Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:American Government Final Exam

2008-01-13T04:57:09Z

PhineasBogg:

#20--Choice C has a typo. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 22:13, 10 January 2008 (EST)

: Thank you! Fixed now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 10 January 2008 (EST)

==My exam answers==
1. C 2. A 3. A 4. E 5. D 6. E 7. A 8. E 9. A 10. E 11. C 12. E 13. A 14. E 15. E 16. C 17. C 18. B 19. D 20. B 21. B 22. C 23. B 24. E 25. B 26. D 27. B 28. C 29. B 30. A 31. E 32. A 33. A 34. B 35. B 36. A 37. E 38. D 39. B 40. E 41. C 42. B 43. C 44. A 45. B 46. D 47. D 48. B 49. D 50. A

Please grade. Thanks. [[User:Cmh|Cmh]] 22:28, 10 January 2008 (EST)

: 47/50!!!!! THAT'S AWESOME!!!! You should be teaching. I'll post the answer key in a few days, after others have a chance to try.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 10 January 2008 (EST)

==Took a shot==
American Government 101
 Final Exam - Closed Book.
 50 questions; no points deducted for wrong answers.

To avoid traps on difficult questions, eliminate wrong answers before picking the correct one. Manage your time wisely. Do not leave any answers blank.

1. The number and types of the branches of the federal government are:
 (c) 3, legislative, executive and judiciary

2. Which of the following must be true about every President of the United States?
 (a) He is at least 35 years old.

3. When government hurts you by violating your rights under the U.S. Constitution, what is usually your strongest response?
 (d) sue in federal court.

4. Which entity has the most influence over the rules concerning homeschooling?
 (e) state government.

5. “Federalism” refers to:
 (d) a system of co-sovereigns that allows for a strong state government

6. Which is the fastest growing age group in America?
 (e) Over 65.

7. The “Supremacy Clause” is:
 (a) a clause in the Constitution that says federal law is supreme over local laws.

8. An “exit poll” means:
 (e) asking people how they just voted on Election Day.

9. A “leak” in government is:
 (a) an unauthorized release of information to the press.

10. All of the following are examples of “checks and balances” EXCEPT:
 (e) the President can order that the atomic bomb be dropped on a foreign country.

11. In the 2008 presidential elections, the primaries accomplish which purpose?
 (c) selecting the nominees for president for political parties.

12. Who is a “lobbyist”?
 (e) an unelected person whose job is to try to persuade elected officials how to vote.

13. “Affirmative action” consists of:
 (a) giving special preferences to someone because of their race or gender.

a is the closest answer, though this is a strawman of what Affirmative Action actually is.

14. The phrase the “separation of church and state” can be found where?
 (e) in none of the above, but in arguments by people seeking to censor Christianity.

e - it was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association confirming that the 1st amendment would guarantee that their right to free expression of their religion would never be interfered with by the federal government.

15. Rank the following in terms of how open they are to public participation, from least open to most open:

I. closed primary
 II. open primary
 III. caucus
 (b) I, III, II

16. The Miranda warning is given to whom?
 (c) criminal suspects.

17. The vote of how many Justices in your favor is necessary to ensure victory in the U.S. Supreme Court (choose the minimum amount necessary):
 (c) 5.

18. The decision that had the effect of ending prayer in school was:
 (b) Engel v. Vitale (1962).

Engel v Vitale had the effect of ending teacher-led prayer in public school as an improper establishment of religion by a government institution. Students are still perfectly free to pray provided that it doesn't disrupt class.

19. From year to year, the “sound bite” is becoming:
 (d) shorter.

d - This is a question about government? It sounds like a question about media to me.

20. If someone comes to your door and asks if he can search your house, what would your attorney most likely tell you to do?
 (b) ask to see a search warrant first and not allow him in without a warrant.

21. One good reason to spend more time working for an interest group than a political party is:
 (b) sometimes political change requires attracting support from both major parties.

22. The broadest support for a food regulation is for:
 (c) requiring disclosure of the contents of the food.

23. On Tuesday, John McCain won the Republican primary in New Hampshire, and Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary there. What did they really win?
 (b) They won some delegates to their political parties’ national conventions, and status as frontrunners for future primaries in other states.

24. The President has almost complete control over:
 (a) spending by government

a - Spending bills must be approved by the president unless overridden by veto, which is rare.

25. Why is it important to get involved in a major political party?
 (b) because politics is like a team sport, and elections are usually won by major political parties

26. All of the following are interest groups EXCEPT:
 (d) Congress

27. A journalist "shield law" does which of the following:
 (b) allows journalists to keep the identities of their sources secret.

28. Which of the following is the best predictor of how people will vote?
 (c) how often they worship God.

Knowing Conservapedia, this must be the answer, however I'm skeptical without some statistics to back it up.

29. Early polling data are often unreliable because:
 (b) The views of voters change as Election Day approaches.

30. Which of the following is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution?
 (a) right to trial by jury.

31. If you wanted to run for President, you would want to do all of the following things EXCEPT:
 (e) always speak the truth, even if it offends many voters.

Though technically the only thing on this list that is an actual requirement is a.

32. One of the most reliable political polls is the approval rating of the President. Why?
 (c) everyone knows who the president is

33. What might the Republican Party cite to stop a disliked candidate from running as a Republican?
 (d) freedom of religion

This is a guess, but the question is really poorly designed.

34. Which of the following are true about federal courts?

I. The Supreme Court usually won't hear a case unless four Justices want to.
 II. Except for big lawsuits between citizens of different states, a plaintiff must usually cite violation of a federal law to gain access to federal court.
 III. The Chief Justice of the United States always decides who writes the opinion for the Court.

(a) I, II and III.

Questions 35 and 36 are based on Lopez v. United States (1995), in which the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. That law had made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

35. Suppose you were the attorney for the United States arguing in favor of the constitutionality of the federal law. What clause in the Constitution would help you most?
 (b) Commerce Clause.

36. Suppose you were the attorney for Mr. Lopez. What principle or doctrine would help you most in arguing that the federal law is invalid?
 (a) federalism.

37. The longest-serving Supreme Court Justice in history, William O. Douglas, once said, "I don't follow precedents, I make ’em." What is that an example of?
 (e) judicial activism.

Questions 38 and 39 are based on how a new federal law is enacted:

38. A new statute is typically prepared and revised by whom?
 (d) a committee in Congress.

39. When the President vetoes new legislation, what options are left for trying to pass it?
 (b) try to override the veto with 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress.

40. Each of the following are departments in the Executive Branch EXCEPT:
 (e) Department of Homeschooling.

41. How many votes are required for a successful filibuster in the U.S. Senate?
 (c) 41.

42. What job is performed by the Attorney General of the United States?
 (b) He enforces the laws by managing the Department of Justice.

43. How might you best phrase a preliminary question in a poll about the death penalty to (falsely) increase the number of people opposed to it?
 (c) “Do you think an innocent man should receive the death penalty?”

44. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to which branch of government?
 (a) legislative.

45. The minimum age for drinking alcohol is 21 in all 50 states because of political efforts of _____________:
 (b) an interest group, Mothers Against Drunk Driving

46. The “peace dividend” was expected as the result of which of the following?
 (d) the end of the Cold War.

47. The Equal Rights Amendment:
 (d) was defeated because many Americans (i) oppose treating men and women identically in the military, (ii) oppose same-sex marriage, and (iii) oppose taxpayer-funded abortion.

d, though again the reasons listed here are primarily strawmen.

48. The main defect in the Lemon Test is that:
 (b) it is so broad that it can be easily manipulated against religion.

b is the answer, though I believe the question is faulty.

49. “Incorporation doctrine” means which of the following:
 (d) The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to apply against the states.

50. The “legislative veto” gave Congress the power to veto or invalidate an action taken by the President, such as a decision to deport an illegal alien. The legislative veto was in nearly 200 federal statutes until it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha (1983). What doctrine do you think the U.S. Supreme Court used to invalidate it?
 (c) separation of powers.

:: 45/50, also an awesome score!!!! I'm very, very impressed. I'll post the answer key after some others have a chance. You raise some good discussion points also, but let's wait a few days before discussing because it will give away the answers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 10 January 2008 (EST)

== My answers! ==

I linked them from [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:MexMax/Exam here] so that I wouldn't add things to the talk page so much; I also added a few comments, because some of the questions seemed unclear, and I'd appreciate help so I can learn from seeing my mistake!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]]
:I hope I get a grade too; waiting eagerly...-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 16:58, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:: 46 out of 50!!!! AWESOME!!!! Very, very impressive. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks so much! Can you tell me (at some point - I know you haven't disclosed the key yet) which ones I got wrong, so I can review?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:06, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:: I'll post the answers by Sunday. It's sad, but last time I immediately told people which one's they got wrong I feel that someone exploited that to derive the correct answers and inflate his score here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 11 January 2008 (EST)
That's very depressing. The school I went to for college had a very strict, student-enforced [[honor code]] (I'll make an article); we all took it very, very seriously, and found it to be an integral part of the experience. Maybe, based on that, I expect too much of others :-( -[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== New User's Answers ==

Please remember that I am a new reader, and I havent done any study and I am not an American

1C 2A 3D 4E 5D 6B 7A 8E 9A 10E 11C 12E 13A 14E 15B 16C 17C 18B 19D 20B 21B 22C 23B 24E 25A
26D 27B 28C 29B 30A 31E 32A 33A 34A 35C 36B 37E 38D 39B 40E 41C 42C 43C 44B 45B 46D 47A 48B 49D 50C

Is this test just for fun?{{unsigned|JimmyB}}

: 41 out of 50. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:I'll answer ''in absentia'' for Mr. Schlafly. The short answer is no. The long answer is no, no, no. Andy and Conservapedia are part of a growing movement in the United States, whereby conservatives educate their students at home to avoid [[liberal bias]] in the public schools. So, this test is designed to form the endcap to a homeschooling unit. As an incidental note, you'll see that many of the questions are targeted at teaching students to avoid liberal bias: look at question 14. You'd be surprised how few people can answer that question correctly...-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 12:05, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:: Thank you MexMax: as you said, this test is not "just for fun." Students worked hard to get scores as high as 48/50. I'll grade the latest attempt above shortly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:19, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::: Sorry, I had no intention of insulting anyone who worked towards this. But if it is part of a schooling module, what form does the credit take? What level would it come at? In the UK, we have GCSEs that are taken at the age of 16, and A Levels that are taken at the age of 18. If you do well enough in GCSEs, then you can take A Levels and if you do well enough in A Levels, you get to go to university. Roughly where in that scale would this test be placed?

:::: Education is not so bureaucratic in [[America]]. Top students in this course can earn college (university) credit for it simply by doing well on a special exam. The students taking the class were of high school (secondary school) teenage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Really? A university would accept this test as credit towards a module? As we say in England, BLIMEY! :) --[[User:JimmyB|JimmyB]] 13:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: No, that isn't what I said. I said top students can earn college (university) credit by doing well on a '''special exam''', such as [[CLEP]] or [[AP]]. Those exams are not conceptually harder than the above exam, but do have [[liberal]] bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:26, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: How did I do?--[[User:JimmyB|JimmyB]] 15:57, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Is my grade a secret?--[[User:JimmyB|JimmyB]] 15:13, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: What are you talking about? I graded your exam above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 12 January 2008 (EST)

==answers==
1c
2a
3d
4e
5d
6e
7a
8e
9a
10e
11a
12e
13c
14e
15a
16c
17c
18b
19d
20b
21b
22c
23b
24e
25b
26d
27b
28c
29b
30a
31e
32c
33a
34b
35b
36a
37e
38d
39b
40e
41c
42b
43c
44b
45b
46d
47d
48b
49d
50c

Thought I'd give it a shot. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]] 14:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:45 out of 50. That's awesome!!!! Tremendous effort, Luke. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Here's my answers ==

1. C
2. A
3. E
4. E
5. D
6. E
7. A
8. E
9. A
10. E
11. C
12. E
13. A
14. E, though Jefferson used the phrase in letters.
15. C, because caucuses require a large time committment, and so they are hard for many people to attend.
16. C
17. B
18. B
19. D
20. B
21. B
22. C
23. B
24. E
25. B
26. D
27. B
28. C
29. B
30. A
31. E
32. C
33. A, though I must say this question confused me.
34. B
35. B
36. A
37. E
38. D
39. B
40. E
41. C
42. B
43. C
44. A
45. D
46. D
47. D
48. B
49. D
50. C

How are they? [[User:TRipp|TRipp]] 17:18, 11 January 2008 (EST)

: Excellent. 46 out of 50! Congratulations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 12 January 2008 (EST)

==My answers==
1. C
2. A
3. E
4. E
5. D
6. D
7. A
8. E
9. A
10. E
11. D
12. E
13. A
14. E
15. E
16. E
17. C
18. B
19. E
20. B
21. B
22. C
23. B
24. B
25. D
26. D
27. B
28. C
29. D
30. C
31. B
32. C
33. A
34. E
35. D
36. D
37. E
38. E
39. B
40. E
41. C
42. B
43. C
44. A
45. D
46. D
47. D
48. B
49. A
50. C

Did I do well? [[User:DM|DM]] 19:38, 11 January 2008 (EST)

: 32 out of 50. Good effort! You could benefit further from my classes, and you'd be welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== My Answers ==

1)C 2)A 3)D 4)E 5)D 6)B 7)A 8)E 9)A 10)E 11)C 12)E 13)A 14)E 15)C 16)C 17)C 18)B 19)D 20)B 21)B 22)C 23)B 24)E 25)A 26)D 27)B 28)C 29)B 30)B 31)D 32)A 33)A 34)C 35)B 36)A 37)E 38)D 39)B 40)E 41)C 42)B 43)C 44)A 45)B 46)D 47)D 48)B 49)D 50)C (unsigned by CPAdmin1)

: grading now ... --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 12 January 2008 (EST)

: 45 out of 50. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:26, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== My Answers (Phineas Bogg) ==

1c, 2a, 3d, 4e, 5d, 6e, 7a, 8e, 9a, 10e, 11c, 12e, 13a, 14e, 15a, 16c, 17c, 18b, 19d, 20b, 21b, 22c, 23b, 24e, 25b, 26d, 27b, 28c, 29b, 30a, 31e, 32a, 33a, 34c, 35b, 36a, 37e, 38d, 39b, 40e, 41c, 42b, 43c, 44a, 45b, 46a, 47d, 48b, 49c, 50c

Interesting!--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 22:57, 12 January 2008 (EST)

: 46 out of 50. Very well done!!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks!!! I will definitely have to look some things up for the ones I missed (and the ones I got with lucky guesses)! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:57, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:American Government Final Exam

2008-01-13T03:57:01Z

PhineasBogg: /* My Answers (Phineas Bogg) */

#20--Choice C has a typo. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 22:13, 10 January 2008 (EST)

: Thank you! Fixed now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 10 January 2008 (EST)

==My exam answers==
1. C 2. A 3. A 4. E 5. D 6. E 7. A 8. E 9. A 10. E 11. C 12. E 13. A 14. E 15. E 16. C 17. C 18. B 19. D 20. B 21. B 22. C 23. B 24. E 25. B 26. D 27. B 28. C 29. B 30. A 31. E 32. A 33. A 34. B 35. B 36. A 37. E 38. D 39. B 40. E 41. C 42. B 43. C 44. A 45. B 46. D 47. D 48. B 49. D 50. A

Please grade. Thanks. [[User:Cmh|Cmh]] 22:28, 10 January 2008 (EST)

: 47/50!!!!! THAT'S AWESOME!!!! You should be teaching. I'll post the answer key in a few days, after others have a chance to try.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 10 January 2008 (EST)

==Took a shot==
American Government 101
 Final Exam - Closed Book.
 50 questions; no points deducted for wrong answers.

To avoid traps on difficult questions, eliminate wrong answers before picking the correct one. Manage your time wisely. Do not leave any answers blank.

1. The number and types of the branches of the federal government are:
 (c) 3, legislative, executive and judiciary

2. Which of the following must be true about every President of the United States?
 (a) He is at least 35 years old.

3. When government hurts you by violating your rights under the U.S. Constitution, what is usually your strongest response?
 (d) sue in federal court.

4. Which entity has the most influence over the rules concerning homeschooling?
 (e) state government.

5. “Federalism” refers to:
 (d) a system of co-sovereigns that allows for a strong state government

6. Which is the fastest growing age group in America?
 (e) Over 65.

7. The “Supremacy Clause” is:
 (a) a clause in the Constitution that says federal law is supreme over local laws.

8. An “exit poll” means:
 (e) asking people how they just voted on Election Day.

9. A “leak” in government is:
 (a) an unauthorized release of information to the press.

10. All of the following are examples of “checks and balances” EXCEPT:
 (e) the President can order that the atomic bomb be dropped on a foreign country.

11. In the 2008 presidential elections, the primaries accomplish which purpose?
 (c) selecting the nominees for president for political parties.

12. Who is a “lobbyist”?
 (e) an unelected person whose job is to try to persuade elected officials how to vote.

13. “Affirmative action” consists of:
 (a) giving special preferences to someone because of their race or gender.

a is the closest answer, though this is a strawman of what Affirmative Action actually is.

14. The phrase the “separation of church and state” can be found where?
 (e) in none of the above, but in arguments by people seeking to censor Christianity.

e - it was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association confirming that the 1st amendment would guarantee that their right to free expression of their religion would never be interfered with by the federal government.

15. Rank the following in terms of how open they are to public participation, from least open to most open:

I. closed primary
 II. open primary
 III. caucus
 (b) I, III, II

16. The Miranda warning is given to whom?
 (c) criminal suspects.

17. The vote of how many Justices in your favor is necessary to ensure victory in the U.S. Supreme Court (choose the minimum amount necessary):
 (c) 5.

18. The decision that had the effect of ending prayer in school was:
 (b) Engel v. Vitale (1962).

Engel v Vitale had the effect of ending teacher-led prayer in public school as an improper establishment of religion by a government institution. Students are still perfectly free to pray provided that it doesn't disrupt class.

19. From year to year, the “sound bite” is becoming:
 (d) shorter.

d - This is a question about government? It sounds like a question about media to me.

20. If someone comes to your door and asks if he can search your house, what would your attorney most likely tell you to do?
 (b) ask to see a search warrant first and not allow him in without a warrant.

21. One good reason to spend more time working for an interest group than a political party is:
 (b) sometimes political change requires attracting support from both major parties.

22. The broadest support for a food regulation is for:
 (c) requiring disclosure of the contents of the food.

23. On Tuesday, John McCain won the Republican primary in New Hampshire, and Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary there. What did they really win?
 (b) They won some delegates to their political parties’ national conventions, and status as frontrunners for future primaries in other states.

24. The President has almost complete control over:
 (a) spending by government

a - Spending bills must be approved by the president unless overridden by veto, which is rare.

25. Why is it important to get involved in a major political party?
 (b) because politics is like a team sport, and elections are usually won by major political parties

26. All of the following are interest groups EXCEPT:
 (d) Congress

27. A journalist "shield law" does which of the following:
 (b) allows journalists to keep the identities of their sources secret.

28. Which of the following is the best predictor of how people will vote?
 (c) how often they worship God.

Knowing Conservapedia, this must be the answer, however I'm skeptical without some statistics to back it up.

29. Early polling data are often unreliable because:
 (b) The views of voters change as Election Day approaches.

30. Which of the following is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution?
 (a) right to trial by jury.

31. If you wanted to run for President, you would want to do all of the following things EXCEPT:
 (e) always speak the truth, even if it offends many voters.

Though technically the only thing on this list that is an actual requirement is a.

32. One of the most reliable political polls is the approval rating of the President. Why?
 (c) everyone knows who the president is

33. What might the Republican Party cite to stop a disliked candidate from running as a Republican?
 (d) freedom of religion

This is a guess, but the question is really poorly designed.

34. Which of the following are true about federal courts?

I. The Supreme Court usually won't hear a case unless four Justices want to.
 II. Except for big lawsuits between citizens of different states, a plaintiff must usually cite violation of a federal law to gain access to federal court.
 III. The Chief Justice of the United States always decides who writes the opinion for the Court.

(a) I, II and III.

Questions 35 and 36 are based on Lopez v. United States (1995), in which the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. That law had made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

35. Suppose you were the attorney for the United States arguing in favor of the constitutionality of the federal law. What clause in the Constitution would help you most?
 (b) Commerce Clause.

36. Suppose you were the attorney for Mr. Lopez. What principle or doctrine would help you most in arguing that the federal law is invalid?
 (a) federalism.

37. The longest-serving Supreme Court Justice in history, William O. Douglas, once said, "I don't follow precedents, I make ’em." What is that an example of?
 (e) judicial activism.

Questions 38 and 39 are based on how a new federal law is enacted:

38. A new statute is typically prepared and revised by whom?
 (d) a committee in Congress.

39. When the President vetoes new legislation, what options are left for trying to pass it?
 (b) try to override the veto with 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress.

40. Each of the following are departments in the Executive Branch EXCEPT:
 (e) Department of Homeschooling.

41. How many votes are required for a successful filibuster in the U.S. Senate?
 (c) 41.

42. What job is performed by the Attorney General of the United States?
 (b) He enforces the laws by managing the Department of Justice.

43. How might you best phrase a preliminary question in a poll about the death penalty to (falsely) increase the number of people opposed to it?
 (c) “Do you think an innocent man should receive the death penalty?”

44. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to which branch of government?
 (a) legislative.

45. The minimum age for drinking alcohol is 21 in all 50 states because of political efforts of _____________:
 (b) an interest group, Mothers Against Drunk Driving

46. The “peace dividend” was expected as the result of which of the following?
 (d) the end of the Cold War.

47. The Equal Rights Amendment:
 (d) was defeated because many Americans (i) oppose treating men and women identically in the military, (ii) oppose same-sex marriage, and (iii) oppose taxpayer-funded abortion.

d, though again the reasons listed here are primarily strawmen.

48. The main defect in the Lemon Test is that:
 (b) it is so broad that it can be easily manipulated against religion.

b is the answer, though I believe the question is faulty.

49. “Incorporation doctrine” means which of the following:
 (d) The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to apply against the states.

50. The “legislative veto” gave Congress the power to veto or invalidate an action taken by the President, such as a decision to deport an illegal alien. The legislative veto was in nearly 200 federal statutes until it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha (1983). What doctrine do you think the U.S. Supreme Court used to invalidate it?
 (c) separation of powers.

:: 45/50, also an awesome score!!!! I'm very, very impressed. I'll post the answer key after some others have a chance. You raise some good discussion points also, but let's wait a few days before discussing because it will give away the answers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 10 January 2008 (EST)

== My answers! ==

I linked them from [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:MexMax/Exam here] so that I wouldn't add things to the talk page so much; I also added a few comments, because some of the questions seemed unclear, and I'd appreciate help so I can learn from seeing my mistake!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]]
:I hope I get a grade too; waiting eagerly...-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 16:58, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:: 46 out of 50!!!! AWESOME!!!! Very, very impressive. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks so much! Can you tell me (at some point - I know you haven't disclosed the key yet) which ones I got wrong, so I can review?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:06, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:: I'll post the answers by Sunday. It's sad, but last time I immediately told people which one's they got wrong I feel that someone exploited that to derive the correct answers and inflate his score here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 11 January 2008 (EST)
That's very depressing. The school I went to for college had a very strict, student-enforced [[honor code]] (I'll make an article); we all took it very, very seriously, and found it to be an integral part of the experience. Maybe, based on that, I expect too much of others :-( -[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== New User's Answers ==

Please remember that I am a new reader, and I havent done any study and I am not an American

1C 2A 3D 4E 5D 6B 7A 8E 9A 10E 11C 12E 13A 14E 15B 16C 17C 18B 19D 20B 21B 22C 23B 24E 25A
26D 27B 28C 29B 30A 31E 32A 33A 34A 35C 36B 37E 38D 39B 40E 41C 42C 43C 44B 45B 46D 47A 48B 49D 50C

Is this test just for fun?{{unsigned|JimmyB}}

: 41 out of 50. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:I'll answer ''in absentia'' for Mr. Schlafly. The short answer is no. The long answer is no, no, no. Andy and Conservapedia are part of a growing movement in the United States, whereby conservatives educate their students at home to avoid [[liberal bias]] in the public schools. So, this test is designed to form the endcap to a homeschooling unit. As an incidental note, you'll see that many of the questions are targeted at teaching students to avoid liberal bias: look at question 14. You'd be surprised how few people can answer that question correctly...-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 12:05, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:: Thank you MexMax: as you said, this test is not "just for fun." Students worked hard to get scores as high as 48/50. I'll grade the latest attempt above shortly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:19, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::: Sorry, I had no intention of insulting anyone who worked towards this. But if it is part of a schooling module, what form does the credit take? What level would it come at? In the UK, we have GCSEs that are taken at the age of 16, and A Levels that are taken at the age of 18. If you do well enough in GCSEs, then you can take A Levels and if you do well enough in A Levels, you get to go to university. Roughly where in that scale would this test be placed?

:::: Education is not so bureaucratic in [[America]]. Top students in this course can earn college (university) credit for it simply by doing well on a special exam. The students taking the class were of high school (secondary school) teenage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Really? A university would accept this test as credit towards a module? As we say in England, BLIMEY! :) --[[User:JimmyB|JimmyB]] 13:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: No, that isn't what I said. I said top students can earn college (university) credit by doing well on a '''special exam''', such as [[CLEP]] or [[AP]]. Those exams are not conceptually harder than the above exam, but do have [[liberal]] bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:26, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: How did I do?--[[User:JimmyB|JimmyB]] 15:57, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Is my grade a secret?--[[User:JimmyB|JimmyB]] 15:13, 12 January 2008 (EST)
==answers==
1c
2a
3d
4e
5d
6e
7a
8e
9a
10e
11a
12e
13c
14e
15a
16c
17c
18b
19d
20b
21b
22c
23b
24e
25b
26d
27b
28c
29b
30a
31e
32c
33a
34b
35b
36a
37e
38d
39b
40e
41c
42b
43c
44b
45b
46d
47d
48b
49d
50c

Thought I'd give it a shot. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]] 14:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:45 out of 50. That's awesome!!!! Tremendous effort, Luke. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Here's my answers ==

1. C
2. A
3. E
4. E
5. D
6. E
7. A
8. E
9. A
10. E
11. C
12. E
13. A
14. E, though Jefferson used the phrase in letters.
15. C, because caucuses require a large time committment, and so they are hard for many people to attend.
16. C
17. B
18. B
19. D
20. B
21. B
22. C
23. B
24. E
25. B
26. D
27. B
28. C
29. B
30. A
31. E
32. C
33. A, though I must say this question confused me.
34. B
35. B
36. A
37. E
38. D
39. B
40. E
41. C
42. B
43. C
44. A
45. D
46. D
47. D
48. B
49. D
50. C

How are they? [[User:TRipp|TRipp]] 17:18, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==My answers==
1. C
2. A
3. E
4. E
5. D
6. D
7. A
8. E
9. A
10. E
11. D
12. E
13. A
14. E
15. E
16. E
17. C
18. B
19. E
20. B
21. B
22. C
23. B
24. B
25. D
26. D
27. B
28. C
29. D
30. C
31. B
32. C
33. A
34. E
35. D
36. D
37. E
38. E
39. B
40. E
41. C
42. B
43. C
44. A
45. D
46. D
47. D
48. B
49. A
50. C

Did I do well? [[User:DM|DM]] 19:38, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== My Answers ==

1)C 2)A 3)D 4)E 5)D 6)B 7)A 8)E 9)A 10)E 11)C 12)E 13)A 14)E 15)C 16)C 17)C 18)B 19)D 20)B 21)B 22)C 23)B 24)E 25)A 26)D 27)B 28)C 29)B 30)B 31)D 32)A 33)A 34)C 35)B 36)A 37)E 38)D 39)B 40)E 41)C 42)B 43)C 44)A 45)B 46)D 47)D 48)B 49)D 50)C (unsigned by CPAdmin1)

: grading now ... --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 12 January 2008 (EST)

: 45 out of 50. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:26, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== My Answers (Phineas Bogg) ==

1c, 2a, 3d, 4e, 5d, 6e, 7a, 8e, 9a, 10e, 11c, 12e, 13a, 14e, 15a, 16c, 17c, 18b, 19d, 20b, 21b, 22c, 23b, 24e, 25b, 26d, 27b, 28c, 29b, 30a, 31e, 32a, 33a, 34c, 35b, 36a, 37e, 38d, 39b, 40e, 41c, 42b, 43c, 44a, 45b, 46a, 47d, 48b, 49c, 50c

Interesting!--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 22:57, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:American Government Final Exam

2008-01-13T03:55:18Z

PhineasBogg: My Answers (Phineas Bogg)

#20--Choice C has a typo. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 22:13, 10 January 2008 (EST)

: Thank you! Fixed now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:15, 10 January 2008 (EST)

==My exam answers==
1. C 2. A 3. A 4. E 5. D 6. E 7. A 8. E 9. A 10. E 11. C 12. E 13. A 14. E 15. E 16. C 17. C 18. B 19. D 20. B 21. B 22. C 23. B 24. E 25. B 26. D 27. B 28. C 29. B 30. A 31. E 32. A 33. A 34. B 35. B 36. A 37. E 38. D 39. B 40. E 41. C 42. B 43. C 44. A 45. B 46. D 47. D 48. B 49. D 50. A

Please grade. Thanks. [[User:Cmh|Cmh]] 22:28, 10 January 2008 (EST)

: 47/50!!!!! THAT'S AWESOME!!!! You should be teaching. I'll post the answer key in a few days, after others have a chance to try.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 10 January 2008 (EST)

==Took a shot==
American Government 101
 Final Exam - Closed Book.
 50 questions; no points deducted for wrong answers.

To avoid traps on difficult questions, eliminate wrong answers before picking the correct one. Manage your time wisely. Do not leave any answers blank.

1. The number and types of the branches of the federal government are:
 (c) 3, legislative, executive and judiciary

2. Which of the following must be true about every President of the United States?
 (a) He is at least 35 years old.

3. When government hurts you by violating your rights under the U.S. Constitution, what is usually your strongest response?
 (d) sue in federal court.

4. Which entity has the most influence over the rules concerning homeschooling?
 (e) state government.

5. “Federalism” refers to:
 (d) a system of co-sovereigns that allows for a strong state government

6. Which is the fastest growing age group in America?
 (e) Over 65.

7. The “Supremacy Clause” is:
 (a) a clause in the Constitution that says federal law is supreme over local laws.

8. An “exit poll” means:
 (e) asking people how they just voted on Election Day.

9. A “leak” in government is:
 (a) an unauthorized release of information to the press.

10. All of the following are examples of “checks and balances” EXCEPT:
 (e) the President can order that the atomic bomb be dropped on a foreign country.

11. In the 2008 presidential elections, the primaries accomplish which purpose?
 (c) selecting the nominees for president for political parties.

12. Who is a “lobbyist”?
 (e) an unelected person whose job is to try to persuade elected officials how to vote.

13. “Affirmative action” consists of:
 (a) giving special preferences to someone because of their race or gender.

a is the closest answer, though this is a strawman of what Affirmative Action actually is.

14. The phrase the “separation of church and state” can be found where?
 (e) in none of the above, but in arguments by people seeking to censor Christianity.

e - it was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association confirming that the 1st amendment would guarantee that their right to free expression of their religion would never be interfered with by the federal government.

15. Rank the following in terms of how open they are to public participation, from least open to most open:

I. closed primary
 II. open primary
 III. caucus
 (b) I, III, II

16. The Miranda warning is given to whom?
 (c) criminal suspects.

17. The vote of how many Justices in your favor is necessary to ensure victory in the U.S. Supreme Court (choose the minimum amount necessary):
 (c) 5.

18. The decision that had the effect of ending prayer in school was:
 (b) Engel v. Vitale (1962).

Engel v Vitale had the effect of ending teacher-led prayer in public school as an improper establishment of religion by a government institution. Students are still perfectly free to pray provided that it doesn't disrupt class.

19. From year to year, the “sound bite” is becoming:
 (d) shorter.

d - This is a question about government? It sounds like a question about media to me.

20. If someone comes to your door and asks if he can search your house, what would your attorney most likely tell you to do?
 (b) ask to see a search warrant first and not allow him in without a warrant.

21. One good reason to spend more time working for an interest group than a political party is:
 (b) sometimes political change requires attracting support from both major parties.

22. The broadest support for a food regulation is for:
 (c) requiring disclosure of the contents of the food.

23. On Tuesday, John McCain won the Republican primary in New Hampshire, and Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary there. What did they really win?
 (b) They won some delegates to their political parties’ national conventions, and status as frontrunners for future primaries in other states.

24. The President has almost complete control over:
 (a) spending by government

a - Spending bills must be approved by the president unless overridden by veto, which is rare.

25. Why is it important to get involved in a major political party?
 (b) because politics is like a team sport, and elections are usually won by major political parties

26. All of the following are interest groups EXCEPT:
 (d) Congress

27. A journalist "shield law" does which of the following:
 (b) allows journalists to keep the identities of their sources secret.

28. Which of the following is the best predictor of how people will vote?
 (c) how often they worship God.

Knowing Conservapedia, this must be the answer, however I'm skeptical without some statistics to back it up.

29. Early polling data are often unreliable because:
 (b) The views of voters change as Election Day approaches.

30. Which of the following is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution?
 (a) right to trial by jury.

31. If you wanted to run for President, you would want to do all of the following things EXCEPT:
 (e) always speak the truth, even if it offends many voters.

Though technically the only thing on this list that is an actual requirement is a.

32. One of the most reliable political polls is the approval rating of the President. Why?
 (c) everyone knows who the president is

33. What might the Republican Party cite to stop a disliked candidate from running as a Republican?
 (d) freedom of religion

This is a guess, but the question is really poorly designed.

34. Which of the following are true about federal courts?

I. The Supreme Court usually won't hear a case unless four Justices want to.
 II. Except for big lawsuits between citizens of different states, a plaintiff must usually cite violation of a federal law to gain access to federal court.
 III. The Chief Justice of the United States always decides who writes the opinion for the Court.

(a) I, II and III.

Questions 35 and 36 are based on Lopez v. United States (1995), in which the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. That law had made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

35. Suppose you were the attorney for the United States arguing in favor of the constitutionality of the federal law. What clause in the Constitution would help you most?
 (b) Commerce Clause.

36. Suppose you were the attorney for Mr. Lopez. What principle or doctrine would help you most in arguing that the federal law is invalid?
 (a) federalism.

37. The longest-serving Supreme Court Justice in history, William O. Douglas, once said, "I don't follow precedents, I make ’em." What is that an example of?
 (e) judicial activism.

Questions 38 and 39 are based on how a new federal law is enacted:

38. A new statute is typically prepared and revised by whom?
 (d) a committee in Congress.

39. When the President vetoes new legislation, what options are left for trying to pass it?
 (b) try to override the veto with 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress.

40. Each of the following are departments in the Executive Branch EXCEPT:
 (e) Department of Homeschooling.

41. How many votes are required for a successful filibuster in the U.S. Senate?
 (c) 41.

42. What job is performed by the Attorney General of the United States?
 (b) He enforces the laws by managing the Department of Justice.

43. How might you best phrase a preliminary question in a poll about the death penalty to (falsely) increase the number of people opposed to it?
 (c) “Do you think an innocent man should receive the death penalty?”

44. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to which branch of government?
 (a) legislative.

45. The minimum age for drinking alcohol is 21 in all 50 states because of political efforts of _____________:
 (b) an interest group, Mothers Against Drunk Driving

46. The “peace dividend” was expected as the result of which of the following?
 (d) the end of the Cold War.

47. The Equal Rights Amendment:
 (d) was defeated because many Americans (i) oppose treating men and women identically in the military, (ii) oppose same-sex marriage, and (iii) oppose taxpayer-funded abortion.

d, though again the reasons listed here are primarily strawmen.

48. The main defect in the Lemon Test is that:
 (b) it is so broad that it can be easily manipulated against religion.

b is the answer, though I believe the question is faulty.

49. “Incorporation doctrine” means which of the following:
 (d) The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to apply against the states.

50. The “legislative veto” gave Congress the power to veto or invalidate an action taken by the President, such as a decision to deport an illegal alien. The legislative veto was in nearly 200 federal statutes until it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha (1983). What doctrine do you think the U.S. Supreme Court used to invalidate it?
 (c) separation of powers.

:: 45/50, also an awesome score!!!! I'm very, very impressed. I'll post the answer key after some others have a chance. You raise some good discussion points also, but let's wait a few days before discussing because it will give away the answers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 10 January 2008 (EST)

== My answers! ==

I linked them from [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:MexMax/Exam here] so that I wouldn't add things to the talk page so much; I also added a few comments, because some of the questions seemed unclear, and I'd appreciate help so I can learn from seeing my mistake!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]]
:I hope I get a grade too; waiting eagerly...-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 16:58, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:: 46 out of 50!!!! AWESOME!!!! Very, very impressive. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks so much! Can you tell me (at some point - I know you haven't disclosed the key yet) which ones I got wrong, so I can review?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:06, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:: I'll post the answers by Sunday. It's sad, but last time I immediately told people which one's they got wrong I feel that someone exploited that to derive the correct answers and inflate his score here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 11 January 2008 (EST)
That's very depressing. The school I went to for college had a very strict, student-enforced [[honor code]] (I'll make an article); we all took it very, very seriously, and found it to be an integral part of the experience. Maybe, based on that, I expect too much of others :-( -[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 17:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== New User's Answers ==

Please remember that I am a new reader, and I havent done any study and I am not an American

1C 2A 3D 4E 5D 6B 7A 8E 9A 10E 11C 12E 13A 14E 15B 16C 17C 18B 19D 20B 21B 22C 23B 24E 25A
26D 27B 28C 29B 30A 31E 32A 33A 34A 35C 36B 37E 38D 39B 40E 41C 42C 43C 44B 45B 46D 47A 48B 49D 50C

Is this test just for fun?{{unsigned|JimmyB}}

: 41 out of 50. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:I'll answer ''in absentia'' for Mr. Schlafly. The short answer is no. The long answer is no, no, no. Andy and Conservapedia are part of a growing movement in the United States, whereby conservatives educate their students at home to avoid [[liberal bias]] in the public schools. So, this test is designed to form the endcap to a homeschooling unit. As an incidental note, you'll see that many of the questions are targeted at teaching students to avoid liberal bias: look at question 14. You'd be surprised how few people can answer that question correctly...-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 12:05, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:: Thank you MexMax: as you said, this test is not "just for fun." Students worked hard to get scores as high as 48/50. I'll grade the latest attempt above shortly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:19, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::: Sorry, I had no intention of insulting anyone who worked towards this. But if it is part of a schooling module, what form does the credit take? What level would it come at? In the UK, we have GCSEs that are taken at the age of 16, and A Levels that are taken at the age of 18. If you do well enough in GCSEs, then you can take A Levels and if you do well enough in A Levels, you get to go to university. Roughly where in that scale would this test be placed?

:::: Education is not so bureaucratic in [[America]]. Top students in this course can earn college (university) credit for it simply by doing well on a special exam. The students taking the class were of high school (secondary school) teenage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Really? A university would accept this test as credit towards a module? As we say in England, BLIMEY! :) --[[User:JimmyB|JimmyB]] 13:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::: No, that isn't what I said. I said top students can earn college (university) credit by doing well on a '''special exam''', such as [[CLEP]] or [[AP]]. Those exams are not conceptually harder than the above exam, but do have [[liberal]] bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:26, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: How did I do?--[[User:JimmyB|JimmyB]] 15:57, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Is my grade a secret?--[[User:JimmyB|JimmyB]] 15:13, 12 January 2008 (EST)
==answers==
1c
2a
3d
4e
5d
6e
7a
8e
9a
10e
11a
12e
13c
14e
15a
16c
17c
18b
19d
20b
21b
22c
23b
24e
25b
26d
27b
28c
29b
30a
31e
32c
33a
34b
35b
36a
37e
38d
39b
40e
41c
42b
43c
44b
45b
46d
47d
48b
49d
50c

Thought I'd give it a shot. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]] 14:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:45 out of 50. That's awesome!!!! Tremendous effort, Luke. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Here's my answers ==

1. C
2. A
3. E
4. E
5. D
6. E
7. A
8. E
9. A
10. E
11. C
12. E
13. A
14. E, though Jefferson used the phrase in letters.
15. C, because caucuses require a large time committment, and so they are hard for many people to attend.
16. C
17. B
18. B
19. D
20. B
21. B
22. C
23. B
24. E
25. B
26. D
27. B
28. C
29. B
30. A
31. E
32. C
33. A, though I must say this question confused me.
34. B
35. B
36. A
37. E
38. D
39. B
40. E
41. C
42. B
43. C
44. A
45. D
46. D
47. D
48. B
49. D
50. C

How are they? [[User:TRipp|TRipp]] 17:18, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==My answers==
1. C
2. A
3. E
4. E
5. D
6. D
7. A
8. E
9. A
10. E
11. D
12. E
13. A
14. E
15. E
16. E
17. C
18. B
19. E
20. B
21. B
22. C
23. B
24. B
25. D
26. D
27. B
28. C
29. D
30. C
31. B
32. C
33. A
34. E
35. D
36. D
37. E
38. E
39. B
40. E
41. C
42. B
43. C
44. A
45. D
46. D
47. D
48. B
49. A
50. C

Did I do well? [[User:DM|DM]] 19:38, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== My Answers ==

1)C 2)A 3)D 4)E 5)D 6)B 7)A 8)E 9)A 10)E 11)C 12)E 13)A 14)E 15)C 16)C 17)C 18)B 19)D 20)B 21)B 22)C 23)B 24)E 25)A 26)D 27)B 28)C 29)B 30)B 31)D 32)A 33)A 34)C 35)B 36)A 37)E 38)D 39)B 40)E 41)C 42)B 43)C 44)A 45)B 46)D 47)D 48)B 49)D 50)C (unsigned by CPAdmin1)

: grading now ... --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:22, 12 January 2008 (EST)

: 45 out of 50. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:26, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== My Answers (Phineas Bogg) ==

1c, 2a, 3d, 4e, 5d, 6e, 7a, 8e, 9a, 10e, 11c, 12e, 13a, 14e, 15a, 16c, 17c, 18b, 19d, 20b, 21b, 22c, 23b, 24e, 25b, 26d, 27b, 28c, 29b, 30a, 31e, 32a, 33a, 34c, 35b, 36a, 37e, 38d, 39b, 40e, 41c, 42b, 43c, 44a, 45b, 46a, 47d, 48b, 49c, 50c

Interesting!

Talk:Fake science

2007-12-30T21:57:35Z

PhineasBogg:

*'''Keep Junk Science'''. We need this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== Need a better example ==

I think we need a better example. Given that even Phillip Morris now admits second hand smoke is dangerous, this is not a good example of incorrect science. I propose adding an example about [[http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/eggs.HTM Eggs and Cholesterol]]. When studies had found that Cholesterol clogs arteries in humans and there was Cholesterol in eggs, the government began recommending people not eat eggs. However, what was missing from this science was a causal link. That is, it was not shown that the intake of Cholesterol in diet causes an increase of Cholesterol in blood. We now know that most Cholesterol in blood is made by the body in overweight individuals and individuals with high saturated fat intakes. So eggs are now fine to eat -- as long as they are not combined with high calorie, high fat side dishes.

I will wait a couple days before making the change to see if anyone has any input or better examples. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 13:49, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I went ahead and made this change. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:57, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Fake science

2007-12-30T21:56:16Z

PhineasBogg: fixed a typo

{{merge|pseudoscience}}

'''Junk science''' is the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based mainly upon whether its conclusions support the answers (or views) favored by the promoters; see [[propaganda]].

Junk science consists of giving poorly done scientific work the same authority as work which conforms to the [[scientific method]]. It is akin to [[politicized science]], i.e., the selective use of scientific evidence to reach predetermined conclusions and support extra-scientific political goals.<ref> [http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25458/pub_detail.asp Burying Evidence: The Union of Concerned Scientists' Unscientific Claims about Air Pollution and Health]</ref>

In some cases, junk science may result from a misinterpretation of previous sound scientific studies. An example of this is the misinterpretation of the research on eggs and cholesterol<ref>http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/eggs.HTM</ref>. Studies had found that eggs contained cholesterol and that cholesterol in blood contributed to heart disease. So as a result of these studies, people were advised again eating eggs. What ws missing, however, was a study showing that the cholesterol in blood is a direct result of cholesterol intake in diet. We know now that that is not the case, that saturated fat intake and overall body fat are the primary contributors to cholesterol production in blood.

It was at one time claimed that the use of initial studies on secondhand smoke to justify smoking bans was junk science. However since then additional studies have corroborated the initial ones<ref>http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html</ref> and even Phillip Morris acknowledged that secondhand smoke is hazardous<ref>http://www.phillipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>.

All sides in scientific controversies say that they condemn junk science, so this leaves the lay reader with the task of determining who is telling the truth. The best way is to examine the facts and reasoning in scientific reports.

First, of course, the reader must penetrate the maze of confusing [[disinformation]] surrounding any controversy.

:The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule.... ---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense <ref>[http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html IQ and race]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Politics of science]]

==References==
<references/>

==Further reading==
*Peter W. Huber, ''Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom'', 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9.

==External links==
*[http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25458/pub_detail.asp Burying Evidence: The Union of Concerned Scientists' Unscientific Claims about Air Pollution and Health] - Joel Schwartz - January 16, 2007

Fake science

2007-12-30T21:54:40Z

PhineasBogg: added a reference

{{merge|pseudoscience}}

'''Junk science''' is the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based mainly upon whether its conclusions support the answers (or views) favored by the promoters; see [[propaganda]].

Junk science consists of giving poorly done scientific work the same authority as work which conforms to the [[scientific method]]. It is akin to [[politicized science]], i.e., the selective use of scientific evidence to reach predetermined conclusions and support extra-scientific political goals.<ref> [http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25458/pub_detail.asp Burying Evidence: The Union of Concerned Scientists' Unscientific Claims about Air Pollution and Health]</ref>

In some cases, junk science may result from a misinterpretation of previous sound scientific studies. An example of this is the misinterpretation of the research on eggs and cholesterol<ref>http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/eggs.HTM</ref>. Studies had found that eggs contained cholesterol and that cholesterol in blood contributed to heart disease. So as a result of these studies, people were advised again eating eggs. What ws missing, however, was a study showing that the cholesterol in blood is a direct result of cholesterol intake in diet. We know now that that is not the case, that saturated fat intake and overall body fat are the primary contributors to cholesterol production in blood.

It was at one time claimed that the use of initial studies on secondhand smoke to justify smoking bans was junk science. However since then additional studies have corroborated the initial ones<ref>http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html</ref> and even Phillip Morris acknowledged that secondhand smoke can be hazardous"<ref>http://www.phillipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>.

All sides in scientific controversies say that they condemn junk science, so this leaves the lay reader with the task of determining who is telling the truth. The best way is to examine the facts and reasoning in scientific reports.

First, of course, the reader must penetrate the maze of confusing [[disinformation]] surrounding any controversy.

:The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule.... ---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense <ref>[http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html IQ and race]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Politics of science]]

==References==
<references/>

==Further reading==
*Peter W. Huber, ''Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom'', 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9.

==External links==
*[http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25458/pub_detail.asp Burying Evidence: The Union of Concerned Scientists' Unscientific Claims about Air Pollution and Health] - Joel Schwartz - January 16, 2007

Fake science

2007-12-30T21:52:33Z

PhineasBogg: Updated examples of junk science

{{merge|pseudoscience}}

'''Junk science''' is the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based mainly upon whether its conclusions support the answers (or views) favored by the promoters; see [[propaganda]].

Junk science consists of giving poorly done scientific work the same authority as work which conforms to the [[scientific method]]. It is akin to [[politicized science]], i.e., the selective use of scientific evidence to reach predetermined conclusions and support extra-scientific political goals.<ref> [http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25458/pub_detail.asp Burying Evidence: The Union of Concerned Scientists' Unscientific Claims about Air Pollution and Health]</ref>

In some cases, junk science may result from a misinterpretation of previous sound scientific studies. An example of this is the misinterpretation of the research on eggs and cholesterol<ref>http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/eggs.HTM</ref>. Studies had found that eggs contained cholesterol and that cholesterol in blood contributed to heart disease. So as a result of these studies, people were advised again eating eggs. What ws missing, however, was a study showing that the cholesterol in blood is a direct result of cholesterol intake in diet. We know now that that is not the case, that saturated fat intake and overall body fat are the primary contributors to cholesterol production in blood.

It was at one time claimed that the use of initial studies on secondhand smoke to justify smoking bans was junk science. However since then additional studies have corroborated the initial ones and even Phillip Morris acknowledged that secondhand smoke can be hazardous"<ref>http://www.phillipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>.

All sides in scientific controversies say that they condemn junk science, so this leaves the lay reader with the task of determining who is telling the truth. The best way is to examine the facts and reasoning in scientific reports.

First, of course, the reader must penetrate the maze of confusing [[disinformation]] surrounding any controversy.

:The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule.... ---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense <ref>[http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html IQ and race]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Politics of science]]

==References==
<references/>

==Further reading==
*Peter W. Huber, ''Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom'', 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9.

==External links==
*[http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25458/pub_detail.asp Burying Evidence: The Union of Concerned Scientists' Unscientific Claims about Air Pollution and Health] - Joel Schwartz - January 16, 2007

Talk:Liberal

2007-12-30T21:28:41Z

PhineasBogg: /* Westboro Baptist Church */

{{protected|Aschlafly}}
 

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

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

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Liberal

2007-12-30T21:26:23Z

PhineasBogg: /* Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? */

Liberal

2007-12-30T21:25:30Z

PhineasBogg: Added a brief section about liberal rankings in the National Journal

A '''Liberal''' is a believer in many of the following political positions:

* denial of inherent [[gender differences]], leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the [[military]] (while quietly holding them to different standards)
* taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]
* [[same-sex marriage]]
* support of [[affirmative action]]
* support of [[political correctness]] <ref>[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html Politically Correct Terrorism] ''The Conservative Voice'', August 21, 2007</ref>
* [[censorship]] of [[prayer]] in classrooms
* compelled taxpayer funding of government [[school]]s for nearly all ages
* government-controlled medical care
* labor [[union]]s
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* [[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
* support for [[gun control]]
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
*[[environmentalism]] <ref> [[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref>
* [[disarmament treaties]]
* [[globalism]]
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref>
* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* limit [[conservative]] talk radio by reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]

== Cartoon Depiction of the [[Liberal]] Viewpoints ==
[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg]]

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.

is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition. [[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] often have [[liberal bias]].

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals still support socially liberal positions when it comes to affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: 'Classical Liberalism'==

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...

==Liberal Rankings of Congress Members==

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of congress. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]

Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==See Also==
* [[Liberal Bias]]
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]
* [[Conservative Links]]

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

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Political ideologies]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-12-30T04:21:54Z

PhineasBogg: The word "leftist" should be removed from the first sentence

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Landover Baptist==

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==?==

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

If what you say is true, then "pro-family" must oppose homosexuals becasue they asume that homosexuals are "anti-family". That is not true, it's not the desire of homosexual people to wreck family, they just want personal freedom to have the kind of living arangement they choose. The only reason they have gathered together is because it's their common cause to get that freedom for themselves. I'm pretty certain that if they had those rights, they would leave everyone else alone.
Homosexuals don't suggest that everyone should be homosexual, that would be stupid, they just want the right to live their lives as they want to, not bothering anyone, and not being bothered by anyone. If God (if he exists) dislikes it it's solely up to him to judge, none of us are entitled to do that. --[[User:Atkins|Atkins]] 23:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

It seems that whoever said that in the first place was being a parodist. We definitely don't stand for Phelps's hate here in Kansas, or here at Conservapedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== What the #$@% ==

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. [[User:Teresita|Banned User Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps and Religion ==

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin.
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== disgusting liberal bias ==

this article is terribly condemning of this man. this is the same kind of p.c. bias crap that made me sick of wikipedia. mr. phelps believes in the same things we all do, so why is this article against hihm? he only believes in the things that jesus taught1!1[[User:Manifestdestiny|Manifestdestiny]] 18:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong. At no time did Jesus ever condemn a soldier, unlike this man. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::but jesus did condemn homosexuals. [[User:Cryingeagles39|Cryingeagles39]] 12:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Jesus told everyone in plain terms that if they continued to sin, they would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. His message in the Gospels was that everyone should repent. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality in the gospels, but he did do what Karajou mentioned, which would encompass all types of sin, including homosexuality. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

*I do know Jesus commanded that we not judge, or we would be. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== God Hates Canada ==

Didn't Phelps also light a flag on fire in the middle of an airport, thus causing his arrest? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I haven't heard about this! Do you have a link? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.holysmoke.org/hs02/phelps3.htm] is the best I can find. I was wrong, I guess. Seems he didn't actually get around to torching the flag. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:03, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

:Nevermind... "When WBC members did in fact actually burn the Canadian flag in religious protest to Canada's approval of same-sex marriage, the so-called Christians of Canada were the loudest in denouncing WBC and "widely reviling" her Gospel message." That's from his God Hates Canada page. Appears I was mistaken about the airport thing, though. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:09, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps And The Democratic Party ==

Can someone please get rid of this header at the bottom of the page? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. --[[User:Ouzo|Ouzo]] 14:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've addressed your concerns. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} The "God Hates Fags" Left]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist!???==
Last time I checked liberals support gay people and are secular. Calling Fred Phelps a liberal would be akin to calling Osama bin Laden a pacifist. Someone should change this --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not a leftist, he is on the extreme fringes of the religious right, he's an embarrasment to conservatives so he is called a "liberal". I can't believe how biased this website is --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Phelps celebrated the 9/11 attacks and the more recent al-Qaeda strikes in London as the just recompense of Western decadence. He supported Saddam Hussein and has been appreciative to Fidel Castro. Phelps is probably more appropriately described in psychiatric than political terms. '''But his political roots are in the Democratic Party, having run for office in Kansas five times, and actively supported Al Gore in 1988 and 1992, whose campaign used Phelps’ family office space. Son Fred Phelps Jr., who had hosted a fund raiser for Gore, attended the 1993 Clinton-Gore inaugural.'''

More careful media coverage acknowledges that Phelps’ ostensibly Baptist church is "unaffiliated" and comprised of only his family members, whose compound of houses is assembled around the church and its swimming pool used for baptisms.

Phelps, now age 76, has demonstrated outside the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas. He has demonstrated against conservative religious activists James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. He has demonstrated against the Southern Baptist Convention.
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:41, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Even if Phelps did support the Democrats at one time, that doesn't make him a liberal. Guiliani is a Republican and he is certainly not a Conservative (pro gay marriage, pro abortion). I'd argue that Phelps is delusional rather than liberal or conservative but I think it is terribly biased and incorrect to state that he is a leftist and a liberal. Liberals tend to be secular and pro gay marriage, Phelps does not embrace liberal values --[[User:Fredphelpsisamoron|Fredphelpsisamoron]] 16:17, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I would argue that Phelps is actually a conservative. He is against gay marriage and is very religious, these are two traits of conservatives. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:44, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't buy it sounds more like an anti liberal rant, and is the sort of statement which will atract vandals to this site. Liberals didn't support Saddam, I mean some might of, they just didn't support the war in Iraq, ! [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 17:35, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:There is more to conservatism than ONE ISSUE. Economics, etc.

Also, there are religious liberals out there. Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:45, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

True, but Jimmy Carter is only moderatly oppposed to homosexuality and believes in evolution, he is not the same hate filled bigot that Phelps is. Maybe Phelps isn't conservative, but he certainly isn't liberal either. I think saying Phelps is a leftist is POV pushing. It should be taken out. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, wait, wait. What does evolution have to do with it? We've had a lot of liberals tell us that we should not be politicizing science. I actually agree with that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:51, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps doesn't believe in evolution and he believes in creationism. Creationism, particularly YEC is associated with conservatism. I agree that science shouldn't be politicized but creationists, especially YEC, tend to be conservative while evolutionists tend to be moderate or liberal. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. So we have evidence liberals may be open minded and tolerant of other views. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::*There is no such thing, outside of perhaps Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as 100% Liberals. Guiliani, I might chime in, isn't taking a "liberal" stance on some issues, but a old line conservative POV, pre-neoconservative, more Libertarian stance. Many of Phelps' idealogical pronouncements most certainly do fit more within the secular-progressive tent than the conservative one. And one must note there wasn't any repudiation on the part of Citizen Gore when he was happily taking Phelps & Company money and office space, was there? End of argument there. Point is, Phelps is almost certainly a Demon from Hell. He certainly isn't worthy of anyone's defense, or the attention he is getting. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't think any of Phelps stances fit liberalism at all. The use of liberal and leftist is misleading and biased --[[User:JimmyR|JimmyR]] 20:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because he opposes Bush and conservatives doesn't mean that he isn't one of them. Conservatives, like Liberals can have disagreements among one another and are not one monolithic block. Besides Ronald Reagan supported Saddam in the 80s, does that make him a liberal? I think you should take out "leftist" and "liberal activist" it is terribly biased and misleading and just makes Conservapedia look bad --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 10:19, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Phelps is no more a liberal activist than the KKK is a conservative action group. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:54, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Phelps has been criticized across the political spectrum from leftist gay rights groups to conservative Christians, he is neither liberal or conservative, he is just plain nuts --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 17:55, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:ok, we know the 'ol "he's a bad guy so he must be a religious conservative" argument is the basis of many Wikipedia articles, and thousands of other websites. But this is CP, we're basically (1) concerned with facts.

:So, Phelps, a creationist, is an example of a broadminded [[leftist]]. What's wrong with that? Although some of his views are extraordinarily repugnant, Al & Tipper, in keeping with thier one time advocacy of censoring [[music]] content and being pro-[[big tabacco]], once courted a constituency there. Gore only dropped these views when the Clintons put him on the ticket. Perhaps the [[Nobel Prize]] Committee made the award to the wrong guy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not really a leftist. More a flip-flop, his views swing from liberal to conservative depending on how the political wind blows. Besides supporting Gore doesn't automatically make Phelps a liberal. I'm not saying you should say he is a conservative. But liberals/conservatives calling those who are repugnant to both groups the group they disagree with is wrong and biased. Both liberals and conservatives oppose Phelps so he should be called neither. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:22, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:hmmm, so Phelps is [[mainstream]] or [[centrist]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:28, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

No, he's just an extremist. Like the KKK. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:34, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

:Very interesting; on [[political spectrum theory]] I once postulated that the theory was useless, and meaningless. Perhaps Phelps is an example. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:00, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then I think the word leftist should be taken out, it is misleading and besides Phelps is usually considered part of the Religious Right, whether that is true or not --[[User:DanielJamesRideout|DanielJamesRideout]] 12:26, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:So, because the so-called "Religious Right" is unfairly defamed, we should pile on in support of liberal fascist objectives. ''Wiederlich.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

The conservatives call him liberal and the liberals call him conservative. He is clearly insane. Liberalism and insanity often go together but here insanity crowds everything else out. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:54, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism and insanity go together, thats a pretty harsh insult for people who you merely have a political disagreement with? Why so much hate? --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 12:57, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:If it was not for the '''fact''' of Phelps [[political]] [[activism]], in support of [[political]] candidates, or the [[fact]] Phelps ran for [[political]] office on the ticket of a major [[political party]], we would not be having this discusssion. But given the [[political]] realities, we can only use Phelps own stated [[political]] affilliations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is true that Phelps was associated with the Democrats but remember that at one time the Democrats were the "Conservative" party. The Democrats are now supportive or at least tolerant of homosexuals and Phelps has referred to his former friend Al Gore as a "Fag-enabler". There aren't too many differences between Republicans and Democrats anyways. I think that leftist and liberal activist should be taken out, other than that the article is fine. --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 14:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:You say "was associated." We have no basis for that. It was Al Gore who shifted, not Phelps. And we have no reason to believe Gore publicly shifted other than [[career opportunism]], not any personal, inner, [[moral]] change in his fundamental beliefs. Further, we have ample evidence Gore has both consistently, and persistently, been less then ingenuous in his own personal, inner convictions since pursuing a path of personal career opportunism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think anyone with a natural mind can see that Phelps openly supports an agenda that is complicated. However, as Rob eloquently sated above, he ran as a [[Democrat]]. This fact is undeniable. Now, if anyone else wants to take issue with that, that's fine, but I would advise that this is a waste of everyone's time and ought to be a bannable offense. The "but but but" crowd needs to grow up and acept that this guy is one of their own. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 17:56, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:Lj105.jpg|thumb|250px|right|According to liberal authors, Fred Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat." ]]
::::I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that, Mathers. As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Very funny. Seriously though guys, could an admin modify the text? I imagine it'd save a lot of bickering on this Talk page. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)

*Very well said, Mathers! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
:*I don't understand why libs have trouble with the idea that libs hate; seems to be an everyday occurance. I've experienced it daily for 40 years. Look at Ann Coulter. Libs cannot restrain spewing their hatred toward her. Or Rush. Or O'Reilly, Falwell, Bush, the list is endless. Why is it such a shock to libs that liberals spew hate? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:39, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==Democrat (or at least ex-Democrat), sure. But liberal?==
Describing Phelps as a Democrat is justifiable, since he did run as a Democrat, but the first sentence dexcribes him as a "leftist", which I believe is the same as "liberal". This seems flawed. Not all Democrats are liberal and vice versa (anyone remember Zell Miller? Reagan and Thurmond were both Democrats once too). Looking at Conservapedia's own definition of [[liberal]] we have the following specific views how many of them apply to Phelps?
#denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)
#:No evidence that he feels this way
#taxpayer-funded abortion
#:Certainly not
#same-sex marriage
#:HA!
#support of affirmative action
#:No evidence of this
#support of political correctness
#:Not at all
#censorship of prayer in classrooms
#:No
#compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
#:Hard to say, but publicly funded schools are hardly a liberal issue; there is widespread support for them. Most people do not want to completely privatize education.
#government-controlled medical care
#:No evidence of this
#labor unions
#:no evidence of this
#elimination of abstinence-only program funding
#:Given his religious views, this seems unlikely
#income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
#:No evidence of this
#a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
#:No idea. He'd probably support a "living constitution" if interpretations of the document would harm the homosexual agenda, but against it if it would promote it.
#support for gun control
#:No evidnce for this (seems unlikely)
#government programs to rehabilitate criminals
#:No idea
#environmentalism
#:No evidence for this
#disarmament treaties
#:No evidence (this guy seems not to be much of a foreign policy wonk, except when it comes to praising anti-gay foreign leaders)
#globalism
#:No evidence of this (except for global condemnation of homosexuality)
#opposition to a strong American foreign policy
#:No evidence
#support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
#:Seems unlikely
#opposition to full private property rights
#:No evidence of this
#limit conservative talk radio by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
#:Seems unlikely that he'd want to do anything to aid the pro-gay liberal media
So he basically has no discernable liberal traits. This does not make him a conservative, but it really seems he's not a leftist. The only things that point to his leftism are running as a Democrat (who can say why he picked one party over the other? He didn't have much suport from either, it seems) and his support for Gore (dropped when it turned out Gore's views on homosexuality were more liberal than the previously appered). Since Democrat is not the same as liberal, I'm not sure how the latter applies to him. Can anyone justify the inclusion of the term leftist? If someone can point out statements he's made supporting strong environmentalism, opposition to gun rights, disarmament treaties, property rights opposition, or such a case could certainly be made, but right now I'm not seeing any real leftism here. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 10:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:The "leftist" portion is cited. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I see citations for the Democrat part, which isn't the issue. Can point out the specific citation to me? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 14:47, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}] Perhaps we need [[CP:Common knowledge]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:12, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. Nowhere does that piece call Phelps "liberal" or "leftist" (even if it did, it would be the opinion of a journalist). We've established his conection to the Democratic Party, but where's his liberalism? This site has 21 examples of liberal traits, which does he meet? His anti-gay agenda shapes his opinions on all other matters. If supporting Castro makes him a liberal, what about condemning Sweden (The most socialist state in Europe)? I think everyone can agree that hating gays is not a trait that makes one liberal, and that is about the only trait he has. I think the guy defies all aspects of the traditional left/right spectrum, and I don't see the point of trying to pigeonhole him into one group. By all means this article should disassociate him from the Christian wing of the conservative movement, but that doesn't by definition make him liberal. Is there a source that shows how he meets even ''one'' of the 21 examples bove (and he'd need to meet more than one to be classified as a liberal)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 15:42, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::So, were back to the definition "a liberal is a leftist," and "a leftist is a liberal." We were attacked by cyberterrorists for months trying to put that stuff in.
:::::Liberals don't hate? Please....And nowhere in the text does it say Phelps is a liberal. He is in Cat:Liberal activists, and a strong case can be made that he belongs there. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::I know nothing about cyberterrorists and such, but I was sort of under the impression that liberal and leftist were sort of interchangable. This site's own article says that leftist is associated with "social democracy, liberalism, or the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those who oppose conservative politics. The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word liberal." I see nothing socialist or communist about Phelps (support for Castro is based solely on his anti-gay stance, not his economics), nor any real connection with social democracy. In this country it ''is'' basically interchangable with "liberal" (classical liberalism is out of the scope of this issue), so calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal. And note that I never said liberals don't hate, I said that hating gays is not a liberal trait. Are you trying to argue that it is? I think that would be an uphill battle, but feel free to try. And by the way, calling him a liberal activist ''is'' calling him a liberal (just like saying someone is a Mexican footballer is saying he is Mexican, and a footballer). So if he isn't a liberal but is a leftist, what is it that makes him a leftist (and how is that different from the standard definition of liberal that the 21 points illustrate)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 16:28, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::"calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal,"
:::::::Where in the text does it say this? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:37, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Okay, if the two are not synonymous (or nearly so), then explain the difference. I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable. The [[leftist]] article here is pretty unclear on just about all aspects of the term, and does not draw any real distinctions between liberal and leftist. The article even states "The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'", and since this is an American encyclopedia, aimed at the layman, it seems that if you're going to use the term in different way than it is often used you should make that distinctly clear. If the article means to say he is a leftist but not a liberal then the difference between the two should be explicitly stated, and how he fits into the category "leftist" should also be made clear. Furthermore, if he isn't a liberal he should be removed from the liberal activists category, and his entry should be removed from the [[liberal hate speech]] article. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::*''I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable.''
:::::::::*Congratulations, and ''good for you.'' Unfortuneatly, like the [[theory of evolution]], you can not impose your [[moral]]ity on me, and ''force'' me to accept the [[political spectrum theory]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

[unindenting] Well, this very site says the two terms are often used interchangably, and I have no idea what evolution and imposition of morality have to do with anything, so we'll let that bit rest. So I'll ask the questions I'd like to see addressed, and I'll number them to make it easy:
:1. What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal, as used in this case?
:2. How is Phelps a leftist? What specific opinions does he hold that make him such?
:3. If he is not a liberal, why is he in the liberal activist category, and used as an example of liberal hate speech?
I'll wait for a reply. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:57, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Here it is, Troll:

* BillyFranco (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:57, 23 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:51, 22 October 2007) [6]
* Briantrust (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 20:35, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 15:54, 19 October 2007) [3]
* AuH2O (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 16:34, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:59, 20 October 2007) [3]
IP: 24.29.72.31 Schenectady, NY,United States

Here is yet another shining example of liberal [[deceit]]. They cannot even argue honestly. They need socks to hide their dishonesty.

Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT) 
:<RobS high fives TK>; By thier fruits ye shall know them. Defenders & apologists is usually a dead give away. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist? (Edit Break)==

I despise Liberals but I have to agree with this loonie leftie this time, Phelps is definetly not a liberal even though he was (or possibly still is) a member of the Democratic Party. Besides what's wrong with protesting homosexuality anyways? I just think he carries it too far thats all --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

ahaha, typical liberal behaviour lol. Still though, I don't think Phelps is a liberal. He certainly isn't conservative either but calling him a liberal when he clearly isn't just makes Conservapedia look bad.--[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 17:59, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Did you at all read the material RobS provided? --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:13, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Not yet, I'll take a look at it and make my decision on Phelps' political views then --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:25, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I've taken a look at some of the things Rob has said, Phelps is or was a democrat but he is liberal only in name. His views are not liberal at all. I don't care what he says about homosexuality, it is a sin after all, Phelps just goes a little too nutty over it. My issue with him is the disrespect of American soldiers and his criticism of Bush. Bush is in no way a "fag-enabler" and is quite critical of homosexuality. Phelps is not firing on all cylinders though, thats for sure. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with Konserva... the guy above me, Phelps doesn't really qualify as a leftist/liberal. I mean, if he joined the Republican party, would we even be discussing this? There are probably quite a few rogues if we look hard enough into each party's details. maybe Charles Manson believed in a weak federal government and strong gun ownership rights. Does that alone make him a Conservative? At the end of the day, I think the blush is off his liberal democrat rose. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 18:49, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*It is pretty easy, as RobS says, to get people to reveal themselves! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, I will say I'm happy he's on their side. ;) [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 19:36, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
::::We should probably give credit to the watchdog organizations that single out and trash Phleps, it gives them credibility and balance, shows they are capable of broadminded thinking, and not mindless partisan trolls. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives. While I don't think Phelps is a liberal, his anti-war activities and support of Castro make him exempt from being classified as a conservative. I don't think Phelps falls neatly into either category and both liberals and conservatives are accusing him of being in the other camp because nobody wants him --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:05, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
*''If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives.''
:*They've obviously done that. This is why CP exists, this is closely related to one of our core missions, to counter these slanders of conservatives & conservative views by leftist ideological slander factories. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:09, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree, the media has a terrible liberal bias along with these watchdog groups. Phelps is delusional, he is neither liberal or conservative. I still think we should leave political labels out of the description (other than his support for Al Gore which is documented fact), it will just make Conservapedia look bad and give those whiney liberals something else to complain about --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
:Where does the media get thier impressions and opinion about Phelps? From these watchdog organizations -- you never would have heard of Phelps otherwise. Then the media & watchdog organizations also are actively engaged in an agenda, pushing [[gay rights]] and the [[homosexual agenda]], for example. Where does the opposition to this agenda come from? Church people. Who is Phelps & what is his organization? He's a preacher & preaches at a church. ''Voila!'' We have more right-wing, neofascist, hate-mongering Christain Coalition homophobic bigots that need to be exterminated.

:Sorry, his views are Democrat, on the left, and quite in the tradition of stupid, pointless, [[liberal activism]] designed for no other reason than to get people angry, and draw publicity. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:22, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because someone is democrat doesn't mean that they are liberal. Bob Novak was a democrat --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:31, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

*Bob Novak is and was pretty liberal on many things, so a poor example. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:45, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob Novak liberal? I don't find him that liberal. He is pro-Iraq war and anti-socialized-medicine. Perhaps he is not as conservative as most Republicans but he is certainly more conservative than the vast majority of democrats and some Republicans too. Also Al and Tipper Gore weren't always as liberal as they claim they are today. They were both in favour of censoring violent and explicit lyrics of rappers and Al Gore was anti-homosexual at one point. They only distanced themselves from Phelps when it became politically expedient. They didn't mind his money though. Still the point is as much as a nut as Phelps is, he isn't really a liberal and it is misleading to label him that. He is opposed to the homosexual agenda, is antiabortion, antievolution, and is religious. While he may share the anti-war sentiment of the left, his reasons for doing so are completely different. I think it is misleading to label him a leftist and we don't want to be guilty of bias like Wikipedia is --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 13:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maybe I need to teach a class or something, helping liberals do parody of conservatives. :S --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

You think Phelps is actually a liberal pretending to hate homosexuals to make conservatives look bad? I don't think he's intelligent enough to think of such a scheme. Liberals are usually pretty stupid. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:25, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Phelps is a Demon, not a Human. Important difference. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:45, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
==Fred Phelps is NOT left-wing==
The "Fred Phelps a closet liberal" source is merely a discussion in relation to an article, it is not a valid source and should be removed. The left support gays and anti-homosexuality adovocates clearly belong on the right whether they are democrat or republican. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Do all left-wingers [[fascism|goosestep]] to the [[gay agenda]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::They Pretty much do, liberalism and homosexuality go hand in hand, stupid liberals. Talk about Groupthink hahahaha --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:45, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought liberalism was the [[big tent]]? You mean everyone has to tow the party line, and there is no tolerance for [[diversity]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:29, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Liberals are very intolerant of conservative viewpoints. While they are tolerant of nearly all religions (except Christianity) they are very intolerant of anyone who criticizes homosexuality or political correctness. Liberals are highly ideological. Trust me, I come from a country full of these pinkos --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 21:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Does it really matter? ==

Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous. Neither of them like him. The whole political spectrum wouldn't mind a meteorite taking out the Westboro Baptist Church compound (preferably with the whole congregation/family inside) It's deceptive and ridiculous to try to associate him with anyone as a means of discrediting them: Democrats hate him, Baptists hate him, Christian fundamentalists hate him, the ACLU hates him. Gays hate him, US soldiers hate him, Mary Cheney hates him, Swedes hate him, Al Gore hates him, 9/11 victims hate him. Who knows, '''maybe God Hates Fred Phelps'''. So please, have some '''common sense''' and remove the deceptive references to leftist, liberal, and the anti-war movement. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:13, 8 November 2007 (EST)

P.S. One of the blog links is broken.
:Rob, your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Phelps&diff=330569&oldid=330497 removal] of my remarks against Fred Phelps was totally uncalled for and not remotely related to policy. {{tl|Remove personal remark}} is for attacks on fellow editors, not going after the subject of an article. From what I've seen on Conservapedia, going after a [[Hillary Rodham Clinton|subject]] is acceptable anywhere. No personal attacks itself isn't even well enforced, for that matter. For example, you told someone to "get a chiropractor to help get your foot out of your mouth" on [[Talk:Al Gore]]
::Oops, forgot my sig yesterday [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 22:41, 15 November 2007 (EST)

''Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous.''
Seconded - ''(the following is reposted, since it seems to have escaped the sysops' attention. Apologies.)''
As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:14, 15 November 2007 (EST)

=="Fred Phelps is a leftist anti-homosexual behavior activist and liberal Democrat"==

Original post by [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] on the [[Talk:Main Page|Main Page Talk]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)

''Since the article is locked, and several people have appealed for it to be changed on the talk page but ignored, I thought it best to put it here in order to garner some sort of consensus. Is Fred Phelps a Liberal? Picketing funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because their country supposedly supports the 'homosexual agenda' is markedly illiberal. It needs change. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 16:54, 14 December 2007 (EST)''

Here, also, is the ensuing discussion on the main page. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:''As a veteran, I find Fred Phelps' actions to be reprehensible and despicable. The very freedom that allowed him and his ilk to protest in that manner was provided by the life of the soldier he's protesting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:58, 15 December 2007 (EST)''

::''Nobody likes [[Fred Phelps]], we know that. But that doesn't mean he can be branded a [[liberal]] just for being despicable - does it? Apparently he has some history with the [[Democratic Party]], but his actual views don't seem very "liberal Democrat" to me. Perhaps he doesn't really fit into any political category? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)
:::''Even if he was a staunch Republican and conservative, there is absolutely no call for his actions. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
::''Agreed (though I hope it didn't seem that I was trying to imply he was!) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:30, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''In light of Andy's recent comments about non-linear political alignment, I would recommend that the "liberal" statement be redacted, and something to the effect of "Fred Phelps' political alignment seems to fall outside of any political category". --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 16:07, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''Given that advancing the homosexual agenda is a defining characteristic of Democrats and Liberals, it's hard to see how being so opposed to homosexuals would make him a Democrat or a Liberal. I looked over the article on him, and it said he did run to be the democrat nominee but didn't win. Maybe there are races where he did win the nomination, but just running doesn't mean the democrats support him. I mean, I would never call Ron Paul a republican but here he is running as one.[[User:TRipp|TRipp]] 16:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''''

:Another example why any moralistic person should avoid this site like a plague. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== The word "leftist" should be removed from the first sentence ==

It is fine to characterize him as democrat, since this is documented, but characterizing him as a "leftist" is far from documented, or universally accepted. If there are people that feel that is the case, then it is worth a section in the article, however placing a controversial and undocumented piece of information in the first sentence, discredits the article as a whole.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-12-30T04:01:26Z

PhineasBogg: /* Organization */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::'''"The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system"'''
:: Huh? I doubt this is true, but if it is it is an example of enforced [[politically correct]] speech and nothing more. I ''never'' heard of "C.E." until about 1996, and even then in 1996 it was only in the context of a [[pagan]] writer openly hostile to the [[Christian]] basis of Western culture. If it is in common usage today, I would ask why, who decreed that it should be in common usage, who is promoting it, and what their real agenda is? "C.E." is a [[neologism]]. It was not in significant usage prior to the past few years, and probably not used at all before the 1990s. Use of neologisms is bias. I would go so far as to say that anything that came into common usage after about 1988, when the political correctness movement started becoming a significant force affecting the culture, is suspect because of the probable influence of [[multiculturalism]] and other aspects of the P.C. movement, and should be questioned at best and in most cases not used at all. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 22:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:" 'C.E.' is a [[neologism]]." That's true, and it's also true that "Common Era" dating catches on mainly with people who wish to remove references to Christ from daily life. (Laughably futile, as the date itself - still a reference to Christ's birth - is absolutely ingrained in the system.) Still, though prefer to continue using "A.D." and "B.C." because I see no reason to change, some tiny percentage of Wiki articles use "C.E." merely reflecting that a certain percentage of the population prefers that system.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of [[liberal education]] and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.

::::I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.

::::Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

::This is a great example of the danger of ellipses. Maybe it was different when whoever wrote this, but here's what it says now: "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity." This is a true statement that few CPers would argue with. Young Earth creationism is mentioned in the next sentence, which makes this "quote" pathetically misleading and its attempted point laughably meaningless. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 15:08, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life![[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Although this is the wrong place to bring this up, 'Alloco1' is right - the wikipedia page for 'Jesus H. Christ' mentions that the phrase is considered blasphemy.

== Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible ==

Terry, thank you for the reply; I will address the issues line by line.

To begin, I suggested that the nature of the Bible as a moral document makes reliance upon it as a historical or scientific document dubious at best, and a mis-characterization or overzealous cross-application, at worst. You reply that the Bible is good for any use, citing, of course, the Bible in reply: “every word written herein is properly instructive in any application” (2 Tim 3:15-:17). First, this is a circular argument, relying upon the Bible to confirm the veracity of… the Bible. Second, it’s a mis-characterization of the quote. The quote from the King James Version is:

{{cquote|All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.}}

Analyzing that quote, it actually backs up my perspective – this quote from Timothy asserts the applicability of the Bible to any moral question, and anything that “furnish[es] [man] unto all good works.” In essence, you prove my point: the cited authority confirms the Bible’s intention to be used as a moral treatise… nothing more.

And yet your assertion of universal applicability may be assailed from yet another angle. To paraphrase the hon. Justice Scalia, applying the Bible to foreclose inquiry into all fields of study – through a combination of your Timothy doctrine, and literalism – would essentially be the “dicta that ate the discoveries of man.” Your theory would advocate a holistic return to biblical law, biblical science, biblical medicine, and biblical life. I don’t know about you, but I certainly prefer my Excedrin to the Bible’s silence on the issue of headaches. Your construction, since it ends in absurdity, must fail.

And finally on this point, if the Bible was truly meant as applicable to all of life’s little problems, what must we make of Mark 16:18, which informs the “true believer” that he may drink poison without feeling its effects? A wise man will not test this statement, but will realize that it is intended as a figurative expression. However, according to you, since the Bible is applicable to any discipline, and must be accepted or rejected wholesale and literally, we are forced to conclude that true believers, like yourself, may drink poison unaffected. Would you like to test your faith? I don’t advise you to.

Your remaining arguments may be disposed of summarily. The fact of the Bible’s historicity on some counts ‘’cannot ‘’ be extrapolated to its historicity on ‘’’all’’’ counts. It has recently been proven that Herodotus’ account of obscure points of Italian history (that the Etruscans traveled to Italy from Asia, and were not native Italians) is correct, contrary to the findings of earlier ethnographers/historians/anthropologists. By your argument, since Herodotus was here vindicated, we must assume that all of his other findings are correct too… and yet no Cyclops has ever been seen in Egypt, nor has a phoenix been found. Perhaps it’s best to agree that the Bible is not a historical document, regardless of its truth on point in some circumstances, but is instead a moral treatise, and a valuable one at that.

And finally, I cannot believe that you would argue that because you have never observed evolution between species, it must not have occurred! For by your reasoning, neither God, nor you, actually exist! After all, I have seen neither of you.

I await your reply.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 15:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
All right, here is my reply in one word: Nonsense.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. And in the process you deny what the [[Bible]] is. Did you bother to read the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]], and how He repeatedly alluded to the creation of the world--in six days? Six days of the familiar type, that is--not six "geological ages" or whatever the pretended flavor of the month.

I challenge you to find ''one single historical incident'' that the Bible records in any detail, in which the Bible got it wrong in any detail that it expressed. And you know what? St. [[Paul]] was bitten by a poisonous [[snake]] on [[Malta]] and felt no bad effect. Or didn't you read? And beyond that: the word about the poison means that you don't have to fear that which brings death to the body. To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of [[God]].

Which, of course, might explain why Christians consistently defended and repeated their testimony to the things that they had seen--including the appearance of [[Jesus Christ]] after His execution--even while the [[lion]]s were tearing at their flesh.

I'll go further: a holistic return to Biblical law, science, and medicine might not be such a bad idea after all. Dr. Joseph Mercola ([http://www.mercola.com/]) recently stated that conventional [[medicine]] is good primarily for diagnosis and the treatment of acute trauma--and little else. And as a doctor myself, I have come to discover that he is correct. And I am in a direct position to know: I recently lost my wife to colorectal [[cancer]]. Her doctors had to admit when pressed that they had ''no'' confidence in their own prescribed courses of treatment--and another doctor told me flat-out that conventional medicine has no good treatment for colorectal cancer--at least not when it has spread to the liver.

On the other hand, I have conversed with the relatives of people who had cancer that was far less advanced--and they achieved ''cures'' through nothing more expensive or complicated than simply changing their diets to a diet that has a Biblical basis.

The only reason I am bothering to dignify your screed above with this reply is that I would not have any other reader of this page ignorant of the extent to which I stand ready to defend [[Bible|Scripture]].

There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
edit to add:First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.

That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.

But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:
#What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
#The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
#Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?

I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, ''res ipsa loquitor''.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
I concede nothing, first of all. Rather, your post barely rates the dignity of any kind of reply--and a point-by-point rebuttal is a dignity you have not earned.

I would like to answer your questions, however:

#A "Christian theocratic state" will only come to pass when [[Jesus Christ]] Himself returns to [[earth]] to set it up and run it. In that sense, of course that would be better than the New Baghdad Caliphate that [[Osama bin Laden]] wants to set up, because [[God]]--in the Person of Christ--''would'' be in charge, and not some pretended proxy with galloping paranoia.
#In your second point, you are essentially saying that American culture, democracy, and founding principles were and always have been secular. Only someone having a profound ignorance of American history would believe that. I refer you to Benjamin F. Morris' ''Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States'', now back in print after 140 years. And I repudiate the notion that "progressive thinking" has made America great. If anything, "progressive thinking" is dragging America down. I sometimes wonder whether the reason why America bears no mention in the book of Revelation is that America is to go up in smoke and flame and tear gas, and the forces of the Beastly regime ({{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=13}})--in all its secular inglory--are to [[parachute]] into America's largest cities "to restore order," induct all American residents into the New Secular Humanistic Order, and carve up America like a roast duck, to borrow a phrase from Sir [[Winston Churchill]].
#Yes, there would be a place for non-fundamentalist persons. It is just that that place would not include a position of power that forbids public prayer, proposes an anti-religious test for public office, forces taxpayers to pay for atheistic "education", [[abortion]], and other such bad policies, limits the term of a marriage to seven years (as a certain German member-of-Parliament has actually proposed), allows a man to divorce his wife for no better reason than that she will not grant him sexual favors on demand, allows a man to order the [[Terri Schiavo|death of his wife so that he can be with his "sweet patootie,"]] compels the military to allow open [[Homosexuality|homosexuals]] to serve therein, ''et cetera ad nauseam''.

And by the way: the rumbling you hear is the clearing of a Divine throat when you of all people, speak to ''me'' of all people, about prayer.

More to the point, don't talk to me about modern medicine. I know what it is capable of, and I know what it is ''in''capable of. You don't mess around with the Grand Design of the Master. But that is what modern medicine does. To give you an example: I got a mere two lectures on nutrition--and you'd think that doctors, of all people, would understand that the food you eat is as important to your good health as is the air you breathe. For all the training doctors get in human nutrition, you'd think the hoped-for future is one in which people simply take pills to get their daily ration of protein, carbs, and fats, same as they take vitamin pills today.

But of course, you never met a doctor who wasn't an evolutionist. And more to the point: your confidence in science is poignantly misplaced. I suggest a bit of classical literature to give you a sobering lesson on how science can go horribly wrong: ''Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus'' by Mary Shelley.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Dude, Frankenstein is a novel, as in... fictional. Sure, maybe science ''can'' go horribly wrong, but religion ''does'' go horribly wrong. Crusades, justifying slavery, fundamentalism, et al. And those aren't fictional.

Terry, I didn’t think you would go this far, but I should have known better. I should have expected the Rapture to come in at some point. I would like to recapitulate for those just joining us, about the myriad uses of the Bible in human life. I believe that the Bible is a good moral compass – after all, “do unto others…” is a timeless aphorism, and a fine creed upon which to live. Similar lessons of generosity are obviously important. As the foundation of a religion, then, the teaching of Jesus are quite fine indeed.

However, I confine the relevance of any religious text to these moral/ethical/religious boundaries. Terry, however, goes a bit farther:
# Science: where observed facts conflict with the Bible, these should be willfully ignored, debated away with poor, easily refuted pseudo-arguments, and in every other sense marginalized. Cognitive activity on the source of human origins is appropriately limited when it transgresses beyond the Bible, and potentially tramples on points settled by this text.
# Law: the law should freeze societal norms as they existed two-thousand years ago. Full return to this system is favored, presumably complete with stonings for adultery (which is defined as lust), and theft.
# Politics: from Terry’s latest post, we learn that human political affairs are irrelevant – after all, the Rapture is around the corner! The United States will soon be laid waste by the loving army of God… after all, a two-thousand year old allegorical tale about one disciple’s hate for the Roman Empire says so. This idea actually passes beyond superficiality to become full-blown dangerous idiocy.
# Religion: the Bible explains all of religion, at face value, and requires no deeper quest for knowledge than a cursory read-through. After all, literalism will supply all the answers, all the time. So much for the liberal arts (I guess the term does have the word “liberal” in it).
# Medicine: see “science.”

In short, the answer to all of life’s questions – all of those issues which God endowed us with the faculties to resolve – are answered (and answered definitively, without further need of inquest) by the Bible. The life of the mind is justly circumscribed by the four corners of a six-thousand-plus year old document which makes no attempt to actually speak to some of these issues. Exploration beyond these lines is at best valueless, but at worst ungodly, blasphemous and sinful.

Terry, this actually saddens me. Religion ought to be a transformative experience, liberating the human soul to allow the mind to expand more fully, of the type explored by the early Church fathers. But your “faith” rewrites Christianity into a religion of repose, where all questions are answered, and humanity need now only sit and wait for the next step. Humanity, under this creed, would stagnate: the dying Keats described himself as a man whose name was “writ in water” – impermanent, fleeting, and inconsequential. To you, the entire human race, and indeed the human mind, might as well be writ in water, with such control and self-determination given up to an inflexible document.

What shallow faith, if so it can even be called! To think that God could be found more in blind obedience than in inquest and discovery! How… limiting!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Well, let [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] be sad, if that's what he wants to be.

#I repudiate the notion that I am ignoring observed fact. ''What observed fact?'' The facts that ''I'' have observed is that many proponents of evolution have committed fraud, trying to show the existence of missing links that are still missing. [[Piltdown Man]], anyone? I also observe that, for the first time, proponents of evolution think they have scored a point by declaring that evolution is not a random walk. Well, you could have fooled a lot of people who have read [[Richard Dawkins]]' books.
::I tried to stay out of this, but Darwinian evolution was never portrayed as a random walk. At least not by supporters. I hope I can stay out of the rest of your discussion, and continue watching. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
#The particularly harsh penalties in Leviticus, for example, are in the context of a particular group of people who actually ''had the privilege of having [[God]] in a sample of His Glory actually residing in their camp.'' With that privilege came a tremendous burden. You do not approach a Holy God in the wrong way. Thankfully, [[Jesus Christ]] provided a bridge--and a different mandate to His followers. We do not ''set ourselves apart'' from the world, quite as the ancient Hebrews under [[Moses]] did--but we do refuse to participate in the world's muddy customs. And that's where the "societal norms" come in: those are ways of relating to one another that have stood the test of time. The decline of those "norms" has brought nothing but grief and a constant quest for a satisfaction that never comes--or when it does, it lasts no longer than does a [[drug]] fix.
#Yes, indeed, the [[Bible]] does contain prophecies that remain unfulfilled. Chief among them is that a one-world federation will take power. But it will have nothing to do with God's army. That battle will come later--at a site that [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] once declared to be a wonderful place to have a battle. But before then--if anyone reading this seriously thinks that the [[United States of America]] has become a dictatorial regime under its current President, [[George W. Bush]], let them think again. A leader is coming who will make [[Adolf Hitler]] look like a beginner, and [[Nero]] look like a total piker. Revelation was no allegory for attacks against [[Rome]]--it was a memorandum of things to come.
#Of course the [[Bible]] explains everything. And what does it profit a man to "explore" a smelly swamp?
#As I have said before--and as the archives of this page will show--I am better qualified to talk about what modern medicine can and cannot do, should and should not do, than are some people who pretend to be champions of scientific and medical knowledge.

And as for Frankenstein--well, even Mary Shelley would have been horrified at the spectacle of [[abortion]] on demand, high-tech designer babies, "treatments" for [[cancer]] that burn your body from the inside out and end up failing anyway, and certain research orientations that are just flat-out unmentionable on a family-friendly site. I further maintain that [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]]'s confidence in science exactly mirrors that of the proud and arrogant Baron Frankenstein who decided to "bestow animation on lifeless matter" and ended up creating the eventual murderer of his wife and many of his loved ones.
----
Off of your #1, though, I wasn't aware that a few failures in the intellectual history of a movement impugned the entire thing. Of course we can cross apply that logic, and Christianity sure ends up looking pretty badly, after people like Eric Rudolph are factored in.

As for the rest, I really think enough has been said here. Your arguments have been broken down for the world to see how ridiculous they really are, and will speak for themselves, and conjure their own rebuttals in the mind of any reasonably sane person. Please enjoy your intellectually dead life.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexuality==
Wikipedia has separate articles on Homosexuality, Gay, Queer, LGBT, Homophile, Lesbian, Gay pride, LGBT social movements, Pro-gay slogans and symbols, Men who have sex with men, Queer theory, Gay Liberation, Coming out, Gay slang, and about 50 other articles on the same subject, instead of one single article on [[Homosexuality]]. One single article is all that is needed on a non-normative fringe subculture. Giving that one topic 50+ separate articles smacks of promotion and of implying unwarranted normativity to the phenomenon. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:This site has about 10 articles on homosexuality. What should that tell you?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:Parrothead, from what I can tell that's a pretty typical number of articles for a subject. For a comparison, a quick look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Christianity Christianity Portal] shows that there are thousands of articles on Christianity, most of which quite substantial. A search for "Christian" returns 4.7 times as many articles as this ''entire wiki''. They range from the obvious (Presbyterianism, Jesus) to the greatest of detail (ecclesiastical ring, Geneva Bible, Augustine of Hippo, Psalms 28).
:Before I get accused of a cover up, yes, there is also an extensive portal for LGBT. Combining the results of <code>homosexual</code> and <code>gay</code> and subtracting the quotient of <code>homosexual gay</code> and two gives a mere 1.4 times the size of this wiki. Of course, search results are fuzzy (Hans ''Christian'' Andersen, Enola ''Gay''), but you get the point. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:59, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::I was commenting on Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. If Conservapedia has a few articles with a leftist bias they need correcting too to make them NPOV, but in any case Wikipedia is clearly even more leftist biased than this encyclopedia ever will be. And Conservapedia does have a few articles with problems, mostly due to trolls from the far left who want to see this project fail. My position is this: For any NPOV encyclopedia, [[Gay]] should be a disambiguation article and nothing more, disambiguating to [[happiness]] and [[homosexuality]] as well as things like [[Enola Gay]]. The traditional meaning of happiness should be first and not any neologisms such as it's use as a synonym for homosexuality. Queer should likewise disambiguate to [[strange]] and [[homosexuality]], again with strange first on the list and the neologism use a definite second. "LGBT" and "Men who have sex with men" should just plain redirect to homosexuality. Wikipedia's use of "LGBT", a [[politically correct]] "'wimmin' first" construction, instead of the more commonly used "GLBT" has also not gone unnoticed. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm going to skip the response to MichaelS's comment. The gay article focuses on the uses of the word "gay," both historical and modern. That's why the original meaning is defined in '''the second sentence''' and there is an etomology section. A link to both a disambigation page and the Homosexuality article is kindly provided in the italicized text about the main article. Basically the same thing happens over at the Queer article, except this time the definition that means strange is given in the first sentence.
:::Terms like GLBT/LGBT and Men who have sex with men are not redirected to homosexuality for a good reason. First of all, most of the terms you listed are not synonymous. GLBT includes transsexuals and bisexuals, and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual. The other problem is that reasonably good coverage of the subjects takes a separate article for each one. If all of the articles in Wikipedia on the subject of homosexuality were put into one article then it would take Internet2 to get a decent download speed. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 17:10, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: ''"and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual"'' ?!? No, men who have sex with men is the very definition of homosexuality. I think what you mean here is it includes men who don't wrap themselves in the dominant "gay culture", to wit: rainbow flags, gay pride parades, drag shows, calling each other 'honey', feminine mannerisms and lispy speech, over the top campy attitude, obsession with divas, preference for Abba and the Pet Shop Boys over, say, Lynyrd Skynyrd and Hank Williams Jr., strong propensity toward mocking Christianity and treating it as something ridiculous, and obsessive identity politics and political correctness. Doesn't matter. If a man is having sex with another man he is, ''by definition'', a homosexual. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 07:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

*Postal, all are behaviors that are abominations before [[The Lord]]! You are at the wrong place if you think we are going to be held hostage by [[Wikipedia]] politically correct, revisionist terms. I invite you to make positive contributions, new articles, edits to them, and not on the talk pages! This is the fastest growing educational site on the Internet! Please stop this endless discussion over what the word "is" is, okay? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

If we have not done so already, we should put to rest the notion that "men who have sex with men aren't [[homosexual]]". This is a typical part of the [[homosexual agenda]], to spread confusion about the subject.

A "[[homosexual act]]" is what is forbidden by the Bible. Whether or not the motivation to commit this sin stems from upbringing or some (unknown!) innate factor is not important. If you are a "born [[kleptomaniac]]", you still have an obligation to resist the impulse to steal. Otherwise, societies everywhere will lock you up.

If homosexual behavior is due to your being crazy (as in [[kleptomania]]), you should be locked up in an [[insane asylum]]. If it's due to your wilfull defiance of what is right, you should be locked up in a [[prison]]. (That is, in any society whose laws derive from the Bible; everyone seems to approve of Islamic [[sharia]] law, so why not do the same thing here in Christian America?)

Whether or not there is validity to the notions that homosexuals are defined by [[sexual identity]], or [[sexual orientation]] or [[sexual preference]], the fact remains that homosexual ''behavior'' is sinful. When the temptation comes, you must dispel it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:Now that you've beaten a straw man, soaked it in gasoline, and burnt it on top of the highest hill in your general vicinity...

:The MSM article was just an example, it was not my core argument. If you would like to argue against me, I suggest you instead argue against these three sentences:

:#Wikipedia uses the Gay and Queer articles in a proper manner by giving an in-depth explanation of use of the words, both original and modern.
:#Decent coverage of the subjects related to homosexuality could not comfortably fit into a single article.
:#Some terms, such as '''L'''esbian '''G'''ay '''B'''isexual '''T'''ransgendered, are separate concepts and therefore require separate articles. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Please note that I did not mean ''should be locked up'' to be taken literally. Someday, when I'm running for Senate, this quote will be used against me. *sigh* I should have said ''bears the guilt'' instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Glad to hear you say that. Remember, locking up homosexuals has been tried before. I can think of one notorious example.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:29, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

==No Entry for liberal==

This is a continuation of the currently archived discussion under the same name. The original can be found under archive 9.

Ed Poor, there are many fallacies in your argument. 1st, you claim that Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal article, but it does. It has a page that references to many different schools of liberal thought. Yet you dismiss the obvious fact that it doesn't dismiss the existence of liberals, but actually goes so far as to list the many different liberal ideologies. How is this denying that liberals exist?

2nd, you claim that Archibalds' assertion that liberalism has seen many different changes throughout history is irrelevant because he should have realized "Mr. Schlafly" meant contemporary U.S. liberals. First off, how is Archibald supposed to know that? Second, if he were to know that then why do you choose to ignore the article (which I've mentioned) entitled Modern American Liberalism, which is listed only 4th on the liberal page?

3rd, how can you assume Wikipedia is an American literary institution that must abide by standards of the U.S. Democratic Party in it's usage of the term liberal, when you yourself have been forced to admit that the term liberal has many different geographic and time-based meanings? Do you decide to ignore the non-U.S. contemporary definitions of liberal and simply have liberal refer to modern U.S. liberalism? It does sound like there is an agenda here, but it's not on Wikipedia's part.

Lastly, why is Archibald a liberal? Is it because he is disagreeing with you? I'm just curious - since you seem to be the throwing the name around. I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings, but it doesn't mean I'm about to jump aboard the anti-Wikipedia "liberal" agenda bandwagon. Wikipedia, as a literary encyclopedia which covers worldly topics, is right on target here, and I see very little bias. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 19:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no

:This is a redirect to a "disambiguation page". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

:I would have thought that wikipedia didn't have a term for liberal because it is a world wide encyclopaedia and so has liberalism disambiguation. Also the brief definition given as evidence Wikipedia is biased is clearly not a NPOV and liberals in many countries think differently. Many liberal political parties in other parts of the world don't support tax payer paid abortion (whatever is wrong with that) and think that gun ownership should be a personal choice.
:Sweden for example has national service and at the end people keep the guns. Most people would agree that Sweden is one of the most liberal countries in the world if not the most liberal.[[User:Monkey998|Monkey998]] 23:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
What's the difference between redirecting Buddhist to Buddhism and Liberal to Liberalism? It's not like they're doing anything to hide the Liberal entry - I mean, otherwise the redirect wouldn't exist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia ==

I am the developer of the [http://www.christianubuntu.com Ubuntu Christian Edition] which is a Linux distribution geared towards Christians. Recently Wikipedia removed our page and replaced it with a redirect to a list of Ubuntu based Linux derivatives. Ironically almost all of the other derivatives still have their own Wikipedia entries. They cited non-notability as the reason for the deletion/redirect. However, even they admit that this was "against the public opinion. It is also quite obvious that Ubuntu Christian Edition has gained plenty of notability to warrant its own page on Wikipedia.

Below are some links to the ongoing discussion on the Ubuntu Forums and the, now locked, AfD discussion.

[http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=567836 Ubuntu Forums Discussion] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 [Locked AfD Discussion]]

I would really like to have this added to the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page. I would also like to have a page for Ubuntu Christian Edition. I believe if you take a brief look you will quickly see that it deserves its own page.

Thanks, Jereme Hancock--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:07, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know anything about this, but suggest you post some entries here explaining what Ubuntu (what's the word mean?) is all about. Then others will revise and comment. This may be an example of bias on Wikipedia, but I'd like to hear others comment on this here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, will do!--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

'''What is Ubuntu''' 
Ubuntu is a community developed, linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more. Ubuntu is free software. You can learn more about what this means by reading our licensing. 
'''What is Ubuntu Christian Edition''' 
Ubuntu Christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support. 
'''What does Ubuntu mean?''' 
Ubuntu is an African word meaning ‘Humanity to others’, or ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’. 

That is the basics. Thanks, Jereme--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: Sounds interesting. You might elaborate on the Christian version, and how it differs from the main version, in [[ubuntu]]. I'm intrigued.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
::So am I. I am a Linux user myself--except that I use Fedora.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:20, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

But Wikipedia deletes non-notable articles all the time. Does this really count as an example of bias in Wikipedia? I admit the bias there is often worse than I thought, but do they actually consistently discriminate against Christians? Sorry, but I think Wikipedia may have been right in this case, unless there is some evidence to show otherwise. Besides, I think they have experts about this sort of thing there (?).
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:56, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: This article was notable by their own claimed rules for notability. You can see what the article looked like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_Christian_Edition&oldid=162397757 here]. The article includes at least 4 sources. The deletion "discussion" can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 here]. The person who deleted is a clear liberal with an anti-Christian bias. He brags on his user page that he has donated to [[GLAAD]] the organization at the forefront of gay agenda. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:10, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Are you sure about that liberal part? According to his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alkivar#MY_ADMITTED_BIASES user page], he is a conservative libertarian, voted for Bush in '04 because he hated Bush less than Kerry, is a member of the NRA, and leans pro-life. He disclosed that he often disagrees with GLAAD, but donates because "homophobia is still rampant in the United States." He doesn't state a religion, but his edit history doesn't show a history of editing a significant number of religion-related articles, pro or anti. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::: You are saying that he gave money to further the [[homosexual agenda]] and he is somehow conservative? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 20:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I apologize, I think I may have too freely given Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt, yet again. There doesn't seem to have been a clear reason for deletion. Off topic, though, do you believe that deviating from standard Conservative views on even '''one''' issue automatically exempts one from being a "true conservative"? If that were the case than no wonder there are so many liberals... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:54, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

: No, of course not, but giving money to GLAAD is extreme. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 21:13, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: For closure's sake: I suppose I understand where you're coming from, then. At the very least he would be considered a highly unorthodox [[conservative]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
*I don't really know. Perhaps we should at least invite them to make a page here. Feebasfactor, could you set that up? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:05, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Sure thing. Upon reflection, they deserve it. :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:33, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== possible bias ==

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps"
--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, that's typical [[liberal]] bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by [[user:KalleF|KalleF]]

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

== Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups ==

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.
:I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".
:Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.
:However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:::My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.
:::Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles ([[Atheism]], [[Homosexuality]], [[Theory of Evolution]], etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).
:::Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like [[placement bias]]) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated info ==
Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?[[User:KalleF|KalleF]] 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. A shorter list of more significant "biases" would do more to convince me than the paranoid diatribe currently available.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia in its article Politics of Eritrea clearly describes the country as a "one-party state", so quit the garbage about Wikipedia refusing to recognize the fact.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:18, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about '''1 1/2 hours''' with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his '''one''' previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

*Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.
::And there is a factual error in the entry: It did ''not'' take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins#Richard_Dawkins Talk page]
::That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have [[Special:Contributions/Stephenblack|User:Stephenblack]] editing [[Stephen Black]] and [[First Stone Ministries]] ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite [[User talk:Stephenblack|delighted]] about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== grammatical note ==

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], who's official website..." should read "whose official website." [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:And Committe should be Committee. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did." ==

Ouch. Is this a POV statement? Merely associating one with the John Birch Society is ''worse'' than McCarthy-esque destruction of someone's career and life because of perceived communist undertones? Knowing Conservapedia's user base wouldn't association with the JBS be flattery?[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 10:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps it should also be noted that three of those examples, as they remain in the present tense, are patently FALSE and have been so for some time. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:18, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Wikipedia removed the smear against the [[Democrat]], the deceased person and the baseball player. It left the smear against the most influential conservative group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::While I disagree that the association between the John Birch Society and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons really constitutes a "smear" (regardless of the publication date, the assertion is properly attributed, and at the time Paul W. Leithart, a President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, was in fact a member of the JBS), I will leave the definitions of what text and deeds at Wikipedia constitute "bias" up to you. I appreciate the adjusting of the tense in the example to be more factually and objectively correct. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Feebasfactor, as in our discussion about [[Richard Dawkins]], where you missed the point about how the purchase of a professorship is inappropriate, you seem to miss the point here. Guilt-by-association is wrong regardless of whether it is true. In fact, it is '''more''' wrong if it is true!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I think I understand... The association is not an example of "bias" because it is factually incorrect, but rather because it is unnecessary and misleading, presenting "facts" in such a way as to imply a false relationship and paint an unflattering picture of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That seems to make sense; did I... get the point this time? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. It is "guilt by association" to smear one group based on the possibility that some of its members belong to another group found objectionable. Did you know that thousands of Democratic voters are communists???? Yet you won't see [[Wikipedia]] using guilt-by-association to smear [[liberals]]. Instead, the biased [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] only.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

I did some research on the accusations about the Henry Liddell article. Though Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 is used in many articles, it was not used in the Henry Liddell article. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Liddell&diff=3213370&oldid=3213308 edit] that first inserted the names and social distinctions of his grandparents wasn't from Encyclopedia Britannica. This first edit was made in 2005 by an anonymous IP shortly after the article was created. The IP address has not made any edits since. The accusation about Alice Liddell were moved up into the introduction in February. The grammar error was also fixed in February. Last week the years that he was dean at Christ Church were written into the article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 19:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

: We didn't say that Liddell was based on the Encyclopedia Britannica, just that many entries are. And how do you know those edits didn't come from the Encyclopedia Britannica???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:: I know because I looked at the edit history in detail, compared versions, and saw the exact points where each relative was added in (they weren't all added in at once). Fascinating things, edit histories. That and the paragraph isn't in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

==Interesting study of Wikipedians' political beliefs==
I studied the political beliefs of Wikipedians after reading that you said that they have a strong [[liberal]] bias. I found that, although it's mostly liberal, it's pretty evenly distributed ([http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Pol-access.PNG see graph]). This should be incorporated into the article. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:12, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:That's interesting and surprising. And as an engineer I'll take graphs over words anyday :) Could I ask the methodology involved? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:29, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: The graph makes it look like all three categories are comparable in size. They are actually vastly different in size. Factor size of the groups into this, and you'll see that the 3:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives as stated in the entry here is about right. The general [[U.S.]] public is 2:1 conservative-to-liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Andy's right that registered users vastly outnumber administrators and bureaucrats; in terms of quantity alone, the ratio of liberals to conservatives probably does approach 3:1. However, this study raises another interesting question: if Wikipedia's administrators and bureaucrats are surprisingly balanced in their political views, then why does Wikipedia seem to have such a [[liberal bias]]? Does this mean that the population of casual Wikipedia users is predominately [[liberal]]? In which case: how much is to blame on the sytem, and how much on the public? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:Are there really so few moderates among signed-in users? I'd be interested in the methodology as well.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 21:03, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I simply went by what users put on their userpages, so it's not completely accurate. Perhaps certain people with a particular belief tend to be less likely to pronounce it. That's definitely a downfall, but it's as accurate of a study as one can get limited resources.

Also, I don't find the bias too harsh. You should see what people put on Obama's and Clinton's pages. If Wikipedia was horribly biased, I wouldn't edit there, as I certainly find myself conservative. I think it's just that it's uncensored and open, which may make it more liberal.

However, if you researched for your facts, then I suppose you're correct. I just try to correct biases both ways everyday. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Another thing: as for the moderates in regular editors, I suppose they're more likely to put their beliefs on their userpages if they feel really strongly either way. And the opposite goes for admins/crats: they probably want to seem neutral, so make sure to state that they are if they are, and maybe not give their true beliefs to avoid conflict. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Why does this matter?==
I don't understand why enumerating the examples of bias in Wikipedia matters that much, obviously every person has a bias of some sort, so every article written in wikipedia or otherwise has some degree of personal opinion. The general idea I get from reading this article is that Wikipedia as an entity is responsible for this bias, which is obviously incorrect since its the users provide the information it contains. maybe I don't understand what Conservapedia is about but it seems that this list is mostly filled with either misleading facts, isolated incidents, or gossip that has no place in a proper Encyclopedia.[[User:Morgoth|Morgoth]] 00:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia doesn't admit its bias, and hence it is important to expose it. And, yes, groups or mobs can have biases too. Spend some time with the attendees at the Democratic National Convention and you'll notice they have a bias, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

::: It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia

==Heavy Promotion of Liberals in Inappropriate Places==
I hope I'm not missing anything here, but while the "Boy Scouts v. Dale" articles still promotes liberal Evan Wolfson, I could no longer find the claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'" - it appears to have been changed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale]. Should I look for the appropriate version in the article history? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:Aha, here it is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885] Compared to Conservapedia, I'm always suprised at how long it takes to fix these sorts of mistakes at Wikipedia. Then again, considering the political slant of the "mistakes" there, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: I updated this within minutes of this being pointed out here, and within weeks of the change on [[Wikipedia]]. That's quicker than the time it took [[Wikipedia]] to reduce (and not eliminate) its bias in that entry there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Upon rereading the unsigned comment above, it seems to agree that the [[liberal]] "mistakes" on [[Wikipedia]] are very, very slow in being corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do! :-) And sorry about the signature. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:45, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

: My apologies. I realized after posting that I completely misread your additional (unsigned) comment. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The ''disambiguation'' page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part.
--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, Order, the US does allow dual citizenships with some countries. I actually have a triple citizenship because both my parents are foreign nationals. Even so, the suggestion that "German-American" is a confusing term is plainly ridiculous. There are plenty groups that self identify as X-Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, and Irish-Americans leap to mind. In fact, here's a link to the [http://www.ugac.org/ German American Heritage Foundation]. Noone seems to think this term is confusing except you, Andy. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

: Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well
you know
that kind of seems like a load of crap
because it doesn't exist now
and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count ==

I just noticed this:
{{quotebox|29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included: 
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38] 
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39] 
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40] 
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41] 
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.}}
Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

#[[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#:*pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#:*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#:*the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#:*conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
#:In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each ''instance'' of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Another example of Wikipedia silliness ==

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BJAODN featured vandalism]? Also, both administrators and users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fools go berserk] on April Fools' Day instead of acting like [[Conservapedia|a real encyclopedia]] would - that is, to treat it like any other day. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Regarding April Fool's Day: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Are_you_working_on_the_Conservapedia_Page.3F Maybe not the best idea?] (Note: The link points to the section ''above'' the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Zeta - if we want to go there? ==

I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, but I'll ask anyway. [Ed. Note: remainder deleted based on application of our [[rules]]]

: You're right that it is a cesspit, and our adherence to higher standards than [[Wikipedia]] requires us to refrain from wading into every cesspit. For now, we'll pass on trying to clean up the cesspit you've identified, though I do not fault you for identifying it as such. I look forward to reviewing your substantive contributions here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Organization ==

This is a long and impressive list! I think it might benefit from organizing the points under headings like: "Anti-American Bias", "Anti-Christian Bias", "Anti-Conservative Bias", and so on. This could make it easier to navigate and more powerful.

If people are interesting in this the categries and which point goes where could be worked on the talk page and then a Sysop could unprotect the page briefly so points could be placed.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 22:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::Thanks for your help, Ed! I should clarify however, that I was not proposing the page be edited yet. I wanted some discussion to see what should go where first. For example, under what heading should the first point, about Butto being strong Pro-life be placed?--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Mathematics

2007-12-30T03:38:33Z

PhineasBogg: Fixed the link to group

'''Mathematics''' is the study and practice of rigorous inference about abstract structures. It includes many practical results concerning quantity and measure, such as calculations involving numbers, financial accounting, geometric construction of building, astronomical calculations, calendar dating, telling time, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc. but also more abstract issues such as establishing the conditions under which certain kinds of equations and formulas have solutions. [[Applied mathematics]] concerns the use of mathematical methods for practical purposes. [[Pure mathematics]] involves reasoning about abstract structures. The main areas are:

* [[Algebra]]. Broadly, speaking algebra concerns 'addition' and 'multiplication', but in the widest possible sense. The objects that are being added or multiplied can be numbers, as in [[Number theory]], but they can also can be more general structures such as [[matrix|matrices]], [[functions]], [[polynomials]], [[vectors]] or many others. Concentrating on addition and multiplication does not exclude subtraction or division, since subtraction is formally considered to be addition of an [[additive inverse]] and division is considered to be multiplication by a [[multiplicative inverse]]. That is, subtracting 3 from 2 is rigorously defined to adding the number -2 to 3. Minus two is called the additive inverse of +2. Similarly, dividing 3 by 2 is formally defined in terms of multiplying 3 by (1/2), where 1/2 is the multiplicative inverse of 2. Abstract algebra is the study of [[algebraic structures]] such as [[Group | groups]], [[Ring (mathematics)|rings]], and [[Field (mathematics)|fields]].

* [[Analysis]]. Analysis is concerned with limits and other infinite processes. This subject includes the theory of limits of sequences and series and all forms of [[calculus]], including the calculus of several variables, [[vector calculus]] and [[tensor calculus]]. Also included is [[numerical analysis]], the study of error propagation in algorithms carried out to finite precision. Additional topics in analysis include [[real analysis]] and [[complex analysis]].

* [[Geometry]] and [[Topology]]. Geometry was defined by [[Felix Klein]] as the study of [[invariants]] under [[group]]s of [[transformation]]s. For example, the [[Euclidean transformation]]s are [[translation]], [[rotation]] and [[reflection]]. The quantities that are not altered by these transformations are things like angles and distances, so these are the subjects of interest in [[Euclidean geometry]]. Other types of transformations, such as the [[affine transformation]]s, define other types of geometry. Topology is concerned with the connectedness of objects, rather than the distance between them. It is sometimes called 'rubber sheet geometry', as it concerns properties (that is, [[arc]]s between [[node]]s in [[network]]s) of objects that would be preserved even if a diagram of them were to be stretched or shrunk. Topology began with [[Leonard Euler]]'s consideration of the [[Königsberg Bridges Problem]], which also introduced [[Graph Theory]]. [[Beck's map of the London Underground]] in 1933 used a topological distortion of the locations of the subway stations in order to produce a more useful and artistic map. [[Differential geometry]] is a specialized field of its own.

* [[Logic]] and [[set theory]]. All of mathematics can be expressed in terms of [[set]]s. Sets are defined by a collection of [[axiom]]s called the [[Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms]]. One of the axioms, the [[Axiom of Choice]], has been the subject of much discussion.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Georg Cantor

2007-12-30T03:36:07Z

PhineasBogg:

Georg Cantor (1845-1918) was a German mathematician, best know for his contributions to the field of [[Set Theory]]. Perhaps his most important contribution, is his technique of '''Cantorian Diagonalization''', a method of showing that the [[real numbers]] are larger in [[cardinality]] than the [[integers]]. He is also know for his Cantor Set<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CantorSet.html</ref>.

==References==

<references/>

Georg Cantor

2007-12-30T03:35:42Z

PhineasBogg:

Georg Cantor (1845-1918) was a German mathematician, best know for his contributions to the field of [[Set Theory]]. Perhaps his most important contribution, is his technique of '''Cantorian Diagonalization''', a method of showing that the [[real numbers]] are larger in [[cardinality]] than the [[integers]]. He is also know for his <ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CantorSet.html Cantor Set</ref>.

==References==

<references/>

Georg Cantor

2007-12-30T03:34:52Z

PhineasBogg:

Georg Cantor (1845-1918) was a German mathematician, best know for his contributions to the field of [[Set Theory]]. Perhaps his most important contribution, is his technique of '''Cantorian Diagonalization''', a method of showing that the [[real numbers]] are larger in [[cardinality]] than the [[integers]]. He is also know for his [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CantorSet.html Cantor Set].

==References==

<references/>

Georg Cantor

2007-12-30T03:29:31Z

PhineasBogg:

Georg Cantor (1845-1918) was a German mathematician, best know for his contributions to the field of [[Set Theory]]. Perhaps his most important contribution, is his technique of '''Cantorian Diagonalization''', a method of showing that the [[real numbers]] are larger in [[cardinality]] than the [[integers]]. He is also know for his [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CantorSet.html Cantor Set].

Georg Cantor

2007-12-30T03:29:14Z

PhineasBogg: A short biography -- feel free to add more details.

Georg Cantor (1845-1918) was a German mathematician, best know for his contributions to the field of [[Set Theory]]. Perhaps his most important contribution, is his technique of '''Cantorian Diagonalization''', a method of showing that the [[real numbers]] are larger in [[cardinality]] than the [[integers]]. He is also know for his [[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CantorSet.html Cantor Set]].

Finite

2007-12-30T03:21:37Z

PhineasBogg: Created a very short definition, so that the links to finite would go somewhere.

'''Finite''' means bounded, or limited. This is the opposite of [[infinite]].

Bijection

2007-12-30T03:16:40Z

PhineasBogg: Created short definition of "bijection" with two examples.

A '''Bijection''' is a one to one, onto mapping between two sets. In other words, a bijection between sets A and B is a mapping such that every element in the A is mapped to a distinct element in B, and every element in the B has a distinct element in the A mapped to it. For example, one bijection between the sets {A, B, C} and {1, 2, 3}, maps: A to 1, B to 2, and 3 to C.

If there is a bijection between two sets, then we say that they have the same [[cardinality]], or size.

Bijections between [[infinite]] sets are particularly interesting, as they produce some counterintuitive results. For instance, there is a bijection between the integers and the even integers that maps every integer x to the even integer 2x. Notice that this satisfies the definition of bijection, which then implies that the integers and the even integers have the same size.

[[Category:Set Theory]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-12-30T03:02:53Z

PhineasBogg: Organization

Talk:Liberal

2007-12-30T01:03:46Z

PhineasBogg: Westboro Baptist Church

{{protected|Aschlafly}}
 

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

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

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Liberal

2007-12-29T23:59:09Z

PhineasBogg: Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress?

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2007-12-29T23:35:47Z

PhineasBogg: /* Liberal Rankings Reference */

{{protect|TK}}

==Second Picture's caption==
The caption on the second picture should read "...during the national anthem." Also, I believe the picture was taken from here: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html. [[User:Shiritai|Shiritai]] 08:21, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== Who here would mind Obama as president?==
I'll admit it, i am a moderate on the conservative slanted site. Be as my politcal views span both sides, i am hoping for Obama to win the election. I'm sure that some people here have criticisms of him, some of which may even be valid. So have at it people: Why not Obama, the man sent to lead America to greatness?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 20:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I must remind you, this is a conservative encyclopedia. most conservatives can't handle the idea of a black man as superior to them! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

No right-thinking people could possible support having a black as President, let alone in their neighborhood. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:27, 21 March 2007 (PST).

I think it would be great if he won, I can't stand Hilary...--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 21:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm one of the most liberal people I know... and I cannot stand the woman. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case, get to those primaries and vote (especially if you live in Iowa or NH). I believe that there are worthy candidates on the Republicans as well, but i want to ensure the best man for the job gets the democratic nomination.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

To be honest... He would be better than that anti-video gaming [[fascist]]. No offense to anybody. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I feel Obama may be too inexperienced for the job. However, I still would like to see him elected. In reality, the president doesn't need to be very smart or experienced to BE president. He has a Cabinet of advisors and a whole staff to make decisions for him. Ergo, Obama doesn't really NEED the experience. He's plenty smart enough, and he come off as highly educated and eloquent. Really though, what makes him a good candidate is that he is well liked. What we need right now is a president who is willing to go around to all the European countries we have angered and make kissy-face with them, thus patching up our foreign policy. Hillary isn't going to do that, and I doubt a Republican president would. If we don't get our foreign policy out of the toilet, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble soon.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:That reminds me of Bush Jr... --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree completely!
No person with the name hussein will become president[[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 12:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I understand why American terrorists would want Hussein Obama to be President. How obtuse can you be not to understand he is the Al-Qaeda candidate? I will not surrender willingly to Barack Hussein Obama. [[User:GettingItRight|GettingItRight]] 22:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== Sources ==

Can't we get a better source for his voting record than an opinion piece? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*You can't turn a pigs ear into a silk purse dude......he doesn't have much of one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not saying how to judge his voting record, I'm saying that an opinion piece doesn't merit a good source. A good rule of thumb is that if there's a little picture next to an article, it's a column or an opinion piece, not an article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that flew right over my head...I even heard the air noise! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

# I asked for people who were going to discuss his voting record to use an actual source, not an opinion piece as it is now
# You made a joke about his lack of a voting record
# I said that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about sources. Columns, op-eds, editorials are not sources. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, so my cracking a joke meant I didn't understand what you meant, and might have distracted the readers, so they wouldn't know either? Got it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::From the ass' butt to it's mouth, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm for last session. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Breaking News!!!!==

Barack has just raised 25 million dollars for his campaign making his in competiton with Hiliary Clinton!! [http:// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/25 million!!!!]

== Controversial ? ==

Why is Barack Obama's biographical entry a "controversial" topic for Conservapedia, and locked out from editing?
:Because people who don't feel like contributing useful information see fit to compare his name to those of terrorists. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::It was vandalized twice in 48 hours. I asked for it to be unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. It look presentable. I left in the material about how liberal he is, though I doubt its value. At least it looks nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*The political leanings of any politician are the most important of all. Their stated goals mean nothing, their idealogy everything. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't disagree, but I doubt the veracity of saying X is Y more liberal than Z. Liberalness is not a quanitfiable value. There are better ways to describe his political agenda than by saying "look who he is more liberal than." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, Myk, it's your MSM who does it, the Liberal news organizations, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know if I'd call the National Journal, a publication with an almost $2000 per year subscription rate, mainstream. I tend to avoid it when I hear it, just as I tend to avoid editorial commentary. A far better judge of whether or not a candidate fits your bill is to look issue by issue. And it may be the "Main Stream Media" that started it, but it was the Rocky Mountain News which reported it (in a column) and Conservapedia who repeated it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::How is this locked? I can still edit this. Maybe that's because i have proven myself in being able to see Obama for the wonderous person he really is. Or not (since i may get banned for a comment like that, him being a non-conservative)--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 01:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Things change on a wiki, dude. It got unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Goofy Article ==

I understand that B.O. hits a lot of people's hot buttons, but this article is a mess. "half-African, half-Caucasian"? What's up with that? Why not use the generally-accepted and perfectly accurate term "African-American"? Or ditch it altogether, unless we're going to start classifying all politicos by race/ethnicity ("Irish-Caucasoid Ted Kennedy", or "Texan-American George Bush"). Better still, ignore the race issue until it is relevant to the article ("Obama is the the first African-American to...").

Too, do we really need three sentences establishing Obama's exact degree of liberlosity? Can't we just say "liberal Democrat", or just describe his positions ("show, don't tell").--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 11:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*I took all that away once, have been overruled by another Sysop, evidently. I changed it back once, to African-American, but some felt it important to note he was Mulatto. An archaic term, if ever there was one. Mixed-race would be acceptable today. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek ==

Why are we discussing Michael Richards (not Kramer by the way) and Jimmy the Greek (real name Jimmy Snyder) on Barack Obama's page? The Boston Globe criticized him, black leaders criticized him... that's relevant. Imus' career and the issues surround Richards and Snyder are not. I would change this myself but it was protected again. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:And while it's still off topic here, it might be pertinent for the [[Don Imus]] article to note that CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks, not a few affiliates. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK, please tell me where Obama's intellect vs. the intellect of civil rights leaders is mentioned in the source. And please tell me why refering to the old civil rights era is not redundant as the civil rights era is generally considered to be the era of MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks. That's already old, TK. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps to you, perhaps to me, but not necessarily to readers. Our "job" is to make things clear for them, not us. I think my change to old-guard makes it much clearer. Your additions were borderline denigration, to Hill's advantage, I would say. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So this is a wiki. We create a link for Civil Rights Era and then we make the article. His disconnection from Civil Rights figures is well publicized, just google Sharpton AND Obama. Or Obama AND black AND enough. Never is his intellect brought up. That's your opinion and is not sourced. I have no reason to want to support Hillary Clinton. Never been a fan. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Someone reading his curriculum vitae cannot escape his intellect, no? Since we currently have in place a "Civil Rights" leadership, it isn't necessairly old, is it? Jackson and Sharpton (both bigots, IMO) are from the old-guard civil rights era, and that is germain, is it not, since Obama's age was brought into the argument? Are you really incensed at that one word addition, which is sourced by the rest of the page, or that it was me adding to it? I will be happy to add a cite for what you consider an assumption, later today. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I just think it's redundant. His disconnect is with the era. He was too young to participate in it and as he is not a descendant of slaves, he is considered to not be a part of the CRE culture. As for the intellect thing, that has no part of his disconnection. You are either saying Obama is smarter or stupider than Civil Rights Leaders, something of which you have no proof. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Myk, the "proof" that Obama is "smarter" is in the public record, IMO. Disconnect is a pejorative word, used by reporter and political scum to smear people without appearing to overtly do so. Did you not know that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**I read the article to say Obama wants to be known as a "national leader", not a "Black leader", to paraphrase moreless. Hence a sort of parting of the ways with traditional well known "Black civil rights leaders", so to speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. He views things, seemingly, unlike the older leaders, as not just black and white issues. Obviously due to his age, upbringing in a multi-cultural society, and his education....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Still, by referring to leadership in quotes, and comparing their intellect unfavorably to Obama's you are painting a whole bunch of folks with a wide pejorative brush. Jackson and Sharpton are not representative of the whole of the CRE activists. And, of course, the Obama entry is not the appropriate place for a broadside against JJ, AS, and so forth.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed, WJT, however they are allowed/painted/claimed to be "the leaders" both in the press and educational circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**This is indeed an important point, Obama's greatest fear is being marginalized as just another "Black leader"; he's counting on what Republicans call the 'color blind society" to elevate him as an equal, respected national figure and leader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well he certainly has my attention and support in doing that, and ridding us at long last of the hobgoblins of the past, and wresting the power away from the merchants of fear and hate. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Off Page Discussion ==

Regarding the published criticism of Barack Obama, don't you think the majority of that link would be better served in an article about Don Imus or about Racism in Broadcasting? It seems to me that the relevant bit is that the Boston Globe and some prominent black leaders question Obama's handling of the situation, not the digression towards Michael Richard and Jimmy the Greek. Myk 15:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You convinced me. You wanna do it? RobS 15:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
It was locked last time I checked. Myk 15:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I'll unprotect you so you can fix it; but i may have to reprotect quickly cause actually I don;t know what's going on on that page. RobS 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
That you'd have to take up with TK. He thinks the candidate pages are being excessively vandalized. I have been unable to persuade him otherwise. Myk 16:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. Check it out to make sure it still fits with what you wanted to say. I am an Obama supporter so I tried to keep it to the source as much as possible. Searching for Obama AND Imus actually comes up with a lot of comments about Imus and McGuirk (sp?) making derogatory comments about Obama himself. Those weren't helpful. Myk 16:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Real good. Couldn't have done better myself. Say, while I got you here, would you mind discussing why you support Obama just to answer some personal curiousity. I got two questions off the top (a) what age group do you fall into (18-24, 25-30, 30-45, 45+),and (b) when and/or where did you first hear of Obama? Thanks. RobS 16:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm narrowly into the 30-45 category. And I first heard Obama at the 04 convention. Went out and got his first book and then Audacity when it came out. Myk 16:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Question 3: Do you think he can (a) defeat Hillary in the primaries and go on to win the General election, and/or (b) is just running for the VP spot? RobS 16:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
(Undent) I don't think people on the right fully appreciate how disenchanted a lot of Democrats are with Hillary. I think when the two of them are on the same stage in a debate the differences will become overwhelming. Obama is both charismatic and smart. As for the general... well, obviously he's going to be a polarizing figure just because of his race and his name... but far less polarizing than Clinton. I think Hillary is much more beatable in a general than Obama. Myk 16:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Good observations, and I agree with all of it. Hillary is the Newt Gingrich of the Democratic Party--42% will come out to vote for her, and 42% will come out to vote for whoever can beat her.
So as to the question of electability, Richardson & Obama got her beat. I just quickly reread Obama & Kerry's convention speeches, cause I recall at the time much of what Obama said was directly contradicted on successive nights by a host of successive speakers. Let's look at these two excisions:
Obama:tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America. [23]
Kerry:after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. [24]
Now, is this just meaningless election rhetoric on the part of both speakers, or is there some way to reconcile these divergent passages? RobS 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
A lot comes down to genuineness (I think I just made up a word). When Obama uses rhetoric, I believe it. At least in a way that I never do from Kerry or Clinton. The position of president entails a mix of issues, ability and inspiration. Issues are always going to be split based on ideology. Ability is where Obama's going to take a hit due to his lack of national / executive experience but he clearly has the intellect. If he can handle that question, which I think he can, then his ability to inspire will make him a daunting force. Think Bill Clinton without the smarm. And hopefully without the personal problems. As it stands now, Romney and Giuliani are the only GOP candidates I see capable of taking on Obama and then only if they don't prompt a more conservative third party candidate.
The fact that Obama chose to give a unifying speech at a historically polarizing venue took a lot of courage. Compare his keynote address to Zell Miller's. Regardless of your thoughts on the issues, Miller's speech was a heckuva lot more abrasive. Myk 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Guilani doesn't have a prayer. GOP will not nominate an East Coast liberal in favor of abortion. The question is who can beat McCain? Richardson may, Hillary can't, and Obama probably can't either. (Incidentally, new item this morning says Fred Thompson has lymphoma, so that leaves Huckabee as the only other Bible-belt GOP candidate, and Bible-belt candidates, GOP or Dem, are the only ones who can win nowadays).
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:
Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on Americans entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.
This is how the game of politics is played. RobS 17:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is how it is played, usually, like this, away from the article talk page, to the exclusion of those not specifically "watching" the page. :p --~ TK MyTalk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll cut and paste it over there. RobS 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
McCain has alienated both the left and the right. I don't think he has a shot for the nomination and the only thing that can save him in the general would be an abrupt upturn in the war. Myk 18:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS"

==Another take==
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:

Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on America's entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.

This is how the game of politics is played. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think he's running for VP. I think even being elected for VP would marginalize the accomplishment. And he's certainly not fundraising like a VP. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*One doesn't ever "run" for Vice President. However when Hillary is nominated, her asking him to take the job is pretty much a mandatory yes from him. Especially if he ever wants to run for President again. Refusing would term him out as a Senator, and strip him of any future party leadership. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::*Libby Dole did 2000.

:::*See, now we need to understand how the fundraising law operates (which can't be briefly explained right here). He's got $20+ million; as an Illinois Senator, he's not up for another 5 years, and needs maybe 6-10 million by then. So this is one way he's being rewarded, he's basically got enough cash to hold that Senate seat for the next 24 years right now, in addition to being able to contribute to other candidates, i.e. build a politcal machine. This is how the game of politics really operates, and if you look beneath the surface, follow events, and see where Obama ends up in the next 18 to 24 months (and several decades after), you really can get some insight on the inner workings that are often hazy and mysterious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Obama isn't Senator Dole, with her political pedigree, it is indeed apples and oranges. I do have friends who are managing Obama, since its a very small world at that level of handling, and he has a decent shot. But in my opinon, and that of Dick Morris (albeit a Hillary hater, but most certainly a FOB.) he will possibly be offered the VP shot. If not too throughly destroyed by the Clintons long before the convention. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**The name of the game is beat McCain. Right now McCain beats all hands down (as he has for two years now). McCain controls big donors, party apparatcheks, old Perot & Colin Powell middle of the roaders, and a few Democrats. But the dirty little secret is GOP rank and file core constituents, the tax cutters and the religious right, are not that enthusiastic about McCain. His biggest problem is in his own party. If Hillary is the nominee, then the core rank & file will come out to vote for McCain to stop Hillary. And a VP candidate such as Obama, as the record shows, adds nothing to the ticket. This however, is where Bill Richardson can win. If it’s McCain vs Richardson, and GOP rank & file stay home, Richardson could actually pull off the win, cause he doesn’t have the “high negatives”, as they are called, that candidates like Hillary & Gingrich have. High negatives motive people to go out and vote against a candidate. This is were the polling on McCain is deceptive, if it’s McCain vs Hillary, the Republicans will come out in force to stop Hillary; if it’s McCain vs Richardson, many Republicans will stay home rather than soil their conscience by voting for someone or something they detest. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I look forward to beating the pants off of McCain! Newt has the hearts and minds of the GOP, and many, many Democratic voters, with his commmon-sense, almost Reagan-like approach. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**Right now, 2008 looks like a Democratic year; the only thing that could screw it up is--Hillary Clinton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, again. However, have you looked at newt.org and some of the bipartisan initiatives he has launched? BTW I added some backgound on that scum reporter, some other interviews she gave and her own posts, discrediting her being bipartisan, or even fair, where Obama is concerned. I smell one of Bill's cigars at work. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd have Newt's baby if I were a women, but he's not going anywhere. And I recently read somewhere he's not serious anyway. The mold of modern Presidents is a Southern Governor, or at least a Southerner. This has been true since Lyndon Johnson. Nixon & Reagan were from California, but the demographics of California since the Dust Bowl era have been Southern (remember, Grapes of Wrath, the Okies headed west, etc). So California is really much more like the South than it is the Midwest or the East. Southerners do not vote by party, they vote for "one of their own", i.e. one who talks and sounds like them. Easterners & Midwesterners don;t vote like this, they are more ideological of party driven the by the common culture and history that Southerners share. Ironic, even thought the South lost the Civil War, they have come to dominate the Presidency since the 60s. Bill Richardson fits this mold. So do Huckabee & McCain. Fred Thompson & the guy from Kansas also. I suspect Hillary, cosmopolitan New Yorker that she has become, along with Pennsyvlania & Chicago roots, will really resurrect her Southern drawl she gave up nearly 15 years ago now in the next coming months. This will be comical to watch, listening to her Eastern & Midwest accent when she's DC or NY, but pouring on the the good 'ol drawl when she's out on the trail, cause she smart enough to know how Presidential elections are won. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, Newt is from Georgia. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:02, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Gingrich and Hillary have the identical problem: "high negatives". Both enjoy 42% over all support; both have 42% "unfavorable" ratings. In other words, it's a wash. +42% - 42% = 0 net positive. Neither can win.

:::What "high negatives" do is motivate voters to get out an ''vote against'' a candidate. Typically, voters a motivated by a candidates ''charisma'' so to speak, like Clinton or Reagan, where voters are motivated to ''vote for'' the candidate; when candidates fail to inspire, like Dole, Dukakis, ''et al'', voters stay home. But a candidate like Gingrich or Hillary with high negatives motivates voters to get out and defeat them by voting for whatever uninspiring, uncharismatic candidate stands the best chance to beat them. This is why uninspired Rebublicans ''will'' vote for McCain to defeat Hillary, with a high turnout, whereas in a McCain/Richardson contest, Republicans voters will stay home and a Democrat then can win. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Blog or an encyclopedia? ==

Would like to know if this is now officially an political blog, or are we still trying to make an encyclopedia? If the goal of the site hasn't changed, why are there entryes like: "Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States." ? Are we next going to collect President Bushes slips in his speeches and post them here under his article? Tell me if this is the new trend and ill go collect some. Would lenghten the article nicely. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

*Someone so obviously discontent with Conservapedia, makes one wonder why they are here at all. I mean, I am not wanting you to leave, if you think you can do productive work, most certainly. However I can only judge from my own feelings, which would mean if I was that unhappy, I wouldn't waste my breath on it. You are an extraordinary man, being able to do productive editing and be so displeased. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::nevermind --'''''[[User:Andersmusician|Andersmusician]]''''' 23:13, 22 July 2007 (EDT)~

*Gosh, you waited all this time to respond, and had to make a sock to do it? :O --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== GSmiley ==

Great additions here today! Thanks for your effort. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

"Former House Majority leader Tom DeLay has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a “Marxist leftist.”"

I thought Conservapedia reached its recent page view goal without indulging in the gossip common on wikipedia? This is something I have seen on a number of political biographies here, but mainly on Democrats. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:40, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Drug Use ==

I was shocked that Obama's admitted cocaine use [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html] isn't mentioned in this article. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 14:48, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Our [[rules]] prohibit [[gossip]]. [[Gossip]] has zero educational value, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:: How does one define gossip? He wrote about it himself - making it not private, no? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:19, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Rankings Reference ==

I would like to see the reference for Obama being the 10th most liberal senator changed to this
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc
because this is what the other reference refers to and because this site is very informative as it lists other senators scores and votes. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:30, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Unprotected, so do it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Done! Reprotect again if you like. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:35, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Barack Hussein Obama

2007-12-29T23:34:26Z

PhineasBogg: Changed reference for Obama's ranking as 10th most liberal.

'''Barack Hussein Obama''' (b. 4 August 1961) is the junior Senator from [[Illinois]], elected to the United States Senate as a [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] in 2004. He is currently a high profile candidate for the Democratic Nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]]. He is, at present, the only [[African American]] serving in the [[United States Senate]].
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
==Early Life and Education==
Senator Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]] with his mother and new stepfather. He attended an Indonesian Public School followed by a [[Catholic]] school until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, a private preparatory school until 1979, the year of his graduation. 
Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]] before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1992.

According to [[Lynne Cheney]], [[Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]] and Barack Obama are eighth cousins. A spokeswoman for Mrs. Cheney added Obama “is a descendent of Mareen Duvall. This French Huguenot’s son married the granddaughter of a Richard Cheney, who arrived in [[Maryland]] in the late 1650’s from England."<ref>[http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/16/lynne-cheney-dick-and-barack-obama-are-eighth-cousins/ ‘Dick and Barack Obama are eighth cousins'], Lynne Cheney, [[MSNBC]]. Retrieved October 16, 2007.</ref>

==Legal Career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate Career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama rose to national prominence following his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He defeated his opponent, Alan Keyes, and was elected to the 109th Congress.

His voting record places him as the tenth-most [[Liberal]] member of the U. S. Senate. His composite liberal rating was 86 percent, just seven points behind [[Ted Kennedy]]. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc] Senator Obama is a Democratic front-runner for the 2008 United States presidential election.

In late 2006, Obama's second book authored, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' has spent 23 weeks on the New York Times Nonfiction Best Sellers List. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/books/bestseller/0408besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

==Presidential Campaign==
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]]. (from Time.com)]]
Senator Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States on Saturday, February 10, 2007 in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided Speech." <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

In early April 2007, Obama's campaign announced his first quarter fund raising figures. The campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 users. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of 9 people in the town of Greensburg, and 12 overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a light-weight even by liberals, in much the same vein [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would openly embrace two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the Office of the Presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies.

==Political Views==
Senator Barack Obama's political views have been a matter of controversy even before he put himself forward as a Presidential Candidate. Former House Majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist.”]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama voted against funding the Iraq War. The funding bill also included an increase in the [[minimum wage]] from $5.85 to $7.25, which was intended to help America's most needy individuals. <ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life." <ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he has defied parents by asserting that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten. <ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006 illegal immigration march in Chicago. <ref>[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]</ref>

==Faith and Values==
As he describes in "The Audacity of Hope" Obama grew up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a Muslim mosque school. That was enough for a group of detractors to circulate the rumor that he is a crypto-Muslim trying to gain control of the White House. What is true is Obama together with his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members for a year at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in "The Audacity of Hope". The title of this book is borrowed from one of his pastor's sermons. He is at ease quoting Scriptures and speaking to church audiences.

Rather than taking a religion-based approach to male-female relationships, Obama says schools should provide [[science]]-based [[sex education]] in schools. <ref>"But it's the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

==Published Criticism==
On April 11th, 2007 staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]] <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4th broadcast. Obama did not comment on the Imus' remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10th by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The Globe reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus' remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus." <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually recieved nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko <ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007. </ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged. <ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing

*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*

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

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators|Obama, Barack]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2007-12-29T23:30:20Z

PhineasBogg: Liberal Rankings Reference

Talk:Reductio Ad Absurdum

2007-12-29T23:21:38Z

PhineasBogg: New page: I would like to see this page renamed to "Proof By Contradiction", as I believe the current title is rarely used in practice and makes the topic harder to find.--~~~~

I would like to see this page renamed to "Proof By Contradiction", as I believe the current title is rarely used in practice and makes the topic harder to find.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Critical Thinking in Math

2007-12-29T23:19:44Z

PhineasBogg:

I have a number of comments on the proposed curriculum. Much of this relates to the difference between something that might be titled "mathematical topics in popular culture" and "critical thinking in mathematics". The latter requires very careful presentation, with adherence to the axiomatic method and the understanding of correct proof procedures. This concern applies particularly to the material on the Axiom of Choice and the Gödel incompleteness theorem.

I believe that there is at least a 10-year gap in educational achievement between 9th graders (even future Riemann's!) and some of the things mentioned. We couldn't say anything about the Axiom of Choice or Wiles' proof that wouldn't be dumbed-down to the point of worthlessness, and, IMHO, not what we want for this class.

I am not aware of any a controversy about the method of proof by contradiction. It is so totally ingrained into the subject matter of mathematical proof that nothing further needs to be said. I still remember being taught about it, in 9th grade, before we did any "real" math.

While we are discussing the 17 proofs of the infinitude of primes, we might discuss the fact that there are over 300 proofs of Pythagoras' theorem. Including one by President James Garfield!

The "transcendental numbers - how do we know they exist?" is not the way I would put it. I assume you are referring to the Cantor "diagonal" construction, layered on top of a Dedekind or Cauchy construction of the reals. But there's actually a lot of tedium in the proof that the reals can be represented by decimal expansions. Do you want to gloss over that and just use the "intuitive fact" that the reals correspond to the decimals? But I have another problem: "How do we know they exist?" has a sort of mystical ring to it, particularly because of the connotations of the word "transcendental". The same thing construction could be used to prove the existence of irrationals, without the mystical baggage. They're uncountable too. And there is a very clever and approachable proof from the ancient Greeks about the existence of irrationals, that does not rely on countability arguments or diagonalization. Or do you genuinely want to use the transcendentals because the ancient proof can't be used?

"Problems solved only with proof-by-contradiction". As above, I consider the method of contradiction to be so fundamental that I'd be reluctant ever to say that somethng can be proved '''only''' that way. Better: In the introductory explanation of proof by contradiction, using the "always a prime between N and N+1" theorem, or the "infinite number of primes" theorem, as an example to motivate it.

Definition of the integers. Do you really want to do a Peano-postulate program here? As in Landau's "Foundations of Analysis"? I don't think people in this age group will actually appreciate that the tediousness of this is worth it. (Of course, '''we''' know that it's worth it, but '''they''' don't.) Also, a Dedekind-cut construction of the reals would actually contain material that the students don't already "know", in that it shows, for example, that the square root of 2 really exists. But of course, skipping over the integers and going straight to the reals is somewhat unesthetic! The students already "know" the result of the Peano program, they just don't realize that they don't really know it.

"Interesting problems in number theory and Euclidean geometry". Yes! There's a lot of really cool, engaging, and surprising material in geometry, above and beyond its use to show the axiomatic method. Geometrical inversion, for example.

"Axiom of Choice ... Wiles' proof". I have a problem with this. There's really very little we can say about AC, and even less about Wiles' proof, that would be accessible. The simplest places that I know of in which AC appears are the Tychonoff Theorem and the construction of sets that are not Lebesgue measurable. Not what I would want to do in a course like this.

The Gödel incompleteness theorem, and the Church or Turing analysis, are extremely tedious to go through if they are to be understood properly, and take a great deal of background that high school age people won't be able to get through. Once again, we would have to dumb it down to the point of worthlessness. Though there '''are''' presentations of what is effectively Russell's paradox, which is related, and that are accessible and compelling.

There are other things that can be covered that are very good for high school students: projective geometry, conic sections, vectors, matrices, operators, eigenvectors/values, function spaces, introduction to differential equations using eigenfunctions, complex numbers in electrical engineering, Fourier series, inner products, geometrical inversion, ....

: You raise some good points. Thank you. I will response as soon as I can. In Christ, --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:14, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

: In further response, first in a general way, I do not subscribe to the view that more abstraction is better. Unfortunately, many of today's top college math progams graduate studens who haven't a clue about [[number theory]], unsolved problems, or issues in math that were controversial only a few decades ago. Proof by contradiction was disfavored, for obvious reasons, by many mathematicians as recently as 30 years ago. That you're completely unaware of it merely underscores the need for this course. It's healthy to step back and evaluate a field from a critical perspective. This is not by any means yield to popular opinion. Quite the contrary, it is to inject a degree of accountability . In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:52, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

::Well, I'm chagrined and disappointed by this, but I'm always willing to admit my ignorance and learn new things. So please change my status from instructor to student -- I'm still very much interested in this. Also, can you recommend any books that can fill me in on some of these issues? [[User:Robert|Robert]] 20:27, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Course Purposes ==

The course outline suggests that in learning maths the student will stave off 'mental decline'. There are a number of problems with this remark; not least because the author assumes that an understanding of numbers will prevent such an infliction. To be perfectly clear; one can interpret this remark as suggesting that, had my auntie taken to solving mathmatical problems regulary she would not have fallen victim to Alzheimers. I suggest editing the benefits that this course has to offer the student.--[[User:GrahamMcKnight|GrahamMcKnight]] 08:35, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Additive Factoring ==

I believe "additive factoring" in the course description is a typo. I have not encountered such a term in my study of mathematics and have been unable to locate this on the internet. I did not change it, because I was not sure what it was intended to be. If it is not a typo and this is a new or unconventional topic, then it would be good to provide some explanation following it, or a link to a page about it. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)

My best guess is this may be a reference to the Goldbach Conjecture about even numbers being expressable as the sum of primes. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:09, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Critical Thinking in Math

2007-12-29T23:19:06Z

PhineasBogg: /* Additive Factoring */

I have a number of comments on the proposed curriculum. Much of this relates to the difference between something that might be titled "mathematical topics in popular culture" and "critical thinking in mathematics". The latter requires very careful presentation, with adherence to the axiomatic method and the understanding of correct proof procedures. This concern applies particularly to the material on the Axiom of Choice and the Gödel incompleteness theorem.

I believe that there is at least a 10-year gap in educational achievement between 9th graders (even future Riemann's!) and some of the things mentioned. We couldn't say anything about the Axiom of Choice or Wiles' proof that wouldn't be dumbed-down to the point of worthlessness, and, IMHO, not what we want for this class.

I am not aware of any a controversy about the method of proof by contradiction. It is so totally ingrained into the subject matter of mathematical proof that nothing further needs to be said. I still remember being taught about it, in 9th grade, before we did any "real" math.

While we are discussing the 17 proofs of the infinitude of primes, we might discuss the fact that there are over 300 proofs of Pythagoras' theorem. Including one by President James Garfield!

The "transcendental numbers - how do we know they exist?" is not the way I would put it. I assume you are referring to the Cantor "diagonal" construction, layered on top of a Dedekind or Cauchy construction of the reals. But there's actually a lot of tedium in the proof that the reals can be represented by decimal expansions. Do you want to gloss over that and just use the "intuitive fact" that the reals correspond to the decimals? But I have another problem: "How do we know they exist?" has a sort of mystical ring to it, particularly because of the connotations of the word "transcendental". The same thing construction could be used to prove the existence of irrationals, without the mystical baggage. They're uncountable too. And there is a very clever and approachable proof from the ancient Greeks about the existence of irrationals, that does not rely on countability arguments or diagonalization. Or do you genuinely want to use the transcendentals because the ancient proof can't be used?

"Problems solved only with proof-by-contradiction". As above, I consider the method of contradiction to be so fundamental that I'd be reluctant ever to say that somethng can be proved '''only''' that way. Better: In the introductory explanation of proof by contradiction, using the "always a prime between N and N+1" theorem, or the "infinite number of primes" theorem, as an example to motivate it.

Definition of the integers. Do you really want to do a Peano-postulate program here? As in Landau's "Foundations of Analysis"? I don't think people in this age group will actually appreciate that the tediousness of this is worth it. (Of course, '''we''' know that it's worth it, but '''they''' don't.) Also, a Dedekind-cut construction of the reals would actually contain material that the students don't already "know", in that it shows, for example, that the square root of 2 really exists. But of course, skipping over the integers and going straight to the reals is somewhat unesthetic! The students already "know" the result of the Peano program, they just don't realize that they don't really know it.

"Interesting problems in number theory and Euclidean geometry". Yes! There's a lot of really cool, engaging, and surprising material in geometry, above and beyond its use to show the axiomatic method. Geometrical inversion, for example.

"Axiom of Choice ... Wiles' proof". I have a problem with this. There's really very little we can say about AC, and even less about Wiles' proof, that would be accessible. The simplest places that I know of in which AC appears are the Tychonoff Theorem and the construction of sets that are not Lebesgue measurable. Not what I would want to do in a course like this.

The Gödel incompleteness theorem, and the Church or Turing analysis, are extremely tedious to go through if they are to be understood properly, and take a great deal of background that high school age people won't be able to get through. Once again, we would have to dumb it down to the point of worthlessness. Though there '''are''' presentations of what is effectively Russell's paradox, which is related, and that are accessible and compelling.

There are other things that can be covered that are very good for high school students: projective geometry, conic sections, vectors, matrices, operators, eigenvectors/values, function spaces, introduction to differential equations using eigenfunctions, complex numbers in electrical engineering, Fourier series, inner products, geometrical inversion, ....

: You raise some good points. Thank you. I will response as soon as I can. In Christ, --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:14, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

: In further response, first in a general way, I do not subscribe to the view that more abstraction is better. Unfortunately, many of today's top college math progams graduate studens who haven't a clue about [[number theory]], unsolved problems, or issues in math that were controversial only a few decades ago. Proof by contradiction was disfavored, for obvious reasons, by many mathematicians as recently as 30 years ago. That you're completely unaware of it merely underscores the need for this course. It's healthy to step back and evaluate a field from a critical perspective. This is not by any means yield to popular opinion. Quite the contrary, it is to inject a degree of accountability . In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:52, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

::Well, I'm chagrined and disappointed by this, but I'm always willing to admit my ignorance and learn new things. So please change my status from instructor to student -- I'm still very much interested in this. Also, can you recommend any books that can fill me in on some of these issues? [[User:Robert|Robert]] 20:27, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Course Purposes ==

The course outline suggests that in learning maths the student will stave off 'mental decline'. There are a number of problems with this remark; not least because the author assumes that an understanding of numbers will prevent such an infliction. To be perfectly clear; one can interpret this remark as suggesting that, had my auntie taken to solving mathmatical problems regulary she would not have fallen victim to Alzheimers. I suggest editing the benefits that this course has to offer the student.--[[User:GrahamMcKnight|GrahamMcKnight]] 08:35, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Additive Factoring ==

I believe "additive factoring" in the course description is a typo. I have not encountered such a term in my study of mathematics and have been unable to locate this on the internet. I did not change it, because I was not sure what it was intended to be. If it is not a typo and this is a new or unconventional topic, then it would be good to provide some explanation following it, or a link to a page about it. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)

My best guess is this may be a reference to the [[Goldbach%27s_conjecture Goldbach Conjecture]] about even numbers being expressable as the sum of primes. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:09, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Goldbach's conjecture

2007-12-29T23:18:03Z

PhineasBogg: New page: I think because it is a famous conjecture, it deserves its own page, but I would be interested in arguments to the contrary. --~~~~

I think because it is a famous conjecture, it deserves its own page, but I would be interested in arguments to the contrary. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Critical Thinking in Math

2007-12-29T23:16:19Z

PhineasBogg: /* Additive Factoring */

I have a number of comments on the proposed curriculum. Much of this relates to the difference between something that might be titled "mathematical topics in popular culture" and "critical thinking in mathematics". The latter requires very careful presentation, with adherence to the axiomatic method and the understanding of correct proof procedures. This concern applies particularly to the material on the Axiom of Choice and the Gödel incompleteness theorem.

I believe that there is at least a 10-year gap in educational achievement between 9th graders (even future Riemann's!) and some of the things mentioned. We couldn't say anything about the Axiom of Choice or Wiles' proof that wouldn't be dumbed-down to the point of worthlessness, and, IMHO, not what we want for this class.

I am not aware of any a controversy about the method of proof by contradiction. It is so totally ingrained into the subject matter of mathematical proof that nothing further needs to be said. I still remember being taught about it, in 9th grade, before we did any "real" math.

While we are discussing the 17 proofs of the infinitude of primes, we might discuss the fact that there are over 300 proofs of Pythagoras' theorem. Including one by President James Garfield!

The "transcendental numbers - how do we know they exist?" is not the way I would put it. I assume you are referring to the Cantor "diagonal" construction, layered on top of a Dedekind or Cauchy construction of the reals. But there's actually a lot of tedium in the proof that the reals can be represented by decimal expansions. Do you want to gloss over that and just use the "intuitive fact" that the reals correspond to the decimals? But I have another problem: "How do we know they exist?" has a sort of mystical ring to it, particularly because of the connotations of the word "transcendental". The same thing construction could be used to prove the existence of irrationals, without the mystical baggage. They're uncountable too. And there is a very clever and approachable proof from the ancient Greeks about the existence of irrationals, that does not rely on countability arguments or diagonalization. Or do you genuinely want to use the transcendentals because the ancient proof can't be used?

"Problems solved only with proof-by-contradiction". As above, I consider the method of contradiction to be so fundamental that I'd be reluctant ever to say that somethng can be proved '''only''' that way. Better: In the introductory explanation of proof by contradiction, using the "always a prime between N and N+1" theorem, or the "infinite number of primes" theorem, as an example to motivate it.

Definition of the integers. Do you really want to do a Peano-postulate program here? As in Landau's "Foundations of Analysis"? I don't think people in this age group will actually appreciate that the tediousness of this is worth it. (Of course, '''we''' know that it's worth it, but '''they''' don't.) Also, a Dedekind-cut construction of the reals would actually contain material that the students don't already "know", in that it shows, for example, that the square root of 2 really exists. But of course, skipping over the integers and going straight to the reals is somewhat unesthetic! The students already "know" the result of the Peano program, they just don't realize that they don't really know it.

"Interesting problems in number theory and Euclidean geometry". Yes! There's a lot of really cool, engaging, and surprising material in geometry, above and beyond its use to show the axiomatic method. Geometrical inversion, for example.

"Axiom of Choice ... Wiles' proof". I have a problem with this. There's really very little we can say about AC, and even less about Wiles' proof, that would be accessible. The simplest places that I know of in which AC appears are the Tychonoff Theorem and the construction of sets that are not Lebesgue measurable. Not what I would want to do in a course like this.

The Gödel incompleteness theorem, and the Church or Turing analysis, are extremely tedious to go through if they are to be understood properly, and take a great deal of background that high school age people won't be able to get through. Once again, we would have to dumb it down to the point of worthlessness. Though there '''are''' presentations of what is effectively Russell's paradox, which is related, and that are accessible and compelling.

There are other things that can be covered that are very good for high school students: projective geometry, conic sections, vectors, matrices, operators, eigenvectors/values, function spaces, introduction to differential equations using eigenfunctions, complex numbers in electrical engineering, Fourier series, inner products, geometrical inversion, ....

: You raise some good points. Thank you. I will response as soon as I can. In Christ, --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:14, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

: In further response, first in a general way, I do not subscribe to the view that more abstraction is better. Unfortunately, many of today's top college math progams graduate studens who haven't a clue about [[number theory]], unsolved problems, or issues in math that were controversial only a few decades ago. Proof by contradiction was disfavored, for obvious reasons, by many mathematicians as recently as 30 years ago. That you're completely unaware of it merely underscores the need for this course. It's healthy to step back and evaluate a field from a critical perspective. This is not by any means yield to popular opinion. Quite the contrary, it is to inject a degree of accountability . In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:52, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

::Well, I'm chagrined and disappointed by this, but I'm always willing to admit my ignorance and learn new things. So please change my status from instructor to student -- I'm still very much interested in this. Also, can you recommend any books that can fill me in on some of these issues? [[User:Robert|Robert]] 20:27, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Course Purposes ==

The course outline suggests that in learning maths the student will stave off 'mental decline'. There are a number of problems with this remark; not least because the author assumes that an understanding of numbers will prevent such an infliction. To be perfectly clear; one can interpret this remark as suggesting that, had my auntie taken to solving mathmatical problems regulary she would not have fallen victim to Alzheimers. I suggest editing the benefits that this course has to offer the student.--[[User:GrahamMcKnight|GrahamMcKnight]] 08:35, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Additive Factoring ==

I believe "additive factoring" in the course description is a typo. I have not encountered such a term in my study of mathematics and have been unable to locate this on the internet. I did not change it, because I was not sure what it was intended to be. If it is not a typo and this is a new or unconventional topic, then it would be good to provide some explanation following it, or a link to a page about it. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)

My best guess is this may be a reference to the [[Goldbach's Conjecture]] about even numbers being expressable as the sum of primes. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:09, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Goldbach's conjecture

2007-12-29T23:14:09Z

PhineasBogg: I removed "Goldbach considered 1 to be a prime number, a convention not often in use today. " and added some clarification.

'''Goldbach's conjecture''' states that every even [[integer]] greater than two is the sum of two [[prime]] numbers. For example: 4 = 2 + 2, 6 = 3 + 3, 8 = 3 + 5, and so on.

This conjecture is one of the oldest unsettled statements in mathematics. For centuries mathematicians have attempted to prove this statement, without success. The conjecture is known to hold for numbers less than 3 <math>\cdot</math>1017.

[[category: mathematics]]

Conservapedia talk:Critical Thinking in Math

2007-12-29T23:09:35Z

PhineasBogg: /* Additive Factoring */

I have a number of comments on the proposed curriculum. Much of this relates to the difference between something that might be titled "mathematical topics in popular culture" and "critical thinking in mathematics". The latter requires very careful presentation, with adherence to the axiomatic method and the understanding of correct proof procedures. This concern applies particularly to the material on the Axiom of Choice and the Gödel incompleteness theorem.

I believe that there is at least a 10-year gap in educational achievement between 9th graders (even future Riemann's!) and some of the things mentioned. We couldn't say anything about the Axiom of Choice or Wiles' proof that wouldn't be dumbed-down to the point of worthlessness, and, IMHO, not what we want for this class.

I am not aware of any a controversy about the method of proof by contradiction. It is so totally ingrained into the subject matter of mathematical proof that nothing further needs to be said. I still remember being taught about it, in 9th grade, before we did any "real" math.

While we are discussing the 17 proofs of the infinitude of primes, we might discuss the fact that there are over 300 proofs of Pythagoras' theorem. Including one by President James Garfield!

The "transcendental numbers - how do we know they exist?" is not the way I would put it. I assume you are referring to the Cantor "diagonal" construction, layered on top of a Dedekind or Cauchy construction of the reals. But there's actually a lot of tedium in the proof that the reals can be represented by decimal expansions. Do you want to gloss over that and just use the "intuitive fact" that the reals correspond to the decimals? But I have another problem: "How do we know they exist?" has a sort of mystical ring to it, particularly because of the connotations of the word "transcendental". The same thing construction could be used to prove the existence of irrationals, without the mystical baggage. They're uncountable too. And there is a very clever and approachable proof from the ancient Greeks about the existence of irrationals, that does not rely on countability arguments or diagonalization. Or do you genuinely want to use the transcendentals because the ancient proof can't be used?

"Problems solved only with proof-by-contradiction". As above, I consider the method of contradiction to be so fundamental that I'd be reluctant ever to say that somethng can be proved '''only''' that way. Better: In the introductory explanation of proof by contradiction, using the "always a prime between N and N+1" theorem, or the "infinite number of primes" theorem, as an example to motivate it.

Definition of the integers. Do you really want to do a Peano-postulate program here? As in Landau's "Foundations of Analysis"? I don't think people in this age group will actually appreciate that the tediousness of this is worth it. (Of course, '''we''' know that it's worth it, but '''they''' don't.) Also, a Dedekind-cut construction of the reals would actually contain material that the students don't already "know", in that it shows, for example, that the square root of 2 really exists. But of course, skipping over the integers and going straight to the reals is somewhat unesthetic! The students already "know" the result of the Peano program, they just don't realize that they don't really know it.

"Interesting problems in number theory and Euclidean geometry". Yes! There's a lot of really cool, engaging, and surprising material in geometry, above and beyond its use to show the axiomatic method. Geometrical inversion, for example.

"Axiom of Choice ... Wiles' proof". I have a problem with this. There's really very little we can say about AC, and even less about Wiles' proof, that would be accessible. The simplest places that I know of in which AC appears are the Tychonoff Theorem and the construction of sets that are not Lebesgue measurable. Not what I would want to do in a course like this.

The Gödel incompleteness theorem, and the Church or Turing analysis, are extremely tedious to go through if they are to be understood properly, and take a great deal of background that high school age people won't be able to get through. Once again, we would have to dumb it down to the point of worthlessness. Though there '''are''' presentations of what is effectively Russell's paradox, which is related, and that are accessible and compelling.

There are other things that can be covered that are very good for high school students: projective geometry, conic sections, vectors, matrices, operators, eigenvectors/values, function spaces, introduction to differential equations using eigenfunctions, complex numbers in electrical engineering, Fourier series, inner products, geometrical inversion, ....

: You raise some good points. Thank you. I will response as soon as I can. In Christ, --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:14, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

: In further response, first in a general way, I do not subscribe to the view that more abstraction is better. Unfortunately, many of today's top college math progams graduate studens who haven't a clue about [[number theory]], unsolved problems, or issues in math that were controversial only a few decades ago. Proof by contradiction was disfavored, for obvious reasons, by many mathematicians as recently as 30 years ago. That you're completely unaware of it merely underscores the need for this course. It's healthy to step back and evaluate a field from a critical perspective. This is not by any means yield to popular opinion. Quite the contrary, it is to inject a degree of accountability . In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:52, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

::Well, I'm chagrined and disappointed by this, but I'm always willing to admit my ignorance and learn new things. So please change my status from instructor to student -- I'm still very much interested in this. Also, can you recommend any books that can fill me in on some of these issues? [[User:Robert|Robert]] 20:27, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Course Purposes ==

The course outline suggests that in learning maths the student will stave off 'mental decline'. There are a number of problems with this remark; not least because the author assumes that an understanding of numbers will prevent such an infliction. To be perfectly clear; one can interpret this remark as suggesting that, had my auntie taken to solving mathmatical problems regulary she would not have fallen victim to Alzheimers. I suggest editing the benefits that this course has to offer the student.--[[User:GrahamMcKnight|GrahamMcKnight]] 08:35, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Additive Factoring ==

I believe "additive factoring" in the course description is a typo. I have not encountered such a term in my study of mathematics and have been unable to locate this on the internet. I did not change it, because I was not sure what it was intended to be. If it is not a typo and this is a new or unconventional topic, then it would be good to provide some explanation following it, or a link to a page about it. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)

My best guess is this may be a reference to the [[Goldbach Conjecture]] about even numbers being expressable as the sum of primes. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:09, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Fake science

2007-12-29T18:49:08Z

PhineasBogg: Need a better example

Perfect number

2007-12-29T18:40:21Z

PhineasBogg:

A '''perfect number''' is one for which the sum of its [[factor]]s (excluding the number itself) is equal to the given number.

'''Examples''':

The first perfect number is 6:
* the factors of 6 are 1, 2, 3 and 6.
* the sum of 1 + 2 + 3 = 6

The second perfect number is 28:
* the factors of 28 are 1, 2, 4, 7, 14 and 28
* the sum of 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 = 28

The next perfect number is 496:
* the factors are : 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 31, 62, 124, 248, 496
* the sum of 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 31 + 62 + 124 + 248 = 496

It is relatively straightforward to show that any number '''''P''''' of the form '''''P = 2n-1 (2n-1)''''', for which ('''''2n-1''''') is prime, is a perfect number <ref> Proposition IX.36 of Euclid's Elements </ref>. Prime numbers of the form ('''''2n-1'''''), for which n is also prime, are called [http://primes.utm.edu/mersenne/ Mersenne Primes], after Marin Mersenne (1588-1648).

Note that ('''''2n-1''''') is not a prime for all prime n, for example ('''''211-1''''') = 2047, which is divisible by 13. The first 12 Mersenne primes are ('''''2n-1''''') with: n = 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 31, 61, 89, 107 and 127.

Many of Euclid's successors assumed that all perfect numbers were of this form, [[Euler]] in 1849 provided the first proof that Euclid's formula gives all possible even perfect numbers.

It is not known if any odd perfect numbers exist, although numbers up to '''''10300''''' have been checked without success.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Talk:Tobacco

2007-12-29T05:12:22Z

PhineasBogg:

This article almost makes it look like tobacco is healthy. It needs a look. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I removed "But recently it has also been discovered to have some positive health benefits, including a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease and a reduced risk of Kaposi's sarcoma." from the introduction. It is fine to mention this in the nicotine section (although a link to a citation should be given there), but this is not widely accepted enough to be placed in the introduction.
--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:34, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I updated the information on the connection between smoking and Alzheimer's Disease and added a reference. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:45, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I added a link to a study on Kaposi's Sarcoma. I have temporarily removed the information about breast cancer in the the Nicotine section, since it seems to be contradicted by the following study http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/107630598/ABSTRACT. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 00:00, 29 December 2007 (EST)

DanH, thank you for the welcome message. Please let me know if you want to discuss any of my edits on the talk page. Since I was citing references for the things I added, and only removing things that were unreferences and contradicted by references, I assumed my changes were not controversial, but if you feel they are I would be happy to discuss. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 00:12, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Tobacco

2007-12-29T05:01:41Z

PhineasBogg:

'''Tobacco''' is a [[drug]] that is consumed by smoking or chewing. Its recreational qualities were discovered by [[Native American]]s and passed on to Europeans after the establishment of [[Jamestown]] in 1607. Tobacco causes lung cancer. It also causes mouth and throat cancer and emphysema. It has more than forty carcinogens. Studies have shown that tobacco is more addictive than cocaine and even heroin.

== History ==
The Native Americans were the first to use tobacco because tobacco only grew in the Americas. Tobacco when consumed in large quantities is a hallucinogen, therefore the Native Americans did not use it recreationally but instead used it as a hallucinogen during religious ceremonies. Tobacco was exported by [[John Rolfe]], (husband of [[Pocahontas]]). It became known as a [[cash crop]]. The negative effects of tobacco such as [[lung cancer]], [[bronchitis]] and foul breath are widely accepted today.<ref>One of the first papers to recognize that smoking causes lung cancer was published in 1957.[http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/10/981.pdf]</ref> Tobacco companies have genetically modified tobacco plants and added toxic [[chemical]]s to their products to make them more addictive, thus making the modern cigarette much more toxic than the original cultivated plant.

== Nicotine ==
Nicotine is an alkaloid in tobacco that is responsible for the addictive nature of cigarette smoking and other tobacco use. Regular nicotine consumption leads to [[tolerance]]<ref>Porchet, H. C., Benowitz, N. L., & Sheiner, L. B. (1988). Pharmacodynamic model of tolerance: Application to nicotine. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 244'', 231-236</ref> (i.e., higher doses are required to achieve the same effect), and [[withdrawal]]<ref>Hughes, J.R., Higgins, S.T., & Bickel, W.K. (1994). Nicotine withdrawal versus other drug withdrawal syndromes: Similarities and dissimilarities. ''Addiction, 89'', 1461-1470</ref> symptoms (e.g., irritability, restlessness, nicotine cravings) occur when use is discontinued. Intake elicits acute increases in heart rate and blood pressure<ref>Benowitz, N.L., Jacob, P., Jones, R.T., & Rosenberg, J. (1982). Interindividual variability in the metabolism and cardiovascular effects of nicotine in man. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 221'', 368-372.''</ref>, as well as respiratory rate, but also decreases the volume of blood flow by causing the constriction of blood vessels. Nicotine in cigarette smoke is very easily absorbed through the lungs and buccal tissue in the oral cavity<ref>Miller, M.S., & Cocores, J.A. (1993). Nicotine dependence: Diagnosis, chemistry and pharmacologic treatments. ''Pediatrics in Review, 14'', 275-279.</ref>, and reaches the brain about seven seconds after it is inhaled in cigarette smoke<ref>Benowitz, N.L. (1991). Pharmacodynamics of nicotine: Implications for rational treatment of nicotine addiction. ''British Journal of Addiction, 86'', 495-499.</ref>. After reaching the brain, it stimulates the release of a number of [[neurotransmitters]], including [[dopamine]]<ref>Stolerman, I.P., & Shoaib, M. (1991). The neurobiology of tobacco addiction. ''Trends in Pharmacological Science, 12'', 467-473.</ref>, [[norepinephrine]]<ref>Summers, K.L., & Giacobini, E. (1995). Effects of local and repeated systemic administration of (-)nicotine on extracellular levels of acetylcholine, norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin in rat cortex. ''Neurochemical Research, 20'', 753-759.</ref>, [[serotonin]]<ref>Ribeiro, E.B., Bettiker, R.L., Bogdanov, M., & Wurtman, R.J. (1993). Effects of systemic nicotine on serotonin release in rat brain. ''Brain Research, 621'', 311-318.</ref>, and [[acetylcholine]]<ref>Summers & Giacobini, 1995.</ref>. The increased availability of these chemicals in the brain leads to feelings of pleasure and mild euphoria, as well as increased alertness and concentration. The half-life of nicotine is approximately two hours.

Medications containing nicotine are also used to help smokers who are trying to quit. These are referred to as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The idea behind NRT is that it allows smokers to break the behavioral component of their smoking habit (e.g., becoming used to not smoking while driving) while gradually reducing the amount of nicotine in their bloodstream, thus minimizing the effects of physiological nicotine withdrawal. Several different forms of NRT are available, including a transdermal patch, chewing gum, and nasal spray. Nicotine has also been found to be a useful treatment for certain physical conditions, though the mechanisms are not well understood. Smoking has been associated with a lower risk of Kaposi's sarcoma<ref>http://dceg.cancer.gov/pdfs/goedert942002.pdf</ref>. Nicotine also appears to have therapeutic benefit for individuals with ulcerative colitis and one form of epilepsy.

Nicotine has been shown in some medical studies to be more addictive than cocaine and even heroin. Tobacco often occurs along with cocaine use because the nicotine in tobacco greatly enhances the euphoria one receives from cocaine.

[[Image:Nicotine.gif]]

== Tobacco Products ==

'''Cigarettes.''' Cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product. Approximately one of every five [[American]] adults is a current smoker<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Cigarette smoking among adults - United States, 2004. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54''', 1121-1124</ref>, and about 438,000 Americans die annually due to the effects of smoking; about 38,000 of these deaths are attributed to secondhand smoke<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses - United States, 1997-2001. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54'', 300-303.</ref>. While the prevalence of smoking has dropped dramatically in the past 50 years, the rate at which the prevalence is decreasing has slowed substantially<ref>Hughes, J. R., & Brandon, T. H. (2003). A softer view of hardening. ''Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5'', 961-962.</ref> Additionally, the rate of smoking in adolescents and young adults has been increasing since the mid-1990s<ref>Wechsler, H., Rigotti, N., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., & Lee, H. (1998). Increased levels of cigarette use among college students: A cause for national concern. ''Journal of the American Medical Association, 280'', 1673-1678.</ref>. There are nearly 5,000 different chemicals in cigarette smoke, including over 60 [[carcinogens]]<ref>Hecht, S. (2006). Cigarette smoking: Cancer risks, carcinogens, and mechanisms. ''Archives of Surgery, 391'', 603-613</ref>.

'''Cigars.'''

'''Smokeless tobacco.'''

== Health Effects ==
Smoking has a significant negative health impact, and causes many dangerous and fatal conditions, including cancers, heart disease, and respiratory disease.

It has been estimated that cigarette smoking is responsible for 28% of all deaths in developed countries in the 35-69 age group, as well as 35% of all cancer deaths and 28% of all deaths due to vascular diseases<ref>Hecht, 2006.</ref>. Smoking increases the risk of oral, pharyngeal, esophageal, laryngeal, lung, uterine, cervical, urinary, and kidney cancers<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/cancer.htm</ref>.

Coronary heart disease is one of the biggest causes of death in the United States, and is 2-4 more likely in smokers than nonsmokers. Smokers are also 10 times more likely to develop peripheral vascular disease, which is a narrowing of the arteries. Additionally, smokers are twice as vulnerable to a stroke compared with nonsmokers<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/heart.htm</ref>. Smoking also negatively impacts the respiratory system. Approximately 90% of all deaths from chronic lung diseases are the result of smoking<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/respiratory.htm</ref>.

In addition, smoking has been shown to double the risk of Alzheimer's Disease<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/115829.stm</ref>.

== Secondhand Smoke ==
''Secondhand smoke'' refers to smoke that is inhaled by nonsmokers from the environment. It is a combination of smoke given off by cigarettes and other smoking implements that is not inhaled by smokers, as well as the smoke exhaled by smokers. The U.S. [[Environmental Protection Agency]] has classified secondhand smoke as a [[Group A carcinogen]], meaning that it is known to cause cancer in humans. It has been reported that secondhand smoke causes 3,600 annual lung cancer deaths and between 22,700 and 69,600 heart disease deaths annually in the U.S.<ref>California Environmental Protection Agency (2005, June). Health Effects of Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.</ref>. According the the [[Surgeon General]], even short-term exposure to secondhand smoke can have harmful effects on cardiovascular functioning<ref>The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006. Retrieved from [http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html]</ref>. Some tobacco companies have disputed the findings regarding harm caused by secondhand smoke. For example, Imperial Tobacco's website states "...it is our view that the scientific evidence, taken as a whole, is insufficient to establish that other people's tobacco smoke is a cause of any disease"<ref>http://www.imperial-tobacco.com/index.asp?pageid=64&subsection=env_tobacco_smoke. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>. Other tobacco companies have acknowledged that secondhand smoke can be harmful, including [[Phillip Morris]]: "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease...Phillip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials...[and] that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places"<ref>http://www.phillipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>.

== Regulation ==

In 2000, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled by a narrow margin of 5-4 that the [[FDA]] lacked authority to regulate tobacco products.<ref>''[[FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp.]]'', 529 U.S. 120 (2000).</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:addiction]]
[[category:industry]]
[[category:botany]]

Talk:Tobacco

2007-12-29T05:00:54Z

PhineasBogg:

Tobacco

2007-12-29T04:57:54Z

PhineasBogg:

'''Tobacco''' is a [[drug]] that is consumed by smoking or chewing. Its recreational qualities were discovered by [[Native American]]s and passed on to Europeans after the establishment of [[Jamestown]] in 1607. Tobacco causes lung cancer. It also causes mouth and throat cancer and emphysema. It has more than forty carcinogens. Studies have shown that tobacco is more addictive than cocaine and even heroin.

== History ==
The Native Americans were the first to use tobacco because tobacco only grew in the Americas. Tobacco when consumed in large quantities is a hallucinogen, therefore the Native Americans did not use it recreationally but instead used it as a hallucinogen during religious ceremonies. Tobacco was exported by [[John Rolfe]], (husband of [[Pocahontas]]). It became known as a [[cash crop]]. The negative effects of tobacco such as [[lung cancer]], [[bronchitis]] and foul breath are widely accepted today.<ref>One of the first papers to recognize that smoking causes lung cancer was published in 1957.[http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/10/981.pdf]</ref> Tobacco companies have genetically modified tobacco plants and added toxic [[chemical]]s to their products to make them more addictive, thus making the modern cigarette much more toxic than the original cultivated plant.

== Nicotine ==
Nicotine is an alkaloid in tobacco that is responsible for the addictive nature of cigarette smoking and other tobacco use. Regular nicotine consumption leads to [[tolerance]]<ref>Porchet, H. C., Benowitz, N. L., & Sheiner, L. B. (1988). Pharmacodynamic model of tolerance: Application to nicotine. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 244'', 231-236</ref> (i.e., higher doses are required to achieve the same effect), and [[withdrawal]]<ref>Hughes, J.R., Higgins, S.T., & Bickel, W.K. (1994). Nicotine withdrawal versus other drug withdrawal syndromes: Similarities and dissimilarities. ''Addiction, 89'', 1461-1470</ref> symptoms (e.g., irritability, restlessness, nicotine cravings) occur when use is discontinued. Intake elicits acute increases in heart rate and blood pressure<ref>Benowitz, N.L., Jacob, P., Jones, R.T., & Rosenberg, J. (1982). Interindividual variability in the metabolism and cardiovascular effects of nicotine in man. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 221'', 368-372.''</ref>, as well as respiratory rate, but also decreases the volume of blood flow by causing the constriction of blood vessels. Nicotine in cigarette smoke is very easily absorbed through the lungs and buccal tissue in the oral cavity<ref>Miller, M.S., & Cocores, J.A. (1993). Nicotine dependence: Diagnosis, chemistry and pharmacologic treatments. ''Pediatrics in Review, 14'', 275-279.</ref>, and reaches the brain about seven seconds after it is inhaled in cigarette smoke<ref>Benowitz, N.L. (1991). Pharmacodynamics of nicotine: Implications for rational treatment of nicotine addiction. ''British Journal of Addiction, 86'', 495-499.</ref>. After reaching the brain, it stimulates the release of a number of [[neurotransmitters]], including [[dopamine]]<ref>Stolerman, I.P., & Shoaib, M. (1991). The neurobiology of tobacco addiction. ''Trends in Pharmacological Science, 12'', 467-473.</ref>, [[norepinephrine]]<ref>Summers, K.L., & Giacobini, E. (1995). Effects of local and repeated systemic administration of (-)nicotine on extracellular levels of acetylcholine, norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin in rat cortex. ''Neurochemical Research, 20'', 753-759.</ref>, [[serotonin]]<ref>Ribeiro, E.B., Bettiker, R.L., Bogdanov, M., & Wurtman, R.J. (1993). Effects of systemic nicotine on serotonin release in rat brain. ''Brain Research, 621'', 311-318.</ref>, and [[acetylcholine]]<ref>Summers & Giacobini, 1995.</ref>. The increased availability of these chemicals in the brain leads to feelings of pleasure and mild euphoria, as well as increased alertness and concentration. The half-life of nicotine is approximately two hours.

Medications containing nicotine are also used to help smokers who are trying to quit. These are referred to as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The idea behind NRT is that it allows smokers to break the behavioral component of their smoking habit (e.g., becoming used to not smoking while driving) while gradually reducing the amount of nicotine in their bloodstream, thus minimizing the effects of physiological nicotine withdrawal. Several different forms of NRT are available, including a transdermal patch, chewing gum, and nasal spray. Nicotine has also been found to be a useful treatment for certain physical conditions, though the mechanisms are not well understood. Smoking has been associated with a lower risk of Kaposi's sarcoma<ref>http://dceg.cancer.gov/pdfs/goedert942002.pdf</ref>, as well as breast cancer among women at high risk for it due to the presence of the BRCA gene. Nicotine also appears to have therapeutic benefit for individuals with ulcerative colitis and one form of epilepsy.

Nicotine has been shown in some medical studies to be more addictive than cocaine and even heroin. Tobacco often occurs along with cocaine use because the nicotine in tobacco greatly enhances the euphoria one receives from cocaine.

[[Image:Nicotine.gif]]

== Tobacco Products ==

'''Cigarettes.''' Cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product. Approximately one of every five [[American]] adults is a current smoker<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Cigarette smoking among adults - United States, 2004. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54''', 1121-1124</ref>, and about 438,000 Americans die annually due to the effects of smoking; about 38,000 of these deaths are attributed to secondhand smoke<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses - United States, 1997-2001. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54'', 300-303.</ref>. While the prevalence of smoking has dropped dramatically in the past 50 years, the rate at which the prevalence is decreasing has slowed substantially<ref>Hughes, J. R., & Brandon, T. H. (2003). A softer view of hardening. ''Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5'', 961-962.</ref> Additionally, the rate of smoking in adolescents and young adults has been increasing since the mid-1990s<ref>Wechsler, H., Rigotti, N., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., & Lee, H. (1998). Increased levels of cigarette use among college students: A cause for national concern. ''Journal of the American Medical Association, 280'', 1673-1678.</ref>. There are nearly 5,000 different chemicals in cigarette smoke, including over 60 [[carcinogens]]<ref>Hecht, S. (2006). Cigarette smoking: Cancer risks, carcinogens, and mechanisms. ''Archives of Surgery, 391'', 603-613</ref>.

'''Cigars.'''

'''Smokeless tobacco.'''

== Health Effects ==
Smoking has a significant negative health impact, and causes many dangerous and fatal conditions, including cancers, heart disease, and respiratory disease.

It has been estimated that cigarette smoking is responsible for 28% of all deaths in developed countries in the 35-69 age group, as well as 35% of all cancer deaths and 28% of all deaths due to vascular diseases<ref>Hecht, 2006.</ref>. Smoking increases the risk of oral, pharyngeal, esophageal, laryngeal, lung, uterine, cervical, urinary, and kidney cancers<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/cancer.htm</ref>.

Coronary heart disease is one of the biggest causes of death in the United States, and is 2-4 more likely in smokers than nonsmokers. Smokers are also 10 times more likely to develop peripheral vascular disease, which is a narrowing of the arteries. Additionally, smokers are twice as vulnerable to a stroke compared with nonsmokers<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/heart.htm</ref>. Smoking also negatively impacts the respiratory system. Approximately 90% of all deaths from chronic lung diseases are the result of smoking<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/respiratory.htm</ref>.

In addition, smoking has been shown to double the risk of Alzheimer's Disease<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/115829.stm</ref>.

== Secondhand Smoke ==
''Secondhand smoke'' refers to smoke that is inhaled by nonsmokers from the environment. It is a combination of smoke given off by cigarettes and other smoking implements that is not inhaled by smokers, as well as the smoke exhaled by smokers. The U.S. [[Environmental Protection Agency]] has classified secondhand smoke as a [[Group A carcinogen]], meaning that it is known to cause cancer in humans. It has been reported that secondhand smoke causes 3,600 annual lung cancer deaths and between 22,700 and 69,600 heart disease deaths annually in the U.S.<ref>California Environmental Protection Agency (2005, June). Health Effects of Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.</ref>. According the the [[Surgeon General]], even short-term exposure to secondhand smoke can have harmful effects on cardiovascular functioning<ref>The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006. Retrieved from [http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html]</ref>. Some tobacco companies have disputed the findings regarding harm caused by secondhand smoke. For example, Imperial Tobacco's website states "...it is our view that the scientific evidence, taken as a whole, is insufficient to establish that other people's tobacco smoke is a cause of any disease"<ref>http://www.imperial-tobacco.com/index.asp?pageid=64&subsection=env_tobacco_smoke. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>. Other tobacco companies have acknowledged that secondhand smoke can be harmful, including [[Phillip Morris]]: "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease...Phillip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials...[and] that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places"<ref>http://www.phillipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>.

== Regulation ==

In 2000, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled by a narrow margin of 5-4 that the [[FDA]] lacked authority to regulate tobacco products.<ref>''[[FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp.]]'', 529 U.S. 120 (2000).</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:addiction]]
[[category:industry]]
[[category:botany]]

Talk:Tobacco

2007-12-29T04:45:23Z

PhineasBogg:

Tobacco

2007-12-29T04:44:18Z

PhineasBogg: I updated the information on the connection between smoking and Alzheimer's Disease and added a reference.

'''Tobacco''' is a [[drug]] that is consumed by smoking or chewing. Its recreational qualities were discovered by [[Native American]]s and passed on to Europeans after the establishment of [[Jamestown]] in 1607. Tobacco causes lung cancer. It also causes mouth and throat cancer and emphysema. It has more than forty carcinogens. Studies have shown that tobacco is more addictive than cocaine and even heroin.

== History ==
The Native Americans were the first to use tobacco because tobacco only grew in the Americas. Tobacco when consumed in large quantities is a hallucinogen, therefore the Native Americans did not use it recreationally but instead used it as a hallucinogen during religious ceremonies. Tobacco was exported by [[John Rolfe]], (husband of [[Pocahontas]]). It became known as a [[cash crop]]. The negative effects of tobacco such as [[lung cancer]], [[bronchitis]] and foul breath are widely accepted today.<ref>One of the first papers to recognize that smoking causes lung cancer was published in 1957.[http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/10/981.pdf]</ref> Tobacco companies have genetically modified tobacco plants and added toxic [[chemical]]s to their products to make them more addictive, thus making the modern cigarette much more toxic than the original cultivated plant.

== Nicotine ==
Nicotine is an alkaloid in tobacco that is responsible for the addictive nature of cigarette smoking and other tobacco use. Regular nicotine consumption leads to [[tolerance]]<ref>Porchet, H. C., Benowitz, N. L., & Sheiner, L. B. (1988). Pharmacodynamic model of tolerance: Application to nicotine. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 244'', 231-236</ref> (i.e., higher doses are required to achieve the same effect), and [[withdrawal]]<ref>Hughes, J.R., Higgins, S.T., & Bickel, W.K. (1994). Nicotine withdrawal versus other drug withdrawal syndromes: Similarities and dissimilarities. ''Addiction, 89'', 1461-1470</ref> symptoms (e.g., irritability, restlessness, nicotine cravings) occur when use is discontinued. Intake elicits acute increases in heart rate and blood pressure<ref>Benowitz, N.L., Jacob, P., Jones, R.T., & Rosenberg, J. (1982). Interindividual variability in the metabolism and cardiovascular effects of nicotine in man. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 221'', 368-372.''</ref>, as well as respiratory rate, but also decreases the volume of blood flow by causing the constriction of blood vessels. Nicotine in cigarette smoke is very easily absorbed through the lungs and buccal tissue in the oral cavity<ref>Miller, M.S., & Cocores, J.A. (1993). Nicotine dependence: Diagnosis, chemistry and pharmacologic treatments. ''Pediatrics in Review, 14'', 275-279.</ref>, and reaches the brain about seven seconds after it is inhaled in cigarette smoke<ref>Benowitz, N.L. (1991). Pharmacodynamics of nicotine: Implications for rational treatment of nicotine addiction. ''British Journal of Addiction, 86'', 495-499.</ref>. After reaching the brain, it stimulates the release of a number of [[neurotransmitters]], including [[dopamine]]<ref>Stolerman, I.P., & Shoaib, M. (1991). The neurobiology of tobacco addiction. ''Trends in Pharmacological Science, 12'', 467-473.</ref>, [[norepinephrine]]<ref>Summers, K.L., & Giacobini, E. (1995). Effects of local and repeated systemic administration of (-)nicotine on extracellular levels of acetylcholine, norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin in rat cortex. ''Neurochemical Research, 20'', 753-759.</ref>, [[serotonin]]<ref>Ribeiro, E.B., Bettiker, R.L., Bogdanov, M., & Wurtman, R.J. (1993). Effects of systemic nicotine on serotonin release in rat brain. ''Brain Research, 621'', 311-318.</ref>, and [[acetylcholine]]<ref>Summers & Giacobini, 1995.</ref>. The increased availability of these chemicals in the brain leads to feelings of pleasure and mild euphoria, as well as increased alertness and concentration. The half-life of nicotine is approximately two hours.

Medications containing nicotine are also used to help smokers who are trying to quit. These are referred to as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The idea behind NRT is that it allows smokers to break the behavioral component of their smoking habit (e.g., becoming used to not smoking while driving) while gradually reducing the amount of nicotine in their bloodstream, thus minimizing the effects of physiological nicotine withdrawal. Several different forms of NRT are available, including a transdermal patch, chewing gum, and nasal spray. Nicotine has also been found to be a useful treatment for certain physical conditions, though the mechanisms are not well understood. For example, smoking appears to reduce the risk of Kaposi's sarcoma, as well as breast cancer among women at high risk for it due to the presence of the BRCA gene. Nicotine also appears to have therapeutic benefit for individuals with ulcerative colitis and one form of epilepsy.

Nicotine has been shown in some medical studies to be more addictive than cocaine and even heroin. Tobacco often occurs along with cocaine use because the nicotine in tobacco greatly enhances the euphoria one receives from cocaine.

[[Image:Nicotine.gif]]

== Tobacco Products ==

'''Cigarettes.''' Cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product. Approximately one of every five [[American]] adults is a current smoker<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Cigarette smoking among adults - United States, 2004. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54''', 1121-1124</ref>, and about 438,000 Americans die annually due to the effects of smoking; about 38,000 of these deaths are attributed to secondhand smoke<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses - United States, 1997-2001. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54'', 300-303.</ref>. While the prevalence of smoking has dropped dramatically in the past 50 years, the rate at which the prevalence is decreasing has slowed substantially<ref>Hughes, J. R., & Brandon, T. H. (2003). A softer view of hardening. ''Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5'', 961-962.</ref> Additionally, the rate of smoking in adolescents and young adults has been increasing since the mid-1990s<ref>Wechsler, H., Rigotti, N., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., & Lee, H. (1998). Increased levels of cigarette use among college students: A cause for national concern. ''Journal of the American Medical Association, 280'', 1673-1678.</ref>. There are nearly 5,000 different chemicals in cigarette smoke, including over 60 [[carcinogens]]<ref>Hecht, S. (2006). Cigarette smoking: Cancer risks, carcinogens, and mechanisms. ''Archives of Surgery, 391'', 603-613</ref>.

'''Cigars.'''

'''Smokeless tobacco.'''

== Health Effects ==
Smoking has a significant negative health impact, and causes many dangerous and fatal conditions, including cancers, heart disease, and respiratory disease.

It has been estimated that cigarette smoking is responsible for 28% of all deaths in developed countries in the 35-69 age group, as well as 35% of all cancer deaths and 28% of all deaths due to vascular diseases<ref>Hecht, 2006.</ref>. Smoking increases the risk of oral, pharyngeal, esophageal, laryngeal, lung, uterine, cervical, urinary, and kidney cancers<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/cancer.htm</ref>.

Coronary heart disease is one of the biggest causes of death in the United States, and is 2-4 more likely in smokers than nonsmokers. Smokers are also 10 times more likely to develop peripheral vascular disease, which is a narrowing of the arteries. Additionally, smokers are twice as vulnerable to a stroke compared with nonsmokers<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/heart.htm</ref>. Smoking also negatively impacts the respiratory system. Approximately 90% of all deaths from chronic lung diseases are the result of smoking<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/respiratory.htm</ref>.

In addition, smoking has been shown to double the risk of Alzheimer's Disease<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/115829.stm</ref>.

== Secondhand Smoke ==
''Secondhand smoke'' refers to smoke that is inhaled by nonsmokers from the environment. It is a combination of smoke given off by cigarettes and other smoking implements that is not inhaled by smokers, as well as the smoke exhaled by smokers. The U.S. [[Environmental Protection Agency]] has classified secondhand smoke as a [[Group A carcinogen]], meaning that it is known to cause cancer in humans. It has been reported that secondhand smoke causes 3,600 annual lung cancer deaths and between 22,700 and 69,600 heart disease deaths annually in the U.S.<ref>California Environmental Protection Agency (2005, June). Health Effects of Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.</ref>. According the the [[Surgeon General]], even short-term exposure to secondhand smoke can have harmful effects on cardiovascular functioning<ref>The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006. Retrieved from [http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html]</ref>. Some tobacco companies have disputed the findings regarding harm caused by secondhand smoke. For example, Imperial Tobacco's website states "...it is our view that the scientific evidence, taken as a whole, is insufficient to establish that other people's tobacco smoke is a cause of any disease"<ref>http://www.imperial-tobacco.com/index.asp?pageid=64&subsection=env_tobacco_smoke. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>. Other tobacco companies have acknowledged that secondhand smoke can be harmful, including [[Phillip Morris]]: "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease...Phillip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials...[and] that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places"<ref>http://www.phillipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>.

== Regulation ==

In 2000, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled by a narrow margin of 5-4 that the [[FDA]] lacked authority to regulate tobacco products.<ref>''[[FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp.]]'', 529 U.S. 120 (2000).</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:addiction]]
[[category:industry]]
[[category:botany]]

Tobacco

2007-12-29T04:36:51Z

PhineasBogg: /* Nicotine */

'''Tobacco''' is a [[drug]] that is consumed by smoking or chewing. Its recreational qualities were discovered by [[Native American]]s and passed on to Europeans after the establishment of [[Jamestown]] in 1607. Tobacco causes lung cancer. It also causes mouth and throat cancer and emphysema. It has more than forty carcinogens. Studies have shown that tobacco is more addictive than cocaine and even heroin.

== History ==
The Native Americans were the first to use tobacco because tobacco only grew in the Americas. Tobacco when consumed in large quantities is a hallucinogen, therefore the Native Americans did not use it recreationally but instead used it as a hallucinogen during religious ceremonies. Tobacco was exported by [[John Rolfe]], (husband of [[Pocahontas]]). It became known as a [[cash crop]]. The negative effects of tobacco such as [[lung cancer]], [[bronchitis]] and foul breath are widely accepted today.<ref>One of the first papers to recognize that smoking causes lung cancer was published in 1957.[http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/10/981.pdf]</ref> Tobacco companies have genetically modified tobacco plants and added toxic [[chemical]]s to their products to make them more addictive, thus making the modern cigarette much more toxic than the original cultivated plant.

== Nicotine ==
Nicotine is an alkaloid in tobacco that is responsible for the addictive nature of cigarette smoking and other tobacco use. Regular nicotine consumption leads to [[tolerance]]<ref>Porchet, H. C., Benowitz, N. L., & Sheiner, L. B. (1988). Pharmacodynamic model of tolerance: Application to nicotine. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 244'', 231-236</ref> (i.e., higher doses are required to achieve the same effect), and [[withdrawal]]<ref>Hughes, J.R., Higgins, S.T., & Bickel, W.K. (1994). Nicotine withdrawal versus other drug withdrawal syndromes: Similarities and dissimilarities. ''Addiction, 89'', 1461-1470</ref> symptoms (e.g., irritability, restlessness, nicotine cravings) occur when use is discontinued. Intake elicits acute increases in heart rate and blood pressure<ref>Benowitz, N.L., Jacob, P., Jones, R.T., & Rosenberg, J. (1982). Interindividual variability in the metabolism and cardiovascular effects of nicotine in man. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 221'', 368-372.''</ref>, as well as respiratory rate, but also decreases the volume of blood flow by causing the constriction of blood vessels. Nicotine in cigarette smoke is very easily absorbed through the lungs and buccal tissue in the oral cavity<ref>Miller, M.S., & Cocores, J.A. (1993). Nicotine dependence: Diagnosis, chemistry and pharmacologic treatments. ''Pediatrics in Review, 14'', 275-279.</ref>, and reaches the brain about seven seconds after it is inhaled in cigarette smoke<ref>Benowitz, N.L. (1991). Pharmacodynamics of nicotine: Implications for rational treatment of nicotine addiction. ''British Journal of Addiction, 86'', 495-499.</ref>. After reaching the brain, it stimulates the release of a number of [[neurotransmitters]], including [[dopamine]]<ref>Stolerman, I.P., & Shoaib, M. (1991). The neurobiology of tobacco addiction. ''Trends in Pharmacological Science, 12'', 467-473.</ref>, [[norepinephrine]]<ref>Summers, K.L., & Giacobini, E. (1995). Effects of local and repeated systemic administration of (-)nicotine on extracellular levels of acetylcholine, norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin in rat cortex. ''Neurochemical Research, 20'', 753-759.</ref>, [[serotonin]]<ref>Ribeiro, E.B., Bettiker, R.L., Bogdanov, M., & Wurtman, R.J. (1993). Effects of systemic nicotine on serotonin release in rat brain. ''Brain Research, 621'', 311-318.</ref>, and [[acetylcholine]]<ref>Summers & Giacobini, 1995.</ref>. The increased availability of these chemicals in the brain leads to feelings of pleasure and mild euphoria, as well as increased alertness and concentration. The half-life of nicotine is approximately two hours.

Medications containing nicotine are also used to help smokers who are trying to quit. These are referred to as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The idea behind NRT is that it allows smokers to break the behavioral component of their smoking habit (e.g., becoming used to not smoking while driving) while gradually reducing the amount of nicotine in their bloodstream, thus minimizing the effects of physiological nicotine withdrawal. Several different forms of NRT are available, including a transdermal patch, chewing gum, and nasal spray. Nicotine has also been found to be a useful treatment for certain physical conditions, though the mechanisms are not well understood. For example, smoking appears to reduce the risk of Kaposi's sarcoma, as well as breast cancer among women at high risk for it due to the presence of the BRCA gene. Nicotine also appears to have therapeutic benefit for individuals with ulcerative colitis, one form of epilepsy, and neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's Dementia.

Nicotine has been shown in some medical studies to be more addictive than cocaine and even heroin. Tobacco often occurs along with cocaine use because the nicotine in tobacco greatly enhances the euphoria one receives from cocaine.

[[Image:Nicotine.gif]]

== Tobacco Products ==

'''Cigarettes.''' Cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product. Approximately one of every five [[American]] adults is a current smoker<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Cigarette smoking among adults - United States, 2004. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54''', 1121-1124</ref>, and about 438,000 Americans die annually due to the effects of smoking; about 38,000 of these deaths are attributed to secondhand smoke<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses - United States, 1997-2001. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54'', 300-303.</ref>. While the prevalence of smoking has dropped dramatically in the past 50 years, the rate at which the prevalence is decreasing has slowed substantially<ref>Hughes, J. R., & Brandon, T. H. (2003). A softer view of hardening. ''Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5'', 961-962.</ref> Additionally, the rate of smoking in adolescents and young adults has been increasing since the mid-1990s<ref>Wechsler, H., Rigotti, N., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., & Lee, H. (1998). Increased levels of cigarette use among college students: A cause for national concern. ''Journal of the American Medical Association, 280'', 1673-1678.</ref>. There are nearly 5,000 different chemicals in cigarette smoke, including over 60 [[carcinogens]]<ref>Hecht, S. (2006). Cigarette smoking: Cancer risks, carcinogens, and mechanisms. ''Archives of Surgery, 391'', 603-613</ref>.

'''Cigars.'''

'''Smokeless tobacco.'''

== Health Effects ==
Smoking has a significant negative health impact, and causes many dangerous and fatal conditions, including cancers, heart disease, and respiratory disease.

It has been estimated that cigarette smoking is responsible for 28% of all deaths in developed countries in the 35-69 age group, as well as 35% of all cancer deaths and 28% of all deaths due to vascular diseases<ref>Hecht, 2006.</ref>. Smoking increases the risk of oral, pharyngeal, esophageal, laryngeal, lung, uterine, cervical, urinary, and kidney cancers<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/cancer.htm</ref>.

Coronary heart disease is one of the biggest causes of death in the United States, and is 2-4 more likely in smokers than nonsmokers. Smokers are also 10 times more likely to develop peripheral vascular disease, which is a narrowing of the arteries. Additionally, smokers are twice as vulnerable to a stroke compared with nonsmokers<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/heart.htm</ref>. Smoking also negatively impacts the respiratory system. Approximately 90% of all deaths from chronic lung diseases are the result of smoking<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/respiratory.htm</ref>.

== Secondhand Smoke ==
''Secondhand smoke'' refers to smoke that is inhaled by nonsmokers from the environment. It is a combination of smoke given off by cigarettes and other smoking implements that is not inhaled by smokers, as well as the smoke exhaled by smokers. The U.S. [[Environmental Protection Agency]] has classified secondhand smoke as a [[Group A carcinogen]], meaning that it is known to cause cancer in humans. It has been reported that secondhand smoke causes 3,600 annual lung cancer deaths and between 22,700 and 69,600 heart disease deaths annually in the U.S.<ref>California Environmental Protection Agency (2005, June). Health Effects of Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.</ref>. According the the [[Surgeon General]], even short-term exposure to secondhand smoke can have harmful effects on cardiovascular functioning<ref>The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006. Retrieved from [http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html]</ref>. Some tobacco companies have disputed the findings regarding harm caused by secondhand smoke. For example, Imperial Tobacco's website states "...it is our view that the scientific evidence, taken as a whole, is insufficient to establish that other people's tobacco smoke is a cause of any disease"<ref>http://www.imperial-tobacco.com/index.asp?pageid=64&subsection=env_tobacco_smoke. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>. Other tobacco companies have acknowledged that secondhand smoke can be harmful, including [[Phillip Morris]]: "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease...Phillip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials...[and] that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places"<ref>http://www.phillipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>.

== Regulation ==

In 2000, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled by a narrow margin of 5-4 that the [[FDA]] lacked authority to regulate tobacco products.<ref>''[[FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp.]]'', 529 U.S. 120 (2000).</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:addiction]]
[[category:industry]]
[[category:botany]]

Tobacco

2007-12-29T04:34:46Z

PhineasBogg:

'''Tobacco''' is a [[drug]] that is consumed by smoking or chewing. Its recreational qualities were discovered by [[Native American]]s and passed on to Europeans after the establishment of [[Jamestown]] in 1607. Tobacco causes lung cancer. It also causes mouth and throat cancer and emphysema. It has more than forty carcinogens. Studies have shown that tobacco is more addictive than cocaine and even heroin.

== History ==
The Native Americans were the first to use tobacco because tobacco only grew in the Americas. Tobacco when consumed in large quantities is a hallucinogen, therefore the Native Americans did not use it recreationally but instead used it as a hallucinogen during religious ceremonies. Tobacco was exported by [[John Rolfe]], (husband of [[Pocahontas]]). It became known as a [[cash crop]]. The negative effects of tobacco such as [[lung cancer]], [[bronchitis]] and foul breath are widely accepted today.<ref>One of the first papers to recognize that smoking causes lung cancer was published in 1957.[http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/10/981.pdf]</ref> Tobacco companies have genetically modified tobacco plants and added toxic [[chemical]]s to their products to make them more addictive, thus making the modern cigarette much more toxic than the original cultivated plant.

== Nicotine ==
Nicotine is an alkaloid in tobacco that is responsible for the addictive nature of cigarette smoking and other tobacco use. Regular nicotine consumption leads to [[tolerance]]<ref>Porchet, H. C., Benowitz, N. L., & Sheiner, L. B. (1988). Pharmacodynamic model of tolerance: Application to nicotine. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 244'', 231-236</ref> (i.e., higher doses are required to achieve the same effect), and [[withdrawal]]<ref>Hughes, J.R., Higgins, S.T., & Bickel, W.K. (1994). Nicotine withdrawal versus other drug withdrawal syndromes: Similarities and dissimilarities. ''Addiction, 89'', 1461-1470</ref> symptoms (e.g., irritability, restlessness, nicotine cravings) occur when use is discontinued. Intake elicits acute increases in heart rate and blood pressure<ref>Benowitz, N.L., Jacob, P., Jones, R.T., & Rosenberg, J. (1982). Interindividual variability in the metabolism and cardiovascular effects of nicotine in man. ''Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, 221'', 368-372.''</ref>, as well as respiratory rate, but also decreases the volume of blood flow by causing the constriction of blood vessels. Nicotine in cigarette smoke is very easily absorbed through the lungs and buccal tissue in the oral cavity<ref>Miller, M.S., & Cocores, J.A. (1993). Nicotine dependence: Diagnosis, chemistry and pharmacologic treatments. ''Pediatrics in Review, 14'', 275-279.</ref>, and reaches the brain about seven seconds after it is inhaled in cigarette smoke<ref>Benowitz, N.L. (1991). Pharmacodynamics of nicotine: Implications for rational treatment of nicotine addiction. ''British Journal of Addiction, 86'', 495-499.</ref>. After reaching the brain, it stimulates the release of a number of [[neurotransmitters]], including [[dopamine]]<ref>Stolerman, I.P., & Shoaib, M. (1991). The neurobiology of tobacco addiction. ''Trends in Pharmacological Science, 12'', 467-473.</ref>, [[norepinephrine]]<ref>Summers, K.L., & Giacobini, E. (1995). Effects of local and repeated systemic administration of (-)nicotine on extracellular levels of acetylcholine, norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin in rat cortex. ''Neurochemical Research, 20'', 753-759.</ref>, [[serotonin]]<ref>Ribeiro, E.B., Bettiker, R.L., Bogdanov, M., & Wurtman, R.J. (1993). Effects of systemic nicotine on serotonin release in rat brain. ''Brain Research, 621'', 311-318.</ref>, and [[acetylcholine]]<ref>Summers & Giacobini, 1995.</ref>. The increased availability of these chemicals in the brain leads to feelings of pleasure and mild euphoria, as well as increased alertness and concentration. The half-life of nicotine is approximately two hours.

Medications containing nicotine are also used to help smokers who are trying to quit. These are referred to as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The idea behind NRT is that it allows smokers to break the behavioral component of their smoking habit (e.g., becoming used to not smoking while driving) while gradually reducing the amount of nicotine in their bloodstream, thus minimizing the effects of physiological nicotine withdrawal. Several different forms of NRT are available, including a transdermal patch, chewing gum, and nasal spray. Nicotine has also been found to be a useful treatment for certain physical conditions, though the mechanisms are not well understood. For example, smoking reduces the risk of Kaposi's sarcoma, as well as breast cancer among women at high risk for it due to the presence of the BRCA gene. Nicotine also appears to have therapeutic benefit for individuals with ulcerative colitis, one form of epilepsy, and neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's Dementia.

Nicotine has been shown in some medical studies to be more addictive than cocaine and even heroin. Tobacco often occurs along with cocaine use because the nicotine in tobacco greatly enhances the euphoria one receives from cocaine.

[[Image:Nicotine.gif]]

== Tobacco Products ==

'''Cigarettes.''' Cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product. Approximately one of every five [[American]] adults is a current smoker<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Cigarette smoking among adults - United States, 2004. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54''', 1121-1124</ref>, and about 438,000 Americans die annually due to the effects of smoking; about 38,000 of these deaths are attributed to secondhand smoke<ref>Centers for Disease Control (2005). Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses - United States, 1997-2001. ''Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54'', 300-303.</ref>. While the prevalence of smoking has dropped dramatically in the past 50 years, the rate at which the prevalence is decreasing has slowed substantially<ref>Hughes, J. R., & Brandon, T. H. (2003). A softer view of hardening. ''Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5'', 961-962.</ref> Additionally, the rate of smoking in adolescents and young adults has been increasing since the mid-1990s<ref>Wechsler, H., Rigotti, N., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., & Lee, H. (1998). Increased levels of cigarette use among college students: A cause for national concern. ''Journal of the American Medical Association, 280'', 1673-1678.</ref>. There are nearly 5,000 different chemicals in cigarette smoke, including over 60 [[carcinogens]]<ref>Hecht, S. (2006). Cigarette smoking: Cancer risks, carcinogens, and mechanisms. ''Archives of Surgery, 391'', 603-613</ref>.

'''Cigars.'''

'''Smokeless tobacco.'''

== Health Effects ==
Smoking has a significant negative health impact, and causes many dangerous and fatal conditions, including cancers, heart disease, and respiratory disease.

It has been estimated that cigarette smoking is responsible for 28% of all deaths in developed countries in the 35-69 age group, as well as 35% of all cancer deaths and 28% of all deaths due to vascular diseases<ref>Hecht, 2006.</ref>. Smoking increases the risk of oral, pharyngeal, esophageal, laryngeal, lung, uterine, cervical, urinary, and kidney cancers<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/cancer.htm</ref>.

Coronary heart disease is one of the biggest causes of death in the United States, and is 2-4 more likely in smokers than nonsmokers. Smokers are also 10 times more likely to develop peripheral vascular disease, which is a narrowing of the arteries. Additionally, smokers are twice as vulnerable to a stroke compared with nonsmokers<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/heart.htm</ref>. Smoking also negatively impacts the respiratory system. Approximately 90% of all deaths from chronic lung diseases are the result of smoking<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/health_effects/respiratory.htm</ref>.

== Secondhand Smoke ==
''Secondhand smoke'' refers to smoke that is inhaled by nonsmokers from the environment. It is a combination of smoke given off by cigarettes and other smoking implements that is not inhaled by smokers, as well as the smoke exhaled by smokers. The U.S. [[Environmental Protection Agency]] has classified secondhand smoke as a [[Group A carcinogen]], meaning that it is known to cause cancer in humans. It has been reported that secondhand smoke causes 3,600 annual lung cancer deaths and between 22,700 and 69,600 heart disease deaths annually in the U.S.<ref>California Environmental Protection Agency (2005, June). Health Effects of Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.</ref>. According the the [[Surgeon General]], even short-term exposure to secondhand smoke can have harmful effects on cardiovascular functioning<ref>The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006. Retrieved from [http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html]</ref>. Some tobacco companies have disputed the findings regarding harm caused by secondhand smoke. For example, Imperial Tobacco's website states "...it is our view that the scientific evidence, taken as a whole, is insufficient to establish that other people's tobacco smoke is a cause of any disease"<ref>http://www.imperial-tobacco.com/index.asp?pageid=64&subsection=env_tobacco_smoke. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>. Other tobacco companies have acknowledged that secondhand smoke can be harmful, including [[Phillip Morris]]: "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease...Phillip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials...[and] that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places"<ref>http://www.phillipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>.

== Regulation ==

In 2000, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled by a narrow margin of 5-4 that the [[FDA]] lacked authority to regulate tobacco products.<ref>''[[FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp.]]'', 529 U.S. 120 (2000).</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[category:addiction]]
[[category:industry]]
[[category:botany]]

Talk:Tobacco

2007-12-29T04:34:13Z

PhineasBogg:

Algebraic numbers

2007-12-29T04:16:08Z

PhineasBogg:

'''Algebraic Numbers''', are real numbers which are roots of some finite degree polynomial with integer coefficients. Examples of Algebraic Numbers are 2, 1/3, and <math>\sqrt{2}</math>.

In contrast, [[transcendental numbers]] are real numbers which are not roots of any finite degree polynomial with integer coefficients. The most well-known transcendental numbers are [[e]] and <math>\pi</math> ([[pi]]).

The set of Algebraic Numbers is countably [[infinite]]. This follows from the fact that the set of finite degree polynomials with integer coefficients is countably [[infinite]].

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Algebraic numbers

2007-12-29T04:15:15Z

PhineasBogg:

'''Algebraic Numbers''', are real numbers which are roots of some finite degree polynomial with integer coefficients. Examples of Algebraic Numbers are 2, 1/3, and <math>\sqrt{2}</math>.

In contrast, [[transcendental numbers]] are real numbers which are not roots of any finite degree polynomial with integer coefficients. The most well-known transcendental numbers are [[e]] and [[pi <math>\pi</math>]].

The set of Algebraic Numbers is countably [[infinite]]. This follows from the fact that the set of finite degree polynomials with integer coefficients is countably [[infinite]].

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Algebraic numbers

2007-12-29T04:14:28Z

PhineasBogg:

'''Algebraic Numbers''', are real numbers which are roots of some finite degree polynomial with integer coefficients. Examples of Algebraic Numbers are 2, 1/3, and <math>\sqrt{2}</math>.

In contrast, [[transcendental numbers]] are real numbers which are not roots of any finite degree polynomial with integer coefficients. The most well-known transcendental numbers are e and <math>\pi</math>.

The set of Algebraic Numbers is countably [[infinite]]. This follows from the fact that the set of finite degree polynomials with integer coefficients is countably [[infinite]].

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Infinity

2007-12-29T04:13:46Z

PhineasBogg: Added links to cardinality and set theory

'''Infinity''' is a designation for that condition which goes on without end. It is not an actual number that can be quantified, but a value which is approached as a limit. It can not be empirically tested as one can never have a sample size of infinity, but logically we know it exists. Infinity has important theoretical applications in mathematics.
An example where infinity can be seen as a limit would be in any attempt to divide by zero. The result is an undefined value, but it can be seen with the function <math>F</math>x = <math>1/x</math> that as x approaches the value of zero, that the resulting answer approaches infinity.

[[Georg Cantor]]'s diagonal argument is an elegant proof demonstrating that the infinity of real numbers is greater than the infinity of countable integers. The essence of the argument is that in any proposed list of all real numbers, a new real number not in the list can be constructed by taking the digits in a diagonal through the list and changing them to construct a new real number that differs from the nth entry at the nth position right of the decimal point.

To formalize countably and uncountably infinite, we need the [[set theory]] concept of [[cardinality]]. Using set theory it can be shown that there are infinitely many distinct infinite cardinalities.

Infinity is written using the symbol ∞

However, in some non-standard model of Peano arithematic, ∞ is treated as an actual number.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Conservapedia talk:Critical Thinking in Math

2007-12-29T04:03:51Z

PhineasBogg: /* Additive Factoring */

Conservapedia talk:Critical Thinking in Math

2007-12-29T04:03:04Z

PhineasBogg: /* Additive Factoring */