Weimar down. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:11, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:What Hayek is saying is liberalism, in the classic sense, was weakened to non-existent to oppose Nazism. And your use of conservative here likewise is problematic; the titled nobility of Germany, or for that matter all of Europe, is "conservative" in the European sense. As we've had this discussion elsewhere, the US Constitution expressly prohibits the government from conferring titles. So the express meaning of the term here, "conservative" to refer to von Papen and others is wholely out of context in attempt to draw a parallel to contemporary American conservativism.
:Shame on you, Order, I have more respect for you and your skills than this feeble reasoning your pushing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Classic liberalism was indeed weakened, and the permanent attacks from both sides of the spectrum didn't help. But where did the liberals go? Some went left, other went right. My use of "conservative" is fairly consistent with the use by the people in question themselves. The DNVP, the German National People Party, was for example the legitimate successor of the pre-WWI Konservative Partei, the Conservative Party. This is the party that helped Hitler to a majority of seats in parliament. Same holds for von Papen, he was from the conservative wing of the Zentrum party. I said it a few times in this thread already that contemporary US interpretations of 'left' and 'right' don't apply to the 1930s in Germany, so I am not sure what you are complaining about. And there is no shame in pushing the fact that there were also conservative politicians in Germany who made didn't mind that Weimar failed, who didn't shed a tear when Hitler came to power. One of the lesson of the Third Reich is that if you fail to fix an imperfect democracy for short term political gain, you might end up with something worse in the long run. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:32, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:This is an interesting discussion. Truth is, its been many years since I've reviewed any of these source materials in detail. Likewise I did read von Papen's memoirs many many years ago, and am familiar with his case. Seems much of this discussion only grabs tidbits from this or that source, usually out of context, so let's make some effort to set the materials before us (incidentally, von Papen was sentenced to 8 years, yet served less than two; and this is not the place to go into why he was tried a second time after being aquited the first time).
::There's is nothing special about it. The Nuremberg Trials where aimed at the top of the regime, while the Denazification was aimed to determine the involvement of all people who held office, 2.5 million people in the western Germany alone. He probably was sentenced as 'offender'. The majority were judged to be 'followers', or even acquitted. Von Papen obviously wasn't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::He was tried twice because of the outrage over the verdict. Double jeopardy goes against Anglo-American jurisprudence. Even the Soviet Judges could not find conspiracy on his part. And when the poltical situation changed in 1949, so did the second verdict against von Papen. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::The Soviets didn't agree with the judgment of the Nuremberg trial and wrote dissenting Opinion[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-dissenting-von-papen.html]. The second trial was in a civil court, and I guess it happens also in the US that someone is found not guilty of criminal charges, but gets convicted in civil court nevertheless. But I couldn't find much about the second trial, so I trust you that the second trial was a result of public outrage. I guess that proves that while he might have not been guilty in criminal court, he messed up politically. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK, let's look at the original indictment, and then the Judgement. Von Papen is indeed charged with all the same things you are charging him with here: "Von Papen Used His Personal Influence To Promote The Accession Of The Nazis To Power. " ''et seqq'' [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02/nca-02-16-18-index.html]

:Let's look at the Judgement: "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January;" Wikipedia reports "The central role that Papen played in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 was reflected by Papen's indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, though he was acquitted on formal reasons, the tribunal deciding that his "political immoralities" were not under its jurisdiction." This of course, is totally false, as the Nuremberg Judgement clearly, clearly states: "The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. " [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-defendants-von-papen.html]

:Conlcusion: (a) von Papen's "political immortality" (singular), as rendered by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, related to the Anschluss, '''''and not the Nazi's regimes rise to power in Germany.''''' Further, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal fails to make any mention whatsoever about any sort of complicity in conspiracy or for that matter anything about his role in helping Hitler gained power. All the Tribunal found, as cited above, is "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," with the final verdict, "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged."

:So lets get the facts in order before we even discuss making generalizations. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

So, we still agree that he wasn't one of about 20 people that were found guilty as war criminals in the Nuremberg Trial. Thanks for posting the judgment. The second paragraph of the judgment refers exactly to what we are discussing here. "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933 ". That he was found not guilty for his role in the Anschluss is another matter. That happened a few years later. Thanks again for posting the official judgment which essentially confirms what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:So what was he guilty of as "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," since contrary to ''both'' you ''and'' Wikipedia's claim, the Tribunal found this '''''did not''''' even constitute an offense against "political morality", let alone a crime, or conspiracy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I still didn't say that he was part of the conspiracy to start an agressive war. And why should we care what Wikipedia says. The tribunal had to determine which people were responsible for the ''aggressive war''. It judged that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that von Papen was involved in planning an aggressive war. That is why they acquitted the charges. However, the tribunal found him politically responsible, but that under the charter of the tribunal, they couldn't convict him for "such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be". Anyway, this all refers to the Anschluss, and we where talking about his involvement in Hitler's path to power. And here the judgment states clearly that von Papen helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:Big deal. There was no crime in it. In fact, Hitler came to power legally.

:Now, when the Tirbunal sat down in November 1945, they brought up all this conspiracy stuff about a "siezure of power"; as the trial progressed, it became fairly obvious there may have been "backstairs" dealings, but that how the sytem works, even under the US Constitution. By the time the verdict was reached, the Judges were faced with the sad fact that Hitler abided by the rules to "sieze power."

:Now many peolple have never been happy with these facts, and wish to condemn Hitler & everybody connected with from his mothers womb for all that followed. The German people today speak of the "Nazi seizure of power", obviously to take comfort themeselves in denial because the truth is he came to power Consitutional, by democratic means, and the people voted for him. But its easier for contemporay Germans to play the role of victim along with everybody else.

:Then your argument, that somehow everybody involved in his ascention was illigitimate; this really itself sounds like Nazi rhetoric. Cause the root of this arguement is that Hitler was unnapporved by the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy that controls and decides who is legitimate. And this is the very argument you are putting forward. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

* Where do I say that the Nazis seizure of power overcame the German people? Where did I say that it was an illegitimate action? And most important where did I use Nazi rhetoric? Don't make stuff up stuff that I didn't say. Or show me where.
* As a German myself I can tell you that just a few Germans comfort themselves with the myth that it was an illegal power grab. The failure of Weimar is taught and discussed in great detail, including the decline of liberal democracy, the failure of democrats to work together, the anti-democratic forces on both sides of the spectrum, and also the role (and call it naivety) of von Papen and the likes when it came to Hitler. Don't make up stuff about how the end of Weimar is discussed in Germany.
* It was about political and moral responsibility all the time. You went on all kind of tangents, like the war tribunal, and whether von Papen was a war criminal. The question wasn't if von Papen was a War Criminal, but if he and other conservative politicians have a share in the political and also moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power.
* You bring up the in the Illuminati stuff without reason. If your best bet is to bring up weird conspiracies that I didn't mention, your arguments must be poor. And then on top of it you claim that I use Nazi rhetoric.
* Hitler came to power through legitimate means because he got help from others. And these other were conservative politicians like von Papen and Hugenberg. No need to tell you that Von Papen was Vice-chancellor, and Hugenberg Minister in Hitler first administration.

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:*''where did I use Nazi rhetoric? ''
::*In the Nazi view, the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was a Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and established a Constitutional Republic. This "Jewish Conspiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated ''who'' the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be. The Nazi's viewed themselves as "seizing power" from this Jewish-Illuminati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.

:::In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was seized away from the Nazi's coalition partners when parliamentary rule was ended.

:::When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution. Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933. The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda. That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illegitimate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its sovereignty.

::::Where do I say any that the Nazi seizes the power from an international conspiracy? Where? Where did I bring up the Illuminati? You say that I use Nazi rhetoric, while I didn't say any of those things. Show me otherwise. This is a challenge.

::::To the contrary, I was always pointing to his coalition partners. Do not make up stuff that I never said. Otherwise, show me.[[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::You might as well blame a constitutional democracy for Hilter's rise, because that is exactly what happened. The system was designed for coalition governments in the absence of an absolute majortiy. Bottomline again, the coalition parnters were not Nazi's; if they were Nazi's they would have quit thier minortiy parties and joined the Nazi party. But that did not happen. Instead, once Hitler became Chancellor, he ignored and violated thier rights, too.

::::::So, did I say otherwise? After the Hitler came to power, some politicians from conservative did actually join the NSDAP. Anyway, bottomline is indeed that his coalition partners weren't Nazi's, but conservative politicians like von Papen. As I said from the beginning of this thread. {{unsigned|Order}}

:*''why should we care what Wikipedia says.''

::*A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistently referred to the "Nazi seizure of power." The Nazi's in fact did not seize power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Weimar Constitution. The Nazi's ''did'' seize power from their democratic coalition partners when they ended parliamentary rule.

:::Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazis came to power illegitimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans. They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "seized power" from their coalition partners ''after'' January 1933.

:::The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "seized power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Did I say any of this? Didn't I say the opposite. I was permanently pointing to Hitlers coalition partners. Don't make stuff up or show me otherwise. Or is this supposed to be proof that Germans at large think that the Hitler came to power illegally, by pointing to an experience you had on Wikipedia a few years ago. If you trust Wikipedia that much, go to the German version of Wikipedia, and what they say about Machtergreifung. I will be edited mostly by German editors, and I doubt that it says that it was an illegal act to get power from back an international conspiracy. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your point is along the lines that, "Why did von Papen, et al, form a coalition government ''with'' the Nazis, ''against'' the Comintern apparat?" This question is easy to answer. While the murderous nature of the Comintern organizations against ''thier'' imaginary enemies was known in 1933, no one knew the Nazis would adopt and apply Bolshevik methods against the Nazis imaginary enemies to the extent that they did after 1933. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::Where did I say that von Papen should have sided with the Comintern. Where? It is generally agreed that at the beginning of 1933 there was no need to form a coalition government with the Nazis. The Nazi had just lost their first state elections, and the economy was picking up. Von Papen had to convince Hindenburg. Sure, von Papen probably didn't have the foresight that it would almost cost his life in the Night of Long Knives, nor that it would lead to a total war. But he rather than trying to fix the democracy, he was actively pushing to get somebody into power, who was fairly open about his aims to abolish democracy. Fascism was known, and von Papen knew it too.

:::::::So von Papen used democratic means to destroy democracy? I think you may be mischaracterizing von Papen's political views. Von Papen was an anti-Communist. Not all anit-Communists are fascists, however in this instance a coalition between some democratic elements was made with fascists to prevent Soviet-backed Comintern subversion. You repeatedly speak of "bares responsibiltiy;" the Weimar Constitution itself bares responsibility, it did precisely what it was designed to do. Hitler was speaking of rebuilding the German military; industrialists & the miltiary liked this idea. That does not make them racists or advocates of genocide. That makes them partners in a coalition government with Nazis, nothing more and nothing less. When the Nazis began diabusing ''thier'' rights, some joined the nationalist movement, some did not.

:::::::In sum, once again, the Tribunal rendered its verdict, not just regarding von Papen, but '''also''' regarding the whole question as to conspiracy & morality around the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power. What it really does look like is, other than von Papen being Catholic, what crime or moral offense is he guilty of?

::::::::I didn't blame him for being catholic (see below). And the tribunal said in its verdict that Von Papen bears responsibility for the events in that got Hitler into power. The tribunal acquitted Von Papen for other charges. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::This brings me back to the question: Who bears more responsibility for the getting Hitler into power: von Papen or Ossietsky? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:The question that I posed remains unanswered. Who, in your opinion Rob, has bears more responsibility for Hitler's rise to power. Von Ossietsky or Von Papen. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Since you keep referring to things I never said, a brief list of thing we did agree on, and a list of things I actually did say.

First, we agree that von Papen was
* a catholic
* conservative
* anti-communist
* member of the Zentrum Party

I don't blame him for any of this. If I'd be living in the 1930s it would probably apply to me, since all of my 4 grandparents were catholic, conservative, anti-communist voters of the Zentrum party. There is no blame in that.

However, von Papen has responisbility for his deeds. In particular.

* Von Papen revoked as Chancellor in June 1932 the ban on SA and SS.
* Von Papen was actively pursuing the end of the Schleicher administration in January 1933.
* Von Papen then gathered support to get Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor in a coalition government.
* Von Papen was vice-chancellor in Hitler's government.
* Von Papen was leading the political alliance of national conservative parties in the March 1933 election, which provided Hitler the remaining seats to get a majority in parliament.
He shares political responsibility for this. We are not talking a criminal charges, but about political responsibility. For the rise and consolidation of Hitlers power, up to the Empowerment laws, or if you like even up to the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler got von Papen to resign as vice-chancellor. That he wasn't found guilty of war crimes is another issue altogether. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Where is there a crime in any of this? How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense? And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.

:There is plenty of information available to condemn the Nazi's with. Using half truths, innuendo, and falsehoods based upon the Nazi's own falsehoods only impugns the integrity of the historical reporter, and makes all his reporting biased and suspect. Such is the case with Wikipedia right now, and it may not be their own invention, they may actually be just parroting the lies and falsehoods they've inherited.

:The point of propagating and expounding these half truths and falsehoods you actually may have articulated in this discussion; it is not to give accurate historical reporting, nor to gather experience and warning signs for future generations. It is to twist the facts of history, such as we've seen in the Wikipedia articles, to impugn contemporary imagined political opponents, in this case "conservatives." How is this being done? (a) refusing to admit the godless socialist nazis rose in a marxist revolution against the powers that be, in thier view, the "Jewish International" financiers who destroyed the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov monarchies which had kept the peace for 100 years; (b) blaming the enemies of Communism, the Church and other anti-Communists, for anti-Semitic fascist ideals and intent.

:The bottomline here is, using the Nazi's own view of themselves, that they were illegitimate outsiders to the Jewish international cabal that wrote the Treaty of Versailles, illegally and by immoral means rose up and seized power from the legitimate powers that be, i.e. the "Jewish financiers" behind the Treaty of Versailles, to put a spin on history with the real intent to attack modern political opponents with, is unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

The discussion isn't about Nazi ideology, and I in particular didn't push any Nazi views that involve a Jewish conspiracy (or show me other wise), and this is irrelevant for the discussion for Von Papen, because he wasn't a Nazi in the first place. But your first paragraph is to the point, so i'll respond to that.

* ''Where is there a crime in any of this?''. I said repeatedly that we are not talking about criminal charges.
* ''How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense?'' Everybody bears responsibility for his deeds, even for the legal ones. This also applies also in politics, and there are countless example of immoral but legal behavior in politics.
* ''And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.'' Von Papen was the Chancellor of Germany, and he had access to police and army. I hope that we agree that the SA and SS weren't out to enforce the law, but a fascist mob instead. Von Papen didn't use or need the SA and SS to prevent or solve violent crimes by the communist mob. He legalized it to get political backing from the NSDAP for his minority cabinet.

All these acts were legal, sure, but Von Papen did it for political reasons, and carries hence political responsibility for these acts. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:01, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Path to Power (Continued) ==
You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:The Tribunal examined all the questions and rendered its verdict. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:46, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::The tribunal said that von Papen shares moral and political responsibility for getting Hitler into power. Cool. So I take it as admission that it was not just socialism was responsible for the end of the Weimar Republic, but that conservative politicians like von Papen also bear some responsibility. The only reasonable thing to do right now would be to remove the Hayek quote, because as it is quoted it suggest otherwise. You can either do it yourself, or unlock the article and I am happy to remove it myself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::You are still reading this in the verdict that are not there. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Lets get a third person to read the verdict and see if the second paragraph says "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933." and then to look at the end which says "Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war" and he was found not guilty of that charge. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Here's the paragraph condensed:

:"The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria '''was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime''' and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss....he '''engaged in''' both '''intrigue''' and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such '''offenses against political morality''', however bad these may be. Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war....."

::So, we agree that the tribunal did find him not guilty for his role in the Anschluss, since '''offenses against political morality''' do not fall under the charter. That is kind of exactly what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Now, at the moment I am reading the case of [[Helen Scott]], one of several [[Comintern]] opperatives who "engaged in political immorality" and "intrigue" (haven't found any "bullying" yet). Who was Helen Scott? Helen Scott was one of several Comintern opperatives who, as an American citizen, was an agent of the Soviet Union ''and '''was appointed to the staff of American prosecutors at the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]].'''''

Care to collaborate on [[Helen Grace Scott Keenan]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll think about it. But I try to stay focussed, and not get into to much at once. Thanks. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:You will see on the [[Talk:Munich conference]], for example, we just reviewed other material from the War Crimes Tribunal regarding Nazi infiltration and subversion of the Czech and Slovak regime; here for example, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/], we have evidence of a "Campaign within Czechoslovakia since 1934"; Helen Scott was a member of an organization that was found to be controlled by a foreign government actively seeking the violent removal of the United States Government long before WWII broke out, she was a member of that same organization when she took employment with the United States Government, which was illegal. And she was the agent of a foreign power when she worked on the staff of the American Prosecutors at Nurermberg.

:So, today we have information available that was not avialable for nearly 50 years. My point is, much of what we know about all of these events needs to be re-analyized. But first we must assemble the facts before we can do a review. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:56, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

----
:::The Tribunal did not say that. It said von Papen was "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," and "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty." Where in any of this is there a quesion of moral responsibiblity?

:::::He was found not guilty in the conspiracy to start an aggressive war and the not guilty of a conspiracy to undermine the Austrian government. Did I say otherwise? Can you for once show me where I say either of these. But the judgment also says that he was morally responsible for the Anschluss and the beginnings of the regime, but that couldn't try him for that because it didn't fall under the charter of the tribunal. Please read the judgment carefully. Just because he was acquitted from charges for starting the war, doesn't mean that they acquitted him from blame for his part in Hitler's first administration. To the contrary, the judgment '''explicitly''' states that he shares responsibility for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The Nazi's, true to their Socialists roots, viewed themselves in the true Socialist sense of rising up against the powers that be, i.e. in thier view rising up against the Jewish Internaitional bankers conspiracy that killed three monarchies (Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romonov), dismembered Germany, and saddled theme with a war debt. Marx said the common scum peons, i.e. people like the low life Nazi's would seize power in a Revolution. In thier view they did just this, they seized power for the Jewish International bankers. Now to allege then in 1933, at the time of Nuremberg in 1945, or today, that the Nazi "seizure of power" was illigitimate in any sense, is to agree with the Nazi's, because that is exactly how they viewed themselves. They viewed themselves as a rogue regime against "the International Jewish conspiracy." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::So, what? Where did I say that the seizure of power was illegitimate? Where? Tell me? You are barking up the wrong tree. We are discussing von Papen, and the events that brought about end of the Weimar Republic. It seems that you are unable to stick to the topic, and the topic is who helped Hitler into power. Marx, the conspiracy charges, the Illuminati, the Anschluss, Jewish International bankers, all probably very interesting, but besides the point. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==new img==
Actually that man in the new img may not be Hitler. Hitler, as Stalin & Saddam Hussein likewise, were all known to use doubles for some public appearances, the man in that photo may actually be one of Hitler's doubles. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution of the Hitler article ==

It used to be a fairly factual article. Now it turns into something like an opinion piece, pointing to everybody CP disagrees with as causes for Hitler. This isn't encyclopedic anymore, and the really bad thing about it is, that one of the main message of the Third Reich gets lost, namely that fairly decent people from all backgrounds can under the influence of a bad ideology, commit heinous crimes. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:54, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:The entire evolution bit is a discussion of the ideology of "eugenics" an "race hygiene". It is not really at its right spot. All other paragraph refer to actual events. The discussion of evolution should go into a discussion section, or a separate article, probably under the header "Eugenics". [[User:Order|Order]] 22:10, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

**Know whats funny this is the first conservative i have seen on this wiki that has not been glorified. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 18:08, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler's wax effigy ==

It might interest the primary editors of this article to note that the wax effigy of Adolf Hitler, in a glass case built into a wall, guards the entrance to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's Wax Works in [[London]], [[England]]. Or at least it did in 1988 when I toured London with my family.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:15, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Again, probably not releveant to the article, but there was an amusing story run in the press some time ago suggesting that the dummies hair was actually growing! Quite probably nonsense, but I thought it might interest posters! [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]

==Improved the article==
Before anyone gets in a dither, I improved the article. There was just nothing in it pertaining to even the smallest biography of this individual that could be considered useful before. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

What I did not touch upon, and it could be included in future edits, were these:
*Accusastions of, or toleration for, homosexuality in his early years prior to the Night of the Long Knives. It was known that Hitler used people to further his own ends.
*Geli Raubal, and implications she may have had a forced affair with Hitler that led to her suicide.
*Detailed info regarding his childhood
And it could use some good quotes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== First Sentence ==

Since this is locked, I'd just like to point out that it's not actually a sentence. ;)[[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:It's more or less a title...and I didn't know it was locked! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::No, the actual first sentence is missing a verb. Actually the whole first paragraph could use some clean up. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::You could do it...just keep in mind that it's an introductory paragraph. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I did. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Need to point out something: Hitler was directly responsible for the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and that has to be emphasized. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

True, but the introductory paragraph suggests that WWII was a response to the Holocaust. It remains uncertain to this day what was and wasn't known about the attrocities being perpetrated against the Jews et al, but it was the need to counter German Imperialism that led to countries becoming involved in the war, not, as much as we would like to believe, a moral stance against the shoah. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 12:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler and against various christian groups ==

Hitler and against various christian groups at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== we need to give the various evidences and deal with them in a scholarly manner ==

We need to give the cite evidences put forth for Hitler not being a Christian and Hitler being a Christian and give reasoanble scholars commentary on them. For example, the scholarly debate regarding Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler and the occult, Hitler and paganism, Mein Kempf references to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe there is a strong case for Hitler being a Christian and since many atheists trot this out I think there should be a scholarly and reasonable material on this matter at Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

*Is there some scholarly reason for turning this article about Hitler into one primarily about his religious beliefs, running on forever? Do you not know how to be concise? Might I suggest a new article for you: "Religious Beliefs of Dictators Down Through the Ages". I believe you continue to think this is a Bible wiki. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Hitler time and again cites Darwin & the TOE as the reason why he's not a Christian. And Hitler summed up Christianity in one word, "stupid." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes. That does not answer my question. This is not a Bible Wiki, so what you mentioned would be worthy one paragraph. Without "C" quotes. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Didn't the Nazis burn Darwin's books? Why would Hitler endorse the views of a man whose books he destroyed? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 13:15, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that it would be fair to say that Hitler believed in a stripped-down, brutal version of Darwinism that was far from being close to Darwin's own beliefs. It is not unsurprising that Hitler should take something and twist it to fit his own abhorrent standards. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Hitler was a Vegetarian ==

My question is why some people fail to mention Hitler was a Vegetarian and an Anti-Hunting nut.
:Cause it's not really relevant to anything?[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT) also, learn what words get capilalized in English. And sign your posts.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler, Creationism, Eugenics, and Evolution ==
(re posted from earlier)
The page seems to imply that when Hitler spoke of "favored races" he was somehow invoking evolutionary thought. Evolution theory does not place worth or lack thereof on certain genetic traits, as Hitler did. Are we trying to suggest that racism did not exist before Darwin published his writings? Let us not forget the many places in Mein Kampf where Hitler visualizes his eugenics plan as the fulfillment of '''God''''s Divine Will. And what of the following gems:
<blockquote>For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - '''Adolf Hitler''', ''Mein Kampf'', vol. ii, ch. x</blockquote>
<blockquote>From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - '''Adolf Hitler''', Hitler's Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier</blockquote>
It is not only erroneous to call Hitler an evolutionist, it is, quite frankly, insulting--to suggest a causal connection between scientific theory and genocide. As a secular conservative, I am beginning to wonder: Is Conservapedia really about promoting conservative values (financial responsibility, economic security, etc.) or about trouncing on people's beliefs? Shouldn't conservatives of all beliefs be working together instead of dividing each other in this ridiculous way?
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 22:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:If anyone is being divisive, it is you. Instead of trawling around for quotations to rip out of context, try making more substantive contributions to this site. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

The Nazi's also banned "6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)." http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:09, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:Note the qualifier. Social Darwinism does not come into that. And learn how to use apostrophes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:: That is absolutely correct, I did use an apostrophe wrong; I rewrote the sentence and the apostrophe became obsolete. I think that social Dawinism comes in to that to the entire extent that Hitiler's philosophy is based on Darwinian evolution, in that it doesn't at all. Bottom line The Nazi's didn't believe and or like the works of Darwin. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:Evolution works with environmental selection and a [b]diversity of gens[/b], something that hitler definitely did not emphasize, this article undermines the credibility of the whole encyclopedia: {{unsigned|DeSouza}}
::You're not credible, Hitler apologist. You must discount the whole Nazi ideology to believe Hitler and Darwin were not connected in any way.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:01, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

== Naziism and Homosexuality ==

Wasn't Rohm (the leader of the SA) a Homosexual?----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 07:23, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Hitler and Obama ==

I have to say, I'm surprised that this page doesn't contain a series of parallels between Obama and Hitler. Your restraint is remarkable. Or, perhaps, you just haven't gotten around to the edit. The Truth marches on!--[[User:Osiris1723|Osiris1723]] 1:00, 21 June 2009

Talk:Atheism and deception

2009-06-21T04:49:41Z

Osiris1723:

== "Evolutionary Position Gradually Losing Public Support" ==

What does this have to do with the argument that evolutionists are deceitful? Moreover, what does public support have to do with the truth value of any idea? How many Americans believe that Elvis is still alive? Or in UFOs? Or Bigfoot? Or that Obama is a Muslim? Are any of these ideas more or less valid because of what the American people think about them? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:54, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I suggest you read the article several times until the obvious becomes more obvious to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Because reading it is all you can do. You sure ain't going to be editing it. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 21:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

This page seems almost exclusively to concern evolutionism, not atheism per se. However strongly correlated, they shouldn't be conflated into a single ideological position. I realize that to the CP crowd the evils of liberalism, atheism, and evolutionism are interchangeable, but let's at least pretend we care about accuracy. --[[User:Osiris1723|Osiris1723]] 00:47, 21 June 2009

Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad

2009-06-21T04:35:13Z

Osiris1723:

{{debate}}
::
Someone is going to have to explain to me what bias is in the context of this argument. When I look at the Wikipedia pages for Barack Obama and John McCain I see what I would call relatively straightforward narratives of their lives and careers. There are things about each which could be questioned but nothing too substantial. When I look at CP I see a similar portrayal of Senator McCain but I see something quite different about Senator Obama. It's nothing short of a hatchet job, filled with unsubstantiated rumors about his birth certificate and stating as fact that he Muslim. It also says if he's elected it'll be because of affirmative action.

I understand that liberals and conservatives have different worldviews but this is beyond the pale. The page about Senator Obama doesn't look like a conservative view of agreed upon facts but is simply a recounting of wild accusations.

At some point liberals and conservatives are going to have agree on what constitutes a fact. I need help understanding how Wikipedia's Obama page is liberally biased and upon what actual facts CP's Obama page has to back up the accusations.
::

What is needed is something different than each. Something that is actually unbiased. CP is certainly biased, so is wikipedia, the difference is that on wikipedia the bias is pretty much accidental; people edit wikipedia from all over the world, people of every conceivable religion, certainly liberal beliefs would come from such a diverse background. Most people haven't even heard of CP on the other hand, and it's unlikely that many people that aren't passionately conservative would bother with the site. Certainly the American flag is not going do draw many people from the rest of the world. Most of the articles that have any real content are from the domain of religion/politics, and this obviously is going to create a huge bias in CP. You would be missing knowledge from more than half of the American population, and that isn't good either.-gendoikari4

Conservapedia in it self is a good idea, but it does have its own flaws, short articles (the page on G W bush on conservapedia is at least 1/8 the size of the wikipedia version) practically no articals on Popular culture(artists, video games, tv shows ect.) the articals are short and could never be used for informative purposes. My question is how can cp ever even compare to wikipedia. what do you think needs to be changened to help Cp thrive?- Serg1

: One of the biggest concerns of Conservapedia is to counteract a perceived bias of Wikipedia. What this does not address, however, is that Conservapedia is inherently biased in the opposite direction. If it the concern is that it is believed that Wikipedia is biased, then the best counteraction can be to present true objective articles, not ones simply biased in the opposite direction. If Conservapedia can accomplish this, then it can succeed in it can find truth. Otherwise, it is just doing the same things it hates Wikipedia for. -Casi
::Quite so. Wikipedia bias is incidental and reflects the contributors, so that sc-fi is elevated far too highly. However, the aspiration is to impartiality. The intention here is for bias. -Stevendavy

:Size alone is not the determining factor for Conservapedia. Articles that put together a coherent and factual base of information are more strongly sought. As is apparent, we don't wish to become [[Wikipedia]]; we feel there are many shortcomings in the way that system is run that prevent it from living up to its potential. We don't want to compete with what they are, but would prefer to be what they should have been.

:CP has continued to both grow and fill out articles. Pop culture is not our primary concern, but that area has been growing as well. While we certainly have areas where continued improvement is sought, many of the predictions of doom sounded in debate pages back around February and March are rather laughable when read today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::I do understand that CP is a good idea(the conservative versiion of wikipedia) but really it hasnt met my standards of any wiki(the information on it is too short) I wish that CP can shadow other wikis and (as learn together stated) become what wikipedia should have been And stay that way. Another question is manifested through this conclusion though; How?-Serg1 07:27, 28 december 2007

:::How do you eat an elephant? -- one bite at a time. While there are a number of short articles, especially in helping to fill out categories and wikilinks, many of the articles that were short 9 months ago have been substantially expanded. Any editors making positive contributions, yourself included, can have a hand in turning this site into the resource that was envisioned upon its creation. Some areas, such as a fluid linking and category structure, have already seen great improvement and are becoming top rate. With each day we continue to improve. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:42, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is far too liberal to be any good. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Oh dear. I can't agree; Joe, I dare say you almost remind me of the obnoxious type of person that goes around claiming the [[New York Times]] has a conservative bias. In any case, I agree with Casi. The point here should not be to right a conservative article or go on a rant Because We Can. It should be to write an unbiased truth about something. And if we go off simply writing rants, then we will not be considered reliable. Unfortunately, I do think that 65% of the population will be uninterested in ''any'' site that openly identifies with an ideology, so that alone will disqualify CP from contention with WP. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 23:03, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Freethough13: ( i hope the name doesn't get me kicked off). if i may,
it would be a tragic loss. i'm not argueing that wikipedia is liberal (which there is a reason. liberals are consiterably more likly to use the internet. ergo, they/i must at at least one time have a shift one way or another. the supposide liberalness of wikipedia is simply an effect, not an intentional fault itself. i back this off of me testing the theory of a liberal wikipedia. when i put in "Bush Sucks" on the Republican party, hell, even backed it up with sources, it blocked me.), but simply because of the outright, obveouse, pround, and incresingly strong right-wing bias. at least wikipedia has a less stringent intention of holding one political line or another.

::I agree with the unbiased truth. However, I think that Conservapedia is not fulfilling its function as unbiased. For example, the article on [[Feminism]] states that "Feminists prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses," which is not true since I know many Feminist women who prefer to wear skirts and dresses as is the overall trend. Feminism falls along a spectrum, which is why the article is polarized. Also, Conservapedia has a considerable amount of internet references rather than scholarly peer-reviewed articles, which significantly undermines its credibility.--[[User:Skeem|Skeem]] 23:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

It should never seek to become Wikipedia, and it never will. Wikipedia tries to be neutral as much as possible. Conservapedia is conservative by definition. Therefore, it will not be used by anyone who isn't a conservative American citizen. People from anywhere else in the world with any other political orientations will not use it. [[User:CappyR|CappyR]] 22:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia can certainly become as BIG as Wikipedia if not BIGGER. But CP should possibly consider renaming itself to something less biased than Conservapedia. Even though Wikipedia is extremely liberal, the name itself doesn't imply it. CP on the other hand announces it in it's name as a conservative only source. Perhaps CP should rename itself BiasFreepedia.com. That's my TWO cents. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:21, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I agree, the name(CP0 doesnt seem non biased

I definitely agree with Casi, and coming from sort of the same direction is that Wikipedia is trying to be a real encycopledia with true information, not true information that is edited to make it suit someones views on how that information should be represented. It is twisting the truth, and that alone makes it unreliable as a mainstream encyclopedia. With that said I am sure many people come here to get the type of 'information' that they seek. I actually think it is rather sad that an encyclopedia used to be something you could rely on, and now it is just another forum for people with a certain way of thinking who are trying their best to make sure others end up with the same belief system as them. Information has nothing to do with opinions...--[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

to Watchman, I doubt Wikipedia intended to be 'liberal'...it is just the way it has come about. This site intends to be conservative, so I don't think the name should be changed. If the name was changed to something less suspicious it would be deceiving people, unless that is of course what you want...just because you view the information here as being accurate because it accurately expresses your opinions on a subject doesn't make it the truth. --[[User:Truce|truce]] 20:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

I do not believe Conservapedia could ever become as big as Wikipedia and if it ever did I think it would be a great shame. A site condemning the 'liberal bias' and condoning conservative and Christian bias, discussing homosexuality, liberal views and atheism in a blatant negative manner only shows how small minded some people are. The fact that the site only allows for American English to be used only supports my theory that it has been organised and created by a group of fascists; whatever happened to freedom of speech? As a British atheist I can't say that I am a fan of this site and I dare say that the majority of British people, regardless of religion, will not be fans because of the site condemning the use of British English; this is why Conservapedia will never be as big as Wikipedia; they are cutting themselves off from potential users. Though I am sure they wouldn't want people who use the British spelling of the English language using their site...funny that us British are being told that our spelling of a language created by us is wrong, specially when the majority of English speaking country spells things our way; not the American. Also funny that Conservapedia exclusively promotes and supports creationism which would suggest that 'God' is omnipotent yet is against homosexuality...if one believes 'God' is omnipotent then one is saying that he/she/it created all life including those homosexuals but if homosexuality is right then surely one is criticising the work of 'God' and saying he/she/it made a mistake; I find that most interesting.

Dear Brit--- Homosexuality is not the work of GOD, Homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. GOD has given us freedom of will to follow HIS teachings and will or not. You are assuming, without any scientific foundation, that homosexuality is genetic or biological, which the article on this site does not support nor does the scientific community. Reading the complete article first, so you can make an honest and intelligent argument, would be wise, so as not to look the fool.
Concerning the English language, their are many dialects, which result in multiple pronunciations and spellings of words. Your assertion that the rest of the English speaking world follows the British example is rubbish and purposefully deceitful.(a practice commonly used by liberals, due to their lack of core values, lose morals and low intelligence. And in your case, the lack of guts and fortitude to at least sign your online name.) The roots of the English language were indeed "invented" by the Anglo Saxons, with heavy influences from old Norse, German, and French. And as with many languages it has evolved over time, many words used in the U.K. are of American origin and vice versa. Further more, I am forced to use your spelling when I frequent British sites as well, but I'm not whining. Where is Winston Churchill when you need him? Majorpain a.k.a. Mike.

If the criteria for becoming as big as Wikipedia is as the angry atheist Brit has listed, then it's well worth NOT becoming like Wikipedia. Perhaps, it's the Brits that are polluting our online Wiki-resources with such liberal trash. Go George Washington! Cheers! --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:So many people coming to support the site are not welcome. This is why the site is in decline, the pointless anger against people who would support the poject. It is a problem. I acknowledge that some of my spelling has had to be 'corrected', but the deep suspision of anyone not like enough goes against the broadness stated in the word encyclopedia.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't think this site should be as big as Wikipedia, since it's simply a free online resource. No gimmicks. I'm a British atheist, and I'm not here to critize the idea behind this site. It's what makes the internet so wonderful: different opinions. However, this site is dangerously on the verge of becoming another parody of convervatist christians. You, the users, are blantantly making this site hostile to anyone with a different ideal, how will it ever grow or be taken seriously? Not everyone will agree, I don't, I personally think it's extremely homophobic, racist, elitist, sexist, shows bias and mispresents facts, but that's one opinion. In order to grow as an idea, embrace other ideals, no-ones asking you to stop being tories. But just lashing back with anti-foreign, hypocritcal retotrts is what makes me and everyone else dislike your ideas. Don't be like that. Embrace, isn't that what Jesus would do? Don't dare force ideals on anyone. Chris Roberts/chrisroberts

For a start, articles should be licensed under GFDL or CC. Why should anyone be motivated to edit an encyclopedia ''for free'' when their work ends up being owned by that encyclopedia? If I edit conservapedia, can anyone guarantee that my work will not someday fall into someone's hands who will claim exclusive rights over it, without giving me compensation? No. The reason I edit wikipedia is not because I trust the people who run it, but because GFDL guarantees that this will never happen. The wikimedia foundation only owns the servers, not the information on them. If they became corrupt one day and decided to use wikipedia to their personal advantage, somebody would soon create a fork that isn't corrupt. The GFDL allows this. With conservapedia on the other hand there is no guarantee. [[User:Cambrasa|Cambrasa]] 12:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem currently is that various articles are far too biased, and there are too many religious fundamentalists registered on this site. Case in point, historical articles such as "paper" barely has a single paragraph, whereas religious articles such as intelligent design/creationism/etc has many pages.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 14:12, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

If you really want to get people to read these articles for more than entertainment or a good laugh then you have to take the subjective entries out of your article text. Too many of your articles on controversial issues end up being nothing more than politically and religiously charged attacks or refutes of direct text from Wikipedia. Every article on here that has more than one line of explanation sounds like nothing more than an argument worthy of the opinion page of a bad news paper. It’s not about being bias or not, it’s about presenting both sides of an argument with as much information as possible and allowing the reader to decide which side they believe. This web site is a giant debate fueled by hate and promotion of fear. For as much respect and love for religion that is expressed here there sure aren’t very many people that have learned from it. So the truth might set you free but a strong opinion despite the facts just makes for good entertainment. --[[User:FactMan|FactMan]] 21:52, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

This place can't be the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down every night for fear of SUBVERSIVE VANDALS. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 21:56, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

A perceived bias and a genuine bias are two completely different things. Conservapedia tells you about a bias up front, which would scare away anyone looking for a neutral source of information. But those on conservapedia feel that Wiki is biased the other way so they must compensate by leaning conservatively. Typically, those who edit wikipedia are fairly tech savy and probably are fairly young. However, as more people age and they become more familiar with the internet/blogging/etc. , they want to make their voice heard. This argument essentially comes down to older users vs. younger users. Now, I know there has been a trend lately of younger people being more conservative. However, I don't think the trend has changed significantly enough to swing the demographic of young voters over to the Republican side. I don't know who said it or where it is attributed to, but I believe the quote is "If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and are not conservative, you have no brain." Thank you for enduring my rambling. And no, it cannot become the next wikipedia. Anything with a bias up front is not going to gain mainstream attention, especially considering the exposure Wikipedia already has. But hey, articles like this just Conservapedia larger. -[[User:ITfreq51|ITfreq51]] 19 April, 2008

No. It does not matter whether you view this as good or bad. But the two wikis are based on completely different attitudes and perspectives. Conservapedia is from a conservative, Christian point of view(correct me if I'm wrong), while Wikipedia highlights NPOV, which stands for Neutral Point of View(by that it means that so the articles will not offend a particualr group of people). Both Wikis see each other as biased. Wikipedia appeals to all people because it is intended not to target a specific group or to make specific comments about a group. COnservapedia will appeal to Conservatives, but then maybe not the mainstream. (P.S. If you are against this could you also leave your comment on my [[User talk:Faizaguo|talk page]]? Because my Watchlist is flooded. Thanks)--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Can CP become as big as Wiki? Certainly. But we need to point out the outrageous bias that wikipedia stands for and embraces. This bias can be found in almost all articles dealing with issues of contention. NPOV in their eyes is the extreme liberal view, the one that militants will tell you is the only truth. The sad thing is that if we were better organized and had more committed members, Wiki wouldn't be able to get away with the garbage and biases that are so rampant. --[[User:Irpw|Irpw]]

:I think it would be difficult, because, wikipedia is already so big, and conservapedia is not really that well known.[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 12:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::Stout heart! In AD100 the Roman Empire was very big, and [[Christianity]] little known. Out of little acorns, great oaks grow. We may yet be of small consequence (though that is debatable), but in the future...! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I agree. In term s of quality articles, we have already overtaken the liberals!--American78
::::One major difference here is that original research is allowed (instead of relying on experts in fields that largely have liberal points of view) and instead of neutral POV, a conservative POV is implied, as I understand it. So no, this site won't become wikipedia. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 17:52, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Because we focus on the truth and eliminate [[liberal bias]], you're right that that site won't become wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that the entire point of Conservapedia is to be conservatively biased. We don't want to become the next Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of liberal propaganda. In order to counteract Wikipedia's effect, we need to write articles from a conservative viewpoint. Neutrality and impartiality are impossible. Without going into any specific issues, I think that I can confidently say that our content is completely factual and true. If Wikipedia is different from us, it's because they're wrong (probably because they let just anyone edit their articles). Not us. --[[User:GunsandaBible|GunsandaBible]] 12:34, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

CP serves to show what it regards as the underepresented conservative point of view on many current affairs, but there are two forseeable problems with this. The first is that whilst CP claims that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, Wikipedia is not infact overtly or completely biased whereas conservapedia is. Wikipedia does at least present conservative opinions or arguments in some cases, (after all, a conservative user can edit an article just as much as a liberal can) whereas CP makes sure to portray only the conservative arguments. Therefore it makes sense to promote a "Liberellapedia" to go the whole-hock and present pure liberal opinion, at least in the interest of "honesty and fair-play" in debates.The second problem is that CP only appeals to other conservatives, and has little support or contributions (except from liberal vandals) from anyone else. Being British and of no decisive political or religious conviction, I found the articles of CP unappealing, as would many other Non-American people. Infact to me many of the articles seemed so absurd that I can only laugh at what appeared to be crude jokes. Because of this I and many others would never consider supporting CP. The fact that only a specific demographic is encouraged to (and would wish to) contribute means that conservapedia will never grow at the same rate as wikipedia. An encyclopedia's job is to cover as much breadth of knowledge as possible, and as a smaller and less detailed, more discriminating site, CP in my opinion will always be inferior to Wikipedia in that respect.--[[User:Maninahat|Maninahat]] 01:28, 23 September (GMT)

: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:35, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia will never become the next Wiki unless the extreme bias and outright lies/fabrications it allows and in fact seems to encourage are addressed. Wiki is not perfect but it at least strives for some semblance of balance. It's understandable that folks on the Right want a site that leans right but Conservapidia is so fatally flawed that it's actually kind of sad that there are people who believe this is a valid and or accurate site for information on the topics posted. Until the bias and honesty issues are addressed Conservapedia will continue to be nothing more than a curiosity and object of derision from people who are actually interested in the truth.

Conservapedia is unable to become the next Wikipedia unless several serious issues are resolved:
* Copyright. GFDL or CC as Cambrasa said. People want to know their work won't be appropriated unfairly. There is no assurance of this. No one is going to put serious effort into articles when they have no control over how that work is re-used.
* Lack of depth. People refer to Wikipedia because it has a wide spread of articles in great depth. Operating for over 2 years, CP has less than 30,000 articles, most in very little detail, lacking citations or lacking accuracy, and often all three.
* Bias. CP does have a bias. There needs to be a strict NPOV policy.
* Academic credibility. Articles without references should be tagged or deleted, with the exception of stubs, which should be marked as stubs to encourage creation of an in-depth article.
* CE v AD. Academia has now all but universally adopted CE/BCE system. Having an encyclopaedia that insists in using the opposite is begging to do the way of the dodo. It is also rubs non-Christians up the wrong way, who may well have good items to contribute, and I include myself in this category, especially since all my articles elsewhere use the CE/BCE convention, as I was taught to do from day 1 in school. It's tradition!
* Global reach. The US flag logo will stop CP ever having a reach even approaching that of Wikipedia as long as it is regarded as US-centric or overly patriotic. You can only grow with international interactivity, both readership and contributions.
* Use of the term liberal in a derogative sense, as an insult by admins doesn't play into the idea of a lack of bias. CP needs to be apolitical, and a document of record if it is to live up to it's own hopes. Much of what I have read does not fill me with confidence, but I am willing to work to contribute good articles if CP is willing to work to live up to it's own claims. As a writer of articles for an encyclopaedia I put aside my own politics, my own religion and my own ideology. The administrators need to do the same.
* Finally, time restrictions. A website that isn't 24/7? It is a major headache for many contributors, and is really something that needs to be addressed poste-haste. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 19:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

: No, Krysg, we're not going to become another liberal wiki that denies or distorts the truth. We'll stick with A.D. here and you can promote the atheistic, unhistorical CE/BCE somewhere else. You won't be fooling anyone here.

: Suggest a name change to your first and last initial for your account, and I'll move it. The truth does not hide behind phony names, and neither does scholarship. If Wikipedia simply changed its policy about that, then it would immensely improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Why do I need to change name on my account? It is in accordance with the rules. I have no idea what you are talking about with phony names. I am here to contribute articles, not engage on online role play games. Please check my user page and my contributions, and they will prove my point.

I do not understand what you mean by "becoming a liberal wiki". CE/AD, as far as I see it, is about academic integrity, not ideology. If you wish to hold it as some ideological point, that’s fine. As far as I am aware, all my entries use the BC/AD system this website requires. If any are not changed, it is purely an oversight on my part and not part of same hidden agenda. Suggestions were requested in this debate and I gave them. I'm not saying you must obey them, they are merely my observations, as requested.

Conservapedia was, I understand, created to be an academic resource that avoided some of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, such as anonymous editing (which I am glad this encyclopaedia avoids). However to be an effective academic resource, and certainly if it wishes to achieve a status of being able to be cited in academic work, then academic conventions need to be adopted, such as rules of citation, use of CE over AD, and copyright. None of these things are the preserve of liberalism, or some kind of liberal agenda. They are simply however the minimum standards that any publication needs in order to gain academic credibility. I don't make these rules, I am merely stating what I have seen to be the case in academic publications, which is what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 08:46, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Still waiting on a reply to the above, paticularly the username comment, which I really don't understand at all. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 15:58, 30 November 2008 (EST)

: Krysg, your contributions have been meager here; your name hides behind anonymity; and your suggestion that "CE" instead of "AD" is necessary "in order to gain academic credibility" is absurd. Unless you raise the quality and quantity of your contributions and statements, this will be my last reply to you. Pursue your quest to spread "CE" (which denies the historical basis of the calendar) far and wide somewhere else, not here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: Why is CE necessary? CE IS the preserve of liberalism, as who else would change a 2000 year old system (and moreover, one which works and everyone is used to) to appease 1% of the population who haven't yet realised that AD and BC is supposed to offend them? AD and BC offend no-one, and the craven liberals who seek to appease all minorities at the expense of majorities are imagining things. AGAIN. CE has no academic credibility; before CP, I had never heard of it and hope never to hear of it again. I find the idea of CE offensive, but who will defend my rights? Not liberals. [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 12:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:: CE and BCE were introduced to ease discussions in academia with those of other faiths where forcing the purely Christian dating would be offensive. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: Markr, you're not fooling anyone here. "AD" is historically correct and if anyone is offended by it (which is doubtful), then they are unsuitable for learning history. CE and BCE are transparent attempts to censor Christian history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: This is a serious question, even though it'll probably come off as sounding sarcastic: why not endorse the Jewish calendar, with the current year of 5769 (possibly modified to use months/days from the Gregorian calendar with the year from the Jewish calendar)? That seems like it'd be the most historically correct from a religious/creationist standpoint. Is it just because 2008 is the more universally recognized year, and using the Jewish calendar would create confusion, or do you think that 2008 AD is more accurate than 5769? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 12:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::: So how many people in the world use the Jewish calendar? Listen, if AD and BC offended the Islamic world, use of the Jewish calendar would be viewed as a virtual decleration of war upon Islam; you know how they hate Israel. If you, like a typical Liberal, are ignorant of current affairs in the Middle East, blinkered to facts by your obsession with tolerance and multiculturalism. The use of CE is similar to those who thought that a new language could be taught all around the world, in the name of goodwill and understanding and rainbows and etc. Why should a new language be created and taught when many people already speak English or Spanish or Chinese? Why not teach one of those instead of making up a foolish new one 'to prevent offense'? It's the same with CE; why make a new system when the world already has some it's comfortable with in the name of so-called 'tolernace'. It's just liberals making up problems again. With any luck, CE will fail as terribly as those artificial languages did too. [[User:NeilEG|NeilEG]] 13:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

CE has academic credibility; it's just not a necessary change, especially for American authors. Our audience is not academics, so we don't have to use their [[date formats]]. In years to come, we can make the change if our relationship to academia warrants it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

*(haven't read all the above posts...pardon the certain faux-pas's that I now make) Unless something seriously changes with the way the leadership of wikipedia forms it's relationships, I don't see how that place is going to keep going. [[Jimbo Wales]] figuratively and literally [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumped_the_shark jumped the shark] when he allowed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2 User:FT2] to be a member of its "arbcom," or arbitration committee. When legitimate concerns were raised about FT2 personal interests--however untactful and poorly chosen the phrase "dog lover" may be--these were ignored and the editor was blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=255290603]. It's only now come to light because of a possible procedural/process violation, which is apparently no laughing matter over there. Maybe I'm still too much of a country mouse--no pun intended--but I can't see how anyone could support leadership who given full knowledge and evidence of moral bankruptcy, nevertheless, sees no reason to be far more careful with his relations or those of his organization. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 15:27, 2 December 2008 (EST)

It's interesting to see the comments above. One of the biggest things that I would change is to adapt a more neutral stance on the topics. This is a big thing.
* As to the suffix AD or CE, I was taught to use AD. So for me it's easier to use. I prefer AD to CE because, as someone said it above, it worked for 2000 years.
* As to whether or not this site can become as big or bigger than Wikipedia; I am a college student and my instructors told my class that using Wikipedia as a source is not allowed. I find this interesting. I've run across numerous articles that don't list a source or another place to find the information.
* As to citing web articles, I think that's fine as long as the articles are properly cited. Defining what citation needs to be used (AMA, etc.) may help this problem. And citing numerous different sources is better than citing all conservative sources.
* As was noted above, try to prevent both sides of the subject. You should be able to present your view in a more positive light by presenting both sides of the subject and then stating why you believe your side is better. While this may venture into opinion, it prevents having a strictly conservative bias.
*My main purpose for visiting this site is to get an unbiased version of different topics. I've run across several severely biased articles on Wikipedia, so I won't go there for that topic. Other topics, like robotics or astronomy, I would go there for because they have lots of information about that topic that is common knowledge (like the formula to change Celsius to Kelvin) or is easily verifiable (such as physics or astronomy). I go there because this information is in one place. It also includes external links that I can start from to search for that topic off-site. For example, when researching robotics, there are 62 citations and changing to robot, several external links including encyclopedias and research societies. While robotics may not be as hot a topic as creationism, it would be a reason for someone to come here and do research. Maybe conservatives hold a different view of astronomy or robotics. How will I know if it's not listed?
* As I'm reading this particular topic, some of the responses come across as vicious attacks on people. I don't care if your are from India, Britain, or the U.S., your comments should be responded to in a professional manner. This is NOT liberal media where responses are shouted down or changed. This is supposed to be a conservative view of popular topics. If you can't keep this professional, then you will lose lots of subscribers as well as persons just happening on this page. Eliminate Liberal bias? What about conservative bias? Ask [http://www.crawfordbroadcasting.com/~wmuz/bob_dutko.htm]Bob Dudko from 103.5 in southeast Michigan how to present both sides of a topic while still defending what you believe. He does an excellent job.

Summary... If you can present both sides of the topic in an intelligent manner with several citations, people will be more apt to use this site. Otherwise it will become a haven for extremists and fall off the map of every day people with conservative views.--[[User:KevinSSr|KevinSSr]] 22:34, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==View from a longtime Wikipedian==
Wikipedia succeeded because of three things, one of which Conservapedia possesses, the other two of which it ''could'' easily possess.

* A dedicated body of core editors
* Open editing
* Open content

Conservapedia already has a quite sizeable body of people who edit daily on a diverse range of subjects. This means that there is something to read on Conservapedia and the content grows as time goes on, and there is a sense of community about Conservapedia. Having some of the most experienced Wikipedians, like Ed Poor, around the place can only help in this regard.

But one thing that is missing is open editing. It is this aspect of Wiki editing that Wikipedia successfully imported (with significant modifications) from traditional "Meatball-style" wikis, which means Wikipedia's rate of growth took off and its use became viral.

At the moment on Conservapedia editing is closed, in the sense that if you discover an error or omission in an article, then you have to make an effort to register an account just to make a little tweak, add some new content, or even make a comment on the talk page about something that needs attention. It is impossible to overstate how costly that is for an encyclopedia.

Okay, Conservapedia doesn't want to repeat the complete openness of Wikipedia, perhaps because of a perception that it would tend to fill up with trivia the way so many Wikipedia articles do, perhaps because of a feeling that this would invite vandals to trash the content, and perhaps because of a feeling that letting everybody edit every article would tend to dilute the political focus or even end up with what the Conservapedia community perceives to be a liberal bias in Wikipedia.

But putting people through that routine just to make an edit is costly. In May, 2008, just over 1100 people took the trouble to create an account. About the same number created new accounts in October. That's not bad, but remember that accounts for every single edit by a new editor in each of those months. Worse, a good proportion of new editors never even get as far as editing. For whatever reason (perhaps they only wanted to be able to set preferences) they never got to the point of editing an article, so the number of first edits by new editors is probably less than 1000 per month, or about 30 per day. Spread across the articles that is a really tiny number of edits.

Most of those who do edit only make one or two edits but that doesn't matter. The point is that they saw something that needed fixing and they fixed it. With open editing you'd get many more edits, and that would bring new content.

There is a myth, sometimes encouraged by Jimbo Wales, that most of Wikipedia is built by just a few editors. That's wrong. Most ''featured articles'' are written substantially by a tiny subset of the tiny subset of people who come to Wikipedia and edit regularly--the community. After nearly eight years there are less than 2400 featured articles, and that accounts for less than one-tenth of one per cent of all Wikipedia articles.

Actually there is evidence that ''most'' Wikipedia content seems to come from those so-called "anonymous IPs" that are so often denigrated as mere vandals by the regular users. See [http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia this blog piece] by Aaron Swartz.

The downside of open editing is that it does let in a fair amount of unwanted edits. You get a lot of good content but not all of it may be relevant or of suitable quality, and of course some of it is vandalism. It's a cost-benefit equation and you have to decide whether you're prepared to accept the culture changes that happen when, like Wikipedia, your community tools up to handle the unwanted material.

Open ''content'' is another thing missing from Conservapedia, and it beats me why. Logically if I wanted to start a specialized website like Wikipedia but with different quality standards, I'd take a subset of Wikipedia's content and modify it. You can do that with Wikipedia's content because of the open license. It's a great way to get a lot of basically good content and bring it up to your own standard.

Anyway, those are two suggestions for how to improve the way in which Conservapedia works, which I've learned as a Wikipedia editor. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 22:04, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: I do not think Wikipedia is a viable educational resource. I find it to be a a gossip tree, a smear machine, and a trivia database. None of that is educational in a meaningful sense. Anonymous IPs are great for gossip, smears and trivia; they are destructive for education.

: Conservapedia has always been an educational resource, and will continue on that path. We teach teenagers and adults. Hundreds and thousands of them. We learn ourselves in the process. Conservapedia is a place to share insights, advance knowledge, and open minds that are closed. I think we do that far better than Wikipedia, and will continue to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: I think some of your criticisms of Wikipedia are valid (the Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticisms of Wikipedia] documents most if not all criticisms that have been circulated in the mainstream press). But on most academic subjects, particularly science, the quality is extremely high, and the articles would be yours to take and modify to correct any imbalance if you adopted an open content policy compatible with their licence.

:: Wikipedia does cover popular culture but that's a matter of deliberate policy, not an accidental result of permitting open editing. As for the notion that Wikipedia performs no educational function, that's unsustainable even on a cursory examination. Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc Wikipedia's] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Zinc&oldid=563001 Conservapedia's] articles on the metal Zinc, look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War Wikipedia's] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hundred_Years_War&oldid=594609 Conservapedia's] articles on the Hundred Years War. As for Twelfth Night, the difference between [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Night this article] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Twelfth_Night&oldid=456977 this one] could not be more graphic.

:: The notion that having open editing would necessitate low quality just doesn't hold up. Wikipedia aspires to very stringent quality standards and the results, on the most important articles, is impressive by any measure.

:: I won't venture further to criticise the quality of Conservapedia's content, because I think many of the site's users and admins have already brought this out. I do think you could do better. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 23:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I agree with both of you equally, and I'm not just saying this to be "neutral". Here at CP we have no "neutrality policy": the core requirement is for articles to be trustworthy.

We certainly do need to be able to share insights and advance knowledge. By doing this, we provide the opportunity for the undecided to maintain an open mind. It is only the far left and the far right that hope for the closing of the American mind (with apologies to [[Allen Bloom]]).

I spent nearly all my spare time helping Wikipedia to grow, because I was learning in the process of helping others to learn. It also provided the basis for the success of the [[New World Encyclopedia]].

Tony, you are right when you stress the ability of anyone to edit any article any time. That is one of the essential elements that led to Wikipedia's exponential growth. But Andy is also right when he criticizes Wikipedia's viability as an educational resource.

The bias of Wikipedia against religion (in general) and against non-leftist ideology (in both politics and science) is just as crippling as having a leg shot off with a cannonball. The anti-elitism, which Larry Sanger pointed out so eloquently, is like having the other leg cut off with a sword. Forgive the violent imagery, but this is a debate page, so I figure I'm entitled to a little slack, eh?

Tony, you are also right when you say that Wikipedia has acknowledged most of the criticisms. This is crucially important, as it will determine when and if Wikipedia can ever reform. Wikipedia took a big hit when the arbcom decided to brand me a "tendentious" editor, when all I was doing was correcting violations of NPOV policy. I could have appealed to Jimbo, but I chose not to. Now, I'm not saying I'm a particularly important person; I'm more like a "poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage". But it was the Principle which they violated. Instead of thanking the revealer, they condemned him. (Once again, remember that this is not about me: I am not claiming to be a martyr. I'm fine.) They repeated the mistake of the Greeks who condemned Socrates.

Wikipedia is not going to go away. But it will not be respected as an encyclopedic resource until it solves its chief problems. And Conservapedia can help it, if it is willing to accept this help.

I applaud the high quality of Wikipedia on most academic subjects, but "most" means 51% - not 99.9%. There are glaring errors in every [[politicized science]] article, and materialism (disguised as "methodological naturalism") fuels this. Users like FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua actually '''prevent''' the very open editing you espouse. All edits on significant scientific subjects are subject to the liberal filter of what Wikipedia itself calls "tag team editing". Its article series on [[global warming]] is the laughingstock of the scientific community. How can you have the gall to say there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of blatant pseudoscience? What percentage of climate scientists have to sign a petition or be surveyed before Wikipedia will admit that the science isn't settled? By failing to apply NPOV to the world's most prominent [[scientific debate]], Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot (or would, if it had legs to stand on ;-) and nullifies all its other work. People judge an encyclopedia by its most glaring mistakes.

Wikipedia has profited from open editing, and it will continue to do so to the extent that it lives up to its own creed. But using the "undue weight" policy to undermine neutrality has the effect of censoring minority opinions - even in articles dedicating to describing those minority opinions!

Anyway, I'm glad you're here and that you have (apparently) forgiven our initial lack of welcome. I look forward to more conversations with you about how CP and/or WP can improve. And bring your friends! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:56, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: Taking your complaint about a "liberal filter" operating on Wikipedia, well if you think about it that gives a counter-argument to the notion that open editing leads to anarchy. Your experience is that a policy you disagree with (due weight), and editing practices you don't like ("tag teaming"--which incidentally is ''not'' considered to be a problem by Wikipedia's policies) has led to an outcome you think reflects badly on Wikipedia. This demonstrates that open editing is a relatively weak force in the presence of strong motivation and policy. It introduces diversity, but not (in the case of Wikipedia's science coverage, at least) at the expense of control.

: And of course I don't want to see Conservapedia become like Wikipedia. I don't think open editing and open content would make Conservapedia Wikipedia, because its policies and focus are fundamentally different.

: We could argue about the quality of science coverage on Wikipedia, but I don't really want to hijack this page for that side issue. Suffice to say that an analysis published in ''Nature'' found the quality of the science coverage on Wikipedia (including the article on global warming) to be comparable to that of Britannia. The notion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming Wikipedia's coverage of global warming] is anomalous can be exploded by a cursory examination of [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567022/global_warming.html Encarta's article on the subject], and [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming Britannica's]. There are subtle differences of emphasis in all three articles, but they all reflect the IPCC consensus and all provide a good introduction to the subject. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 09:45, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Tony. You have given me food for thought. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:51, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Tony, you're right about one thing: the "policies and focus" of Conservapedia and Wikipedia "are fundamentally different." Wikipedia, in my humble opinion, is not a legitimate or helpful educational resource. It is a mixture of gossip, trivia, and [[censorship]] by atheists. I'd guess that you're an undisclosed atheist who is typical of the editors who dominate Wikipedia. Most of us wouldn't send our children to an atheistic school, and for same reason most of us have abandoned Wikipedia for any real learning.

Feel free to compare Wikipedia and Conservapedia in five years. All atheistic countries and organizations unravel, or worse. It will be like comparing the atheistic former East Germany to the United States. It won't be a pretty comparison for Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

: I think we've all aired our opinions. Thanks to Ed and Andy for that. But Andy, you raise a personal matter concerning my religious beliefs.

: I'm only an "undisclosed" atheist in the sense that I don't mention my religious beliefs (or lack of same) except where it's relevant. I sent my children to a regular English school where religion was an integral part of the curriculum. School events such as musical concerts were held across the road in a beautiful Congregationalist church, the [[Union Chapel, Islington]]. I'll write an article about that edifice. I don't know whether you'd consider such a school "atheistic".

: Likewise I don't think Wikipedia is atheistic so much as secular, as is the government of the United States (and I don't think either is in imminent danger of collapse). You will find [[Christianity|Christians]], [[Hinduism|Hindus]], [[Buddhism|Buddhists]], [[Islam|Muslims]], [[Judaism|Jews]], [[Wicca|Wiccans]], and people who like myself don't have any religious beliefs, working alongside one another in Wikipedia as in the US government. I don't think it's at all correct to describe such [[pluralism]] as "atheistic". --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 13:07, 7 January 2009 (EST)

:: Tony, of course an atheist is going to like an atheistic resource like Wikipedia, and even argue that it is unbiased. Republicans think that George Bush has been a good and fair president, and Democrats tent to think that Barack Obama will be a good and fair president. No surprise, obviously.

:: But you didn't disclose your point of view until I elicited it. And that is a basic problem with Wikipedia. Its key entries are mostly controlled by atheists without admitting it. No meaningful criticism of the theory of evolution, for example, will ever be allowed by the atheists on Wikipedia. No explanation of how atheists censor prayer in the classroom will ever be presented. The undisclosed bias permeates many key entries on Wikipedia and renders it unusable as an objective learning source. If the bias were disclosed, then it would be more useful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::: My point of view shouldn't matter in this discussion if my arguments are sound. You will find a neutral discussion of the process by which mandatory prayer, once fairly common in American schools, was ruled to be contrary to the Establishment Clause, in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer Wikipedia article on School Prayer]. None of the key cases involved atheists as parties (with the exception of the case ''Murray v. Curlett'' which was consolidated with a case involving a [[Unitarian]], ''Abington School District v. Schempp'' (1963)). All of them involved conflicts on religious observance between adherents of different, mostly Christian, religious sects. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 15:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Tony, [[atheism]] certainly does slant one's opinions. You can't even discuss the [[theory of evolution]] in an objective manner, because you'll desperately insist that it ''must'' somehow be true no matter what the evidence is. You and your fellow Wikipedians will censor all meaningful criticism of the theory. Ditto for prayer in the classroom: atheists insist on censoring, and deny that is what they are doing. The biased Wikipedia entry, which itself admits it lacks quality, does not use the word "censor" once and is permeated with distortions and falsehoods, thanks to the atheists who insist that Wikipedia represent their point of view.

:::: I'm not trying to persuade you. I am telling you that the majority of the world, and the vast majority of productive people, do not want an atheistic teaching source, which is what Wikipedia is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:46, 7 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent) On some points, I see us talking past each other. Two religious issues raised include the distinction between atheistic and secular outlooks, and the distinction between mandatory and optional prayer.

I think Andy is right about atheism taking hold at Wikipedia, which was co-founded by two atheists: [[Jimbo Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]]. At first, they agreed that Wikipedia would be neutral on all religious questions including the existence of God and the ability of supernatural forces/beings to influence the physical world. Somehow that changed, and the "secular" perspective of Wikipedia's articles on issues crucial to the 40% to 85% of Americans who have disagreements with [[Evolution]] has trumped NPOV. The naturalism and materialism of [[physical science]] is taken as a given, rather than made explicit.

On a minor point, I noticed that Andy said ''atheists censor prayer in the classroom'' while Tony replied with a reminder that "[[mandatory prayer]], once fairly common in American schools, was ruled to be contrary to the [[Establishment Clause]]". Tony, did you know that Andy is a lawyer? He's probably familiar with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court rulings about religious issues. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Truth is not a poll. Conservapedia has a conservative view, yes, but it is in truth. Wikipedia accepts evolution as truth, and in that view it exalts everything that agrees with that view, and disagrees with any counter view. As far as Obama, they are questions that need to be answered, that obviously the liberal side would rather cover and ignore. Here is a challenge, go to You Tube and in the search put Barack Obama, and on the list that comes up, rate how many positive videos come up, and how many negative on the first page. Now do the same with Sarah Palin. Notice how the rate of positive versus negative viewpoints change with her.

So to find the TRUTH, it is not about being all inclusive or being politically correct. There is no such thing as objective news anymore because the world has become split on God vs No God, so the correct thing to do is become the best God believing information center in the world.

: Put another way, if someone wants to wander in confusion amid the self-serving lies promoted by atheists, they go to Wikipedia. I think studies show that atheism makes one less charitable and more depressed; [[Nietzsche]], the leading atheist of the 19th century, went crazy. If someone wants the truth and the freedom and [[faith]] that brings, they come here. Ultimately, each person decides for himself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Not likely. In this day and age, we will receive relentless ridicule and scourn from the mainstream media and other sources. Trust me, I've been on both sides of the issue. I am a former liberal and a former agnostic, although I was never cared much about politics until I became a conservative.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
I would agree

No, it cannot. CP's ideological bias is deliberate and overt, as opposed to Wikipedia's emergent, incidental bias, which undermines the average reader's confidence in CP's information. Wikipedia may be editable by anyone, but CP is guaranteed to contain information that advances a conservative agenda. If there existed a Liberalpedia, it would be just as untrustworthy, but Wikipedia is not such a being. On the day it institutes a "Conservative Tricks" page, we'll talk. -- [[User:Osiris1723|Osiris1723]] 00:31, 21 June 2009 (EDT)