Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-06-01T20:02:00Z

PostoStudanto: Tidying and updates

<big>The following is a growing list of examples of '''[[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]].'''</big>
 
 
#[[Wikipedia]] cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims.
#[[Wikipedia]] bias against [[movement conservative]]s is intense. [[Michele Bachmann]] won reelection in 2008 by 3% in a state that went heavily [[Democratic]], but instead of crediting her [[conservative]] positions the biased Wikipedia entry states, "Despite fallout from controversial statements that she had made, Bachmann defeated her Democratic opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg in the 2008 election."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#cite_ref-33</ref>
#In its entry on the heavily Christian Gothic architecture,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture</ref> [[Wikipedia]] credits [[Islam]] before [[Christianity]], does not even mention Christianity until after more than 1500 words, and then does not mention Christianity again.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[evolution]] article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position]] despite the [[evolution|evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it]].
# Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the [[Homosexuality and health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Homosexuality_Statistics|high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community]], the [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|higher incidences of domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the [[Homosexuality and health|substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community]]. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
#Wikipedia made no mention of the fact that [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards"<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090218.html?loc=interstitialskip</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=273538810</ref><ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/02/19/cnn-talking-heads-unanimously-praise-holders-coward-remarks</ref> when it comes to the discussion of race until about two weeks after Holder insulted America. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&diff=next&oldid=274455687</ref> In typical Wikipedia fashion, it was made to sound as if only conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh objected to the attorney general's crass insult and obvious contempt for the citizens of the United States of America. As of 3/8/09, there is no mention on Wikipedia of Obama's rebuke of Holder's "cowards" insult or of the fact that Holder wants an assault weapons ban. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=275247574</ref>
#''Alma mater'' normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alma%20mater</ref> However, at [[Wikipedia]], the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=272581018</ref> [[Sean Hannity]] attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater because he is a conservative. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=272201242</ref>
#The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766</ref> made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html</ref> Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629</ref> Kirk's wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from Tony Rezko <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=268845790</ref>, but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.article</ref> Rezko donation. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=272320979</ref> Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=274813568</ref>
#Wikipedia smears [[conservative]] groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy</ref> usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters [[liberal]] groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances</ref>
#Wikipedia's entry about the [[Christian]] martyr at [[Columbine]] refuses to admit that she was murdered by an [[atheist]] as she was expressing her [[faith]] in [[God]], as confirmed by multiple witnesses.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall</ref><ref>http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm</ref> Wikipedia is dominated by atheistic [[public school]] students who would be particularly biased against this truth.
#*Version of May 12, 2009:
#*:Initial reports suggested that one of the assailants, either Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, asked Bernall if she believed in God moments before fatally shooting her. She was reported to have answered "yes". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cassie_Bernall&oldid=289313205]
#Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> and conceals from readers how Conservapedia offers free online courses for teenagers.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Index]]</ref> The result of this bias by Wikipedia, which raises money as a charity, is the concealing and demonizing of a free learning resource that Wikipedia itself does not offer.
#Wikipedia's entry on the [[Scopes trial]] downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury '''only''' to have them come to a guilty verdict."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)</ref><ref>Thanks much to a student in our [[American_History_Lectures|American History course]] for pointing this out.</ref>
#[[California]]'s Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)</ref> does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA</ref>
#The articles on both [[Saul Alinsky]] and his book, ''Rules for Radicals'' make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# The founder of the Weather Channel and 100's of other climatologists have been removed from the category "Global warming skeptics", which Wikipedia decided to delete.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&diff=232272809&oldid=227980118</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_7#Global_warming_and_ozone_hole_skeptics_categories</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# Wikipedia tries to smear [[conservatives]] as "conspiracy theorists," even when they are not, and yet omits that epithet for [[liberals]] who insist there are vast conspiracies, such as [[Hillary Clinton]]'s claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Compare Wikipedia's entry on [[Phyllis Schlafly]], which repeats a false assertion that she "veers off into conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly</ref> with Wikipedia's entry on Hillary Clinton, which provides her quote of a "vast" conspiracy yet refuses to describe her as a conspiracy theorist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[liberal]] [[Michael Moore]], the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, does not even include any reference to the word "conspiracy"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[conservative]] [[Oklahoma]] legislator Sally Kern is seething with bias, unjustified smears and outright distortions.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref> Wikipedia understates that over 1500 supporters rallied in support of her criticisms of the [[homosexual agenda]],<ref>http://newsok.com/article/3224704/1207238655</ref> and instead Wikipedia highlights predictable [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]] criticisms of her stance. Wikipedia then smears her with false accusations about her family and emphasizes charges that were never brought against her. If that isn't enough, the Wikipedia entry even misrepresents a bill that Kern introduced to protect "a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint"; Wikipedia relies on an anti-[[Christian]] blog to distort Kern's bill.
# The Wikipedia entry on [[baraminology]] (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it was devised by a creationist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</reF>
# Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the [[liberal]] John Edwards,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards</ref> despite frequently including smears against [[conservatives]].<ref>For example, Wikipedia ''does'' mention the [[liberal]] New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw]</ref> Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal</ref><ref>http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free</ref><ref>http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[cold fusion]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion</ref> presents it as a continuing controversy. [[Liberals]] hope that cold fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited <ref>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127</ref> Hydrino theory <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills</ref> as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
# [[Liberals]] loathe self-defense, and [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the national self-defense system of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref> Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed [[John Kerry]] for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</reF> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] promoted to good status, or GA, its smear entry about Conservapedia, in which Wikipedia claims that Conservapedia "has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#cite_ref-Clarke_6-0</ref> When Conservapedia pointed out the lack of support (which violates stated Wikipedia policy) for this false smear of Conservapedia, Wikipedia simply replaced its prior cite with a new one that also failed to support its smear. After this was pointed out, [[Wikipedia]] simply changed its sentence to try to smear Conservapedia in another way.
#[[Wikipedia]] will give often great prominence to [[liberal]] criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to [[conservative]] criticism of a [[liberal]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry for [[conservative]] [[Texas]] legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to [[liberal]] criticism of an obscure quote of hers.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle</ref> But Wikipedia's entry for [[liberal]] [[Chuck Schumer]] consists of glowing praise without including any [[conservative]] criticism of him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Barack Obama]] claims that he "was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref> when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.<ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513672 (partially explaining the race-based selection system)</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[censorship]] omits any reference to [[liberal]] censorship of [[classroom prayer]], [[pro-life]] advertisements, [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses, or mentioning [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's former cite to a ''[[New York Times]]'' article for support actually criticizes [[Wikipedia]] because it "does dwell on the ''idea'' that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"<ref>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ (emphasis added)</ref> Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia.
#[[Wikipedia]] gives favored treatment to anyone who promotes the [[homosexual agenda]], and smears those who oppose it. For example, [[Robert Mapplethorpe]] glorified [[homosexuality]] in photographs before himself dying of [[AIDS]]. His own biographer identified him as a racist, providing quotes to prove it.<ref>http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mapplethorpe_a_biography_patricia_morrisroe/</ref> Yet the [[Wikipedia]] entry about him conceals any reference to his racism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapplethorpe</ref> Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] smears the [[American Family Association]] and claims it is racist for reasons not supported by its citation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Anti-Semitism (March 2005 issue reference)</ref>
#Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, [[Jimbo Wales]], is an [[atheism|atheist]], it is not particularly surprising that [[Wikipedia]] is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach [[Marcus Borden]]'s attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. [[Wikipedia]]'s biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States</ref> It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite [[John Lott]], the leading expert whose studies support guns.
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# The body of the [[Islamic terrorism]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#.22Islamic.22_terrorism</ref> page opens with ''"Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase'' while the body of the Christian terrorism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Racism.2C_Sexism.2C_.26_Terrorism</ref> page opened with ''Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."'' <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Theological_justification_of_Christian_violence</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an extensive entry on "[[Creation]] myth".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth</ref> Describing [[Creationism]] as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage [[Christian]]s, and although the [[Evolution]] satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</reF>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does 'not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a [[liberal]] advocacy group,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term [[liberal]] in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>
# On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information<ref>The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory]</ref> from the [[Wikipedia]] entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826</ref> The editor then predicted on [[Conservapedia]] that the [[liberal bias]] would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref> After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] often smears [[conservatives]] with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, [[Wikipedia]] falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on [[Conservapedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but [[Wikipedia]]'s references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on [[Conservapedia]] is likely older than on [[Wikipedia]], so its smear is particularly hypocritical.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Ron+Paul&year=&month=-1]</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was [[pro-life]] and led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>
# Type in "[[conservative]]" on [[Wikipedia]] and you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of [[marriage]], gun rights or personal accountability. [[Wikipedia]] even claims that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claimed that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# In a typical example of [[placement bias]] on [[Wikipedia]], it claims in its first sentence that [[Matthew Shepard]] was murdered "because of his [[homosexuality]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard</ref> Only near the end of the entry does [[Wikipedia]] quote a 20/20 report and knowledgeable sources which provide persuasive evidence that the crime was caused by drugs, not hatred towards [[homosexuality]].
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] was previously nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> A proper page for her has since been added<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown</ref>.
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[intelligent design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a strong bias against the [[Discovery Institute]], a prominent proponent of [[intelligent design]]. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism</ref> and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism</ref>) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
# [[Wikipedia]] displays a similar bias against the [[Institute for Creation Research]] and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the [[ICR Graduate School]], first in [[California]] and now in [[Texas]], relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research Institute for Creation Research] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref><ref name="tes>Schafersman," Steven. "[http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm The Institute for Creation Research and It's (''sic'') Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education]." ''Texas Citizens for Science'', December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref><ref name="rae>Bergman," Jerry. "[http://www.rae.org/ICRcase.html The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College]." ''Revolution Against Evolution'', May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy allowing edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a 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 and '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
# [[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. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517</ref> Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# Wikpedia's entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore</ref> But Wikipedia's entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
# Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.
# Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other [[liberals]] in reliance on Wikipedia.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref> The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.<ref>"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604</ref> Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President [[George W. Bush]], then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that.
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies! After this criticism was posted here, Wikipedia removed the said citation but replaced it with a few other biased citations.
# [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref>
# [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref> After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings</ref> but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of [[liberal]] Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL Student Successes Defy Urban Trends]" San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref> Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization</ref>
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark</ref>
# Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as [[atheist]]ic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, [[atheist]], agnostic, humanist, secular, other."<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime [[liberal]] cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Initially, in December 2006, a Wikipedia administrator named "Nearly Headless Nick" (the signature nickname for Wikipedia user "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington</ref>) deleted an entry about Conservapedia, following a discussion on the "Articles for deletion" section in which a horde of Wikipedia editors demanded and obtained deletion, claiming that the site failed a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) notability guideline for websites]".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia</ref> Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the [[liberal]] attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the [[ACLU]]'s side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the [[ACLU]]'s briefs,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Edits to include facts against [[Evolution]] are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on [[Young Earth Creationism]]? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
#: The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history</ref>. No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# In a brief-lived example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. The latter was deleted after a month along with all other categories focused on the sexuality of Wikipedians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] has revived itself after a delete but is still fighting to not be deleted.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign makes no mention of her endorsement by the leadership of the terrorist group Hamas,<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58699</ref> but lists endorsements of Republican presidential candidates by the Ku Klux Klan.
#Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service ''definition''" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the ''United States'', Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary ''Theory''". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, [[liberal]] "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory</ref>
#Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up:
## '''Matriarchy''' is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy</ref>
## '''Patriarchy''' describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# For a period of time (January 4, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544</ref> - April 5, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436</ref>), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
# Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia's most controversial pages are guarded by liberal elite. Thereby, accuracy is replaced with ideology. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml Wikipropaganda On Global Warming] National Review, July 8, 2008</ref> The first one-hundred and sixty-eight words on Wikipedia's [[Global Warming]] page contains multiple conjectures, major errors and bias. ''"increase in the average measured [[temperature]] ... since the mid-twentieth century"'' that same paragraph "''solar variation combined with volcanoes ... and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward."'' Which is it, warmer or cooler from 1950? "''very likely due''" "''probably had''" or "''the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the [[IPCC]]'s main conclusions''"- unsubstantiated bias.
# Wikipedia trivializes the book ''Inventing the AIDS Virus'' by making it a redirect. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventing_the_AIDS_Virus</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Theological_Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary] demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary '''in a militant and explicitly polemical manner''', from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."
# It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117</ref>, but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers</ref>).
# The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244</ref> and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954</ref>
# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> It has since been removed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
# Wikipedia's presidential template for George W. Bush is a sterile presentation of his life and presidency<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_W._Bush</ref>, but the template for Barack Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> (Note that there is no mention on Wikipedia of George W. Bush Elementary in Stockton, CA.<ref>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22george+w.+bush+elementary%22+stockton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</ref>)
# The article about the legitimate questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate is entitled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories</ref> however one is hard-pressed to find such bold use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles about Dominionism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref>, the 9/11 Truth movement<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth</ref>, and many other conspiracy theories that the left favors. The article also describes advocates of the questions as "fringe" several times despite including the likes of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but the same word is only used once in the 9/11 Truth movement article (and it uses it in a quote stating that the movement isn't fringe) and not at all in the Dominionism article.
# In the article for flood geology<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology</ref>, the section containing evidence in favor of a global flood has the header "Evidence cited to support a global flood"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_cited_to_support_a_global_flood</ref> while the section containing evidence against it has the header "Evidence against a global flood."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_against_a_global_flood</ref> Attempts to balance this disparity are met with quick reversions with excuses such as "I don't see this as an improvement"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=288093849&oldid=288042808</ref> and appeals referencing the so-called "scientific community" (i.e. the "scientific consensus").<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=next&oldid=288488331</ref> Additionally, in a recent edit, Hrafn (one of the "usual suspects" who gang up and protect their preferred version of evolution and Creation articles) revealed his unabashed bias by reverting an edit with the explanation "all creationists are WP:FRINGE/'cracked pot[s].'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=289076441&oldid=289074740</ref>
#The Carrie Prejean article on Wikipedia is carefully crafted however, major points tend to end with a liberals last word. 'Photograph controversy' last line quotes "go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate, and do not benefit Prejean's status." The section 'Crown retention', last line says- "she no longer believes in the organization," referring to a pageant official. The page is locked from mentioning other contestants who also had photos questionable under pageant rules. The last line of 'Miss USA 2009 controversy', plug the candidate for governor of Ca. and same-sex advocate SF mayor Gavin Newsom beliefs, supports Prejean. Wikipedia's non family-friendly presentation is complete with text of Hilton's foul-mouthed tirade.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff=] Wikipedia- Carrie Prejean</ref>
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
[[Category:Wikis]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-06-01T18:53:29Z

PostoStudanto: reword entry on Sean Hannity's alma mater

<big>The following is a growing list of examples of '''[[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]].'''</big>
 
 
#[[Wikipedia]] cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims.
#[[Wikipedia]] bias against [[movement conservative]]s is intense. [[Michele Bachmann]] won reelection in 2008 by 3% in a state that went heavily [[Democratic]], but instead of crediting her [[conservative]] positions the biased Wikipedia entry states, "Despite fallout from controversial statements that she had made, Bachmann defeated her Democratic opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg in the 2008 election."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#cite_ref-33</ref>
#In its entry on the heavily Christian Gothic architecture,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture</ref> [[Wikipedia]] credits [[Islam]] before [[Christianity]], does not even mention Christianity until after more than 1500 words, and then does not mention Christianity again.
#In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'', [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] supports his observation that [[Wikipedia]] "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref>
#Wikipedia's [[evolution]] article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position]] despite the [[evolution|evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it]].
# Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] [[atheist]]s [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis even when church giving is not counted for theists]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention [[Atheism and deception|how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive]]. Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that [[Atheism and suicide|atheism is a causal factor for suicide]].
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the [[Homosexuality and health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Homosexuality_Statistics|high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community]], the [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|higher incidences of domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the [[Homosexuality and health|substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community]]. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
#Wikipedia made no mention of the fact that [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards"<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090218.html?loc=interstitialskip</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=273538810</ref><ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/02/19/cnn-talking-heads-unanimously-praise-holders-coward-remarks</ref> when it comes to the discussion of race until about two weeks after Holder insulted America. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&diff=next&oldid=274455687</ref> In typical Wikipedia fashion, it was made to sound as if only conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh objected to the attorney general's crass insult and obvious contempt for the citizens of the United States of America. As of 3/8/09, there is no mention on Wikipedia of Obama's rebuke of Holder's "cowards" insult or of the fact that Holder wants an assault weapons ban. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Holder&oldid=275247574</ref>
#''Alma mater'' normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. <ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alma%20mater</ref> However, at [[Wikipedia]], the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&oldid=272581018</ref> [[Sean Hannity]] attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as conservative Sean Hannity's alma mater. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=272201242</ref>
#The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766</ref> made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html</ref> Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629</ref> Kirk's wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from Tony Rezko <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=268845790</ref>, but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.article</ref> Rezko donation. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=272320979</ref> Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=274813568</ref>
#Wikipedia smears [[conservative]] groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy</ref> usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters [[liberal]] groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."<ref>See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances</ref>
#Wikipedia's entry about the [[Christian]] martyr at [[Columbine]] refuses to admit that she was murdered by an [[atheist]] as she was expressing her [[faith]] in [[God]], as confirmed by multiple witnesses.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall</ref><ref>http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm</ref> Wikipedia is dominated by atheistic [[public school]] students who would be particularly biased against this truth.
#*Version of May 12, 2009:
#*:Initial reports suggested that one of the assailants, either Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, asked Bernall if she believed in God moments before fatally shooting her. She was reported to have answered "yes". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cassie_Bernall&oldid=289313205]
#Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> and conceals from readers how Conservapedia offers free online courses for teenagers.<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Index]]</ref> The result of this bias by Wikipedia, which raises money as a charity, is the concealing and demonizing of a free learning resource that Wikipedia itself does not offer.
#Wikipedia's entry on the [[Scopes trial]] downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury '''only''' to have them come to a guilty verdict."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)</ref><ref>Thanks much to a student in our [[American_History_Lectures|American History course]] for pointing this out.</ref>
#[[California]]'s Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)</ref> does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA</ref>
#The articles on both [[Saul Alinsky]] and his book, ''Rules for Radicals'' make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# The founder of the Weather Channel and 100's of other climatologists have been removed from the category "Global warming skeptics", which Wikipedia decided to delete.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)&diff=232272809&oldid=227980118</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_7#Global_warming_and_ozone_hole_skeptics_categories</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[Gardasil]], an [[HPV Vaccine]] promoted by [[liberals]] and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil</ref> (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 '''cause''' about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.<ref>See [[HPV Vaccine]]</ref>
# Wikipedia tries to smear [[conservatives]] as "conspiracy theorists," even when they are not, and yet omits that epithet for [[liberals]] who insist there are vast conspiracies, such as [[Hillary Clinton]]'s claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Compare Wikipedia's entry on [[Phyllis Schlafly]], which repeats a false assertion that she "veers off into conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly</ref> with Wikipedia's entry on Hillary Clinton, which provides her quote of a "vast" conspiracy yet refuses to describe her as a conspiracy theorist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[liberal]] [[Michael Moore]], the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, does not even include any reference to the word "conspiracy"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the [[conservative]] [[Oklahoma]] legislator Sally Kern is seething with bias, unjustified smears and outright distortions.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Kern</ref> Wikipedia understates that over 1500 supporters rallied in support of her criticisms of the [[homosexual agenda]],<ref>http://newsok.com/article/3224704/1207238655</ref> and instead Wikipedia highlights predictable [[Hollywood Values|Hollywood]] criticisms of her stance. Wikipedia then smears her with false accusations about her family and emphasizes charges that were never brought against her. If that isn't enough, the Wikipedia entry even misrepresents a bill that Kern introduced to protect "a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint"; Wikipedia relies on an anti-[[Christian]] blog to distort Kern's bill.
# The Wikipedia entry on [[baraminology]] (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it was devised by a creationist.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology</ref>
# If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296</reF>
# Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the [[liberal]] John Edwards,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards</ref> despite frequently including smears against [[conservatives]].<ref>For example, Wikipedia ''does'' mention the [[liberal]] New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hiZBfIDZs3P-I5ERtItxUcQ8JwGw]</ref> Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal</ref><ref>http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free</ref><ref>http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Cold fusion]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Fusion</ref> presents it as a continuing controversy. [[Liberals]] hope that Cold Fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold Fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited <ref>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127</ref> Hydrino theory <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills</ref> as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
# [[Liberals]] loathe self-defense, and [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the national self-defense system of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref> Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed [[John Kerry]] for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] biographies for conservatives such as [[Rush Limbaugh]] and [[Michelle Malkin]] are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe [[liberal]] elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117</reF> However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]] promoted to good status, or GA, its smear entry about Conservapedia, in which Wikipedia claims that Conservapedia "has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#cite_ref-Clarke_6-0</ref> When Conservapedia pointed out the lack of support (which violates stated Wikipedia policy) for this false smear of Conservapedia, Wikipedia simply replaced its prior cite with a new one that also failed to support its smear. After this was pointed out, [[Wikipedia]] simply changed its sentence to try to smear Conservapedia in another way.
#[[Wikipedia]] will give often great prominence to [[liberal]] criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to [[conservative]] criticism of a [[liberal]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry for [[conservative]] [[Texas]] legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to [[liberal]] criticism of an obscure quote of hers.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle</ref> But Wikipedia's entry for [[liberal]] [[Chuck Schumer]] consists of glowing praise without including any [[conservative]] criticism of him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Barack Obama]] claims that he "was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama</ref> when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.<ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513672 (partially explaining the race-based selection system)</ref>
#[[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[censorship]] omits any reference to [[liberal]] censorship of [[classroom prayer]], [[pro-life]] advertisements, [[conservative]] newspapers on college campuses, or mentioning [[intelligent design]] in school.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship</ref> Instead, Wikipedia falsely claims that "especially [[Evangelical]]s" engage in censorship!
#[[Wikipedia]] falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's former cite to a ''[[New York Times]]'' article for support actually criticizes [[Wikipedia]] because it "does dwell on the ''idea'' that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"<ref>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ (emphasis added)</ref> Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia.
#[[Wikipedia]] gives favored treatment to anyone who promotes the [[homosexual agenda]], and smears those who oppose it. For example, [[Robert Mapplethorpe]] glorified [[homosexuality]] in photographs before himself dying of [[AIDS]]. His own biographer identified him as a racist, providing quotes to prove it.<ref>http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mapplethorpe_a_biography_patricia_morrisroe/</ref> Yet the [[Wikipedia]] entry about him conceals any reference to his racism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapplethorpe</ref> Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] smears the [[American Family Association]] and claims it is racist for reasons not supported by its citation.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Anti-Semitism (March 2005 issue reference)</ref>
#Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, [[Jimbo Wales]], is an [[atheism|atheist]], it is not particularly surprising that [[Wikipedia]] is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach [[Marcus Borden]]'s attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. [[Wikipedia]]'s biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States</ref> It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite [[John Lott]], the leading expert whose studies support guns.
#''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' is listed under the category "American propaganda films", alongside other [[conservative]] documentary films.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_propaganda_films</ref> However, the lying, deceitful films of [[Michael Moore]] and other [[liberals]] are never described as "propaganda".
#Here's another example of why [[Wikipedia]] is declining: it locked its entry about [[Richard Dawkins]] to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862</ref> Perhaps the [[atheists]] on [[Wikipedia]] don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
# The body of the [[Islamic terrorism]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#.22Islamic.22_terrorism</ref> page opens with ''"Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase'' while the body of the Christian terrorism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Racism.2C_Sexism.2C_.26_Terrorism</ref> page opened with ''Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side."'' <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Theological_justification_of_Christian_violence</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has an extensive entry on "[[Creation]] myth".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth</ref> Describing [[Creationism]] as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage [[Christian]]s, and although the [[Evolution|theory of evolution]] satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Peter Singer]] downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were ''removed'' as being "POV",<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933</ref> despite appearing in the like-minded ''[[New York Times]]''.<ref>Paul Zielbauer, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260 Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia]. ''The New York Times'': Oct. 13, 1999</ref> A week after this criticism,<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152</ref> an editor restored the former quote.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718</reF>
# Predictably, [[Wikipedia]] insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'', and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed</ref> In characteristic fashion, [[Wikipedia]] misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to [[demonize]] them. Also in [[Wikipedia]]-style, it quotes [[liberal]] newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by [[National Review]]).
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does 'not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] described the [[People for the American Way]], which is a [[liberal]] advocacy group,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp</ref> as a "progressive advocacy organization"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way</ref> and did not mention the term [[liberal]] in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955</ref>
# On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information<ref>The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory]</ref> from the [[Wikipedia]] entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826</ref> The editor then predicted on [[Conservapedia]] that the [[liberal bias]] would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh Such as the entry on D'oh]</ref> But within hours [[liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about [[Hollywood Values]], in order to censor examples of how the [[liberal]] ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1</ref> After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] often smears [[conservatives]] with falsehoods, using references that do not support its claim. For example, [[Wikipedia]] falsely claims that "children" wrote most of the initial entries on [[Conservapedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> but [[Wikipedia]]'s references for that claim do not even mention "children". The average age of contributors on [[Conservapedia]] is likely older than on [[Wikipedia]], so its smear is particularly hypocritical.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833</ref>), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Ron+Paul&year=&month=-1]</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was [[pro-life]] and led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>
# Type in "[[conservative]]" on [[Wikipedia]] and you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of [[marriage]], gun rights or personal accountability. [[Wikipedia]] even claims that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claimed that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# In a typical example of [[placement bias]] on [[Wikipedia]], it claims in its first sentence that [[Matthew Shepard]] was murdered "because of his [[homosexuality]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard</ref> Only near the end of the entry does [[Wikipedia]] quote a 20/20 report and knowledgeable sources which provide persuasive evidence that the crime was caused by drugs, not hatred towards [[homosexuality]].
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] was previously nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref> A proper page for her has since been added<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown</ref>.
# As far as [[Richard Dawkins]] title of professor while at [[Oxford]], [[Wikipedia]] fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref> Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[intelligent design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a strong bias against the [[Discovery Institute]], a prominent proponent of [[intelligent design]]. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism</ref> and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism</ref>) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
# [[Wikipedia]] displays a similar bias against the [[Institute for Creation Research]] and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the [[ICR Graduate School]], first in [[California]] and now in [[Texas]], relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research Institute for Creation Research] by [[Wikipedia]]</ref><ref name="tes>Schafersman," Steven. "[http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm The Institute for Creation Research and It's (''sic'') Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education]." ''Texas Citizens for Science'', December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref><ref name="rae>Bergman," Jerry. "[http://www.rae.org/ICRcase.html The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College]." ''Revolution Against Evolution'', May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy in favor of edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a 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 and '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide, citing an unpublished PhD thesis at an obscure university.
# [[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. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517</ref> Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# Wikpedia's entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore</ref> But Wikipedia's entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
# Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.
# Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other [[liberals]] in reliance on Wikipedia.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref> The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.<ref>"By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604</ref> Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President [[George W. Bush]], then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that.
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies! After this criticism was posted here, Wikipedia removed the said citation but replaced it with a few other biased citations.
# [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref>
# [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref> After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings</ref> but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with those in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]. Both categories were [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/August_2007#Category:All_Wikipedian_by_political_ideology_categories deleted] on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox]" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=User%3AUBX%2Fliberal&namespace= liberal]" userbox than the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Rcej/conservative conservative]" userbox.</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more [[liberal]] than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of [[liberals]] to conservatives in a group, such that no [[liberals]] would equate to zero [[liberal bias]]. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for [[liberals]] to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of [[liberal]] Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL Student Successes Defy Urban Trends]" San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref> Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization</ref>
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark</ref>
# Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as [[atheist]]ic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, [[atheist]], agnostic, humanist, secular, other."<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime [[liberal]] cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Initially, in December 2006, a Wikipedia administrator named "Nearly Headless Nick" (the signature nickname for Wikipedia user "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington</ref>) deleted an entry about Conservapedia, following a discussion on the "Articles for deletion" section in which a horde of Wikipedia editors demanded and obtained deletion, claiming that the site failed a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) notability guideline for websites]".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia</ref> Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the [[liberal]] attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another [[liberal]] journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the [[ACLU]]'s side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the [[ACLU]]'s briefs,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Edits to include facts against [[Evolution|the theory of evolution]] are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on [[Young Earth Creationism]]? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
#: The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history</ref>. No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more [[liberal]] than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# In a brief-lived example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. The latter was deleted after a month along with all other categories focused on the sexuality of Wikipedians. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] has revived itself after a delete but is still fighting to not be deleted.
# Wikipedia has refused to have an article on [[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]] despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including [[neoconservative]] academic [[Daniel Pipes]] and a column in the [[Washington Times]].<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/29080</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome</ref><ref>http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref><ref>http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign makes no mention of her endorsement by the leadership of the terrorist group Hamas,<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58699</ref> but lists endorsements of Republican presidential candidates by the Ku Klux Klan.
#Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service ''definition''" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the ''United States'', Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary ''Theory''". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, [[liberal]] "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory</ref>
#Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up:
## '''Matriarchy''' is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy</ref>
## '''Patriarchy''' describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy</ref>
#Wikipedia's article on [[Jeremiah Wright]] repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
# Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States</ref> Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States</ref>
# For a period of time (January 4, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544</ref> - April 5, 2008<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436</ref>), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
# Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page EvoWiki]. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.<ref><http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)</ref>
# Wikipedia's most controversial pages are guarded by liberal elite. Thereby, accuracy is replaced with ideology. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml Wikipropaganda On Global Warming] National Review, July 8, 2008</ref> The first one-hundred and sixty-eight words on Wikipedia's [[Global Warming]] page contains multiple conjectures, major errors and bias. ''"increase in the average measured [[temperature]] ... since the mid-twentieth century"'' that same paragraph "''solar variation combined with volcanoes ... and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward."'' Which is it, warmer or cooler from 1950? "''very likely due''" "''probably had''" or "''the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the [[IPCC]]'s main conclusions''"- unsubstantiated bias.
# Wikipedia trivializes the book ''Inventing the AIDS Virus'' by making it a redirect and never discussing it directly in the article. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventing_the_AIDS_Virus</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Theological_Seminary Westminster Theological Seminary] demonstrates its anti-Christian bias when it states "with the vision of continuing the theological tradition of Princeton Theological Seminary '''in a militant and explicitly polemical manner''', from which the Westminster founders felt Princeton was departing."
# It's apparently okay to cast doubt on well-known evangelical Christian's claims of being former atheists, as was recently done repeatedly to Kirk Cameron's Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=262633707&oldid=262591086</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263109644&oldid=263063442</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Cameron&diff=263670595&oldid=263666117</ref>, but similar edits regarding claims made by famous atheists of being former Christians would never be tolerated (e.g. PZ Myers' Wikipedia article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pz_myers</ref>).
# The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244</ref> and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954</ref>
# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> It has since been removed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref>
# Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush</ref> Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', ''President Bush launched the War on Terrorism"'', ''"President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq"'' and ''"which President Bush viewed as..."''' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
# Wikipedia's presidential template for George W. Bush is a sterile presentation of his life and presidency<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_W._Bush</ref>, but the template for Barack Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> (Note that there is no mention on Wikipedia of George W. Bush Elementary in Stockton, CA.<ref>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22george+w.+bush+elementary%22+stockton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</ref>)
# The article about the legitimate questions surrounding President Obama's birth certificate is entitled "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories</ref> however one is hard-pressed to find such bold use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles about Dominionism<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref>, the 9/11 Truth movement<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth</ref>, and many other conspiracy theories that the left favors. The article also describes advocates of the questions as "fringe" several times despite including the likes of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but the same word is only used once in the 9/11 Truth movement article (and it uses it in a quote stating that the movement isn't fringe) and not at all in the Dominionism article.
# In the article for Flood geology<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology</ref>, the section containing evidence in favor of a global flood has the header "Evidence cited to support a global flood"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_cited_to_support_a_global_flood</ref> while the section containing evidence against it has the header "Evidence against a global flood."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_against_a_global_flood</ref> Attempts to balance this disparity are met with quick reversions with excuses such as "I don't see this as an improvement"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=288093849&oldid=288042808</ref> and appeals referencing the so-called "scientific community" (i.e. the "scientific consensus").<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=next&oldid=288488331</ref> Additionally, in a recent edit, Hrafn (one of the "usual suspects" who gang up and protect their preferred version of evolution and Creation articles) revealed his unabashed bias by reverting an edit with the explanation "all creationists are WP:FRINGE/'cracked pot[s].'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=289076441&oldid=289074740</ref>
#The Carrie Prejean article on Wikipedia is carefully crafted however, major points tend to end with a liberals last word. 'Photograph controversy' last line quotes "go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate, and do not benefit Prejean's status." The section 'Crown retention', last line says- "she no longer believes in the organization," referring to a pageant official. The page is locked from mentioning other contestants who also had photos questionable under pageant rules. The last line of 'Miss USA 2009 controversy', plug the candidate for governor of Ca. and same-sex advocate SF mayor Gavin Newsom beliefs, supports Prejean. Wikipedia's non family-friendly presentation is complete with text of Hilton's foul-mouthed tirade.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff=] Wikipedia- Carrie Prejean</ref>
#Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff=] Wikipedia- Purity ring</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
[[Category:Wikis]]

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2008-07-23T18:21:49Z

PostoStudanto: /* move page */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-04-29T23:41:23Z

PostoStudanto: /* Reopening request to erase professor sentence */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]

==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)

People should also be aware that placing one's hand over their heart is required only for the pledge of allegiance, it is not required when one hears the star spangled banner (the national anthem).

== 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)

:Ahhh, so we have a self-admitted Godless Liberal, accusing conservatives, all of them apparently, of being racists. Nice and intellectual! Once again a "mobocracy" trait shining through, ignoring all logic and putting idealogical hatred first! Nice. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:58, 31 March 2008 (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)
:Exactly, because obviously an American sounding name makes a great president. Look at George Walker Bush. [[User:Kip|Kip]] 07:26, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::He's not a Muslim. He became a very religious Christian in his early 20's and then he met Rev. Wright who's a racist, Afro-centrist Christian, and he's still a member of that church. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

In response to the original question, Obama would not be a good candidate because the only thing he has going for him is his charisma. Example: when asked, he said if elected, he would immediately pull all American troops out of Iraq. Wether you agree with the war or not doesn't matter - that would be irrisponsible. It is not a matter of race by any means - I would love to see a black president, but one who is actually qualified for the job.--[[User:Justintree|Justintree]] 14:51, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

== 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)

== Rumours ==
This article is somewhat sloppy in its attributions and quotes. The part about the allegations about Obama's childhood are a good case in point. Surely it should be made clear that the allegations that he attended a madrassa are lies? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggest Protection ==

There's a vandal who was blocked once today for targeting presidential candidate entries. Since the primary is tonight (fingers crossed for Huck!) I expect vandalism to go up on these articles, before it goes down! I would recommend protecting articles like this for a week, maybe?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

: No need for protection. We'll be watching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Affirmative action in summary ==

I'm sorry about not discussing the recent change I made- I didn't see how it was major, as MexMax suggests, or even arguable. Here's why I did it:

The summary contains an anti-Obama statement claiming he is nothing more than a black man, who gained his status due to affirmative action. I removed the section because this very article states that he not only graduated Harvard Law, but did so magna cum laude ("with highest honors"). I can understand someone having issue with the possibility of his getting accepted due to his race, but graduating at the top of his class is far from proven to be race-based.

Regarding the paper he wrote, it's just fluff. His lack of a background in physics is unrelated since he was not authoring a paper in physics. He was writing about law, using physics as an analogy of legal matters. If the editor who put this text here actually bothered to read the reference, they would have seen that the context of the quote was actually a compliment Tribe: "...he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades." Again, where is affirmative action in this?

Conservapedia is about truth, not spreading propaganda (correct me if my impression is mistaken). I understand that Obama does not share conservative values but lying is morally wrong as well and we should not tolerate it here.

-- [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 12:00, 30 January 2008 (EST)

: Obama's record and support is full of puffery, preferences, and advantages based on his race. Your comments above only reinforce some of them, rather than rebut them. He was credited with analyzing a paper on physics, without any background in the topic. In fact, he apparently had no formal background in constitutional law at the time either! We're going to tell the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: You should be a bit careful, though, Andy. You don't want to get hung out to dry like you did over Dawkins. A word to the wise! [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:13, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:Removed the personal opinion on Tribe's remarks regarding Obama. Tribe can state whatever he wants regarding Obama, and if it's going to be referenced, do so straight up. CP isn't the place to debate Tribe's remark as he can't respond. If we include his remark (or the reference) we shouldn't be expounding on it. I didn't think an encyclopedia should contain personal opinion. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:17, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: Accounts will be blocked if they remove facts or quotes here, or in the Dawkins entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::How is "absurdly insisted" a fact and not an opinion? If it just said insisted, that's a fact because it was a direct quote. But to add the adverb "absurdly", that makes it opinion.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You deleted the Tribe quotes also, which is unacceptable. If you want to remove "absurdly" then insert "liberal" next to Tribe's name so that readers can see for themselves how ridiculous the quotes are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::Jdellaro's right, you know. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: "MatthewHopkins", you seem to love to talk, talk, talk. I'm going to check your edits now to see if there is any substance there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: That's rich. Check away, old horse. You'll find good stuff there, and most of the talk is attempting to argue sense into [[Liberals]]. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 16:05, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Aschalfly- First, we can't change things without talking, now Matt gets slammed because he tried to discuss the issue. You claim this is a meritocracy, but you push people around just because you don't know them. Your action here is that of a tyrant- threatening someone who is only trying to help the encyclopedia. I know you are concerned about liberals defacing the encyclopedia, but I don't think you've found one in this case. I've checked his edits without malice, and he seems to deserve good standing. You should be ashamed when you finish your witch hunt and apologize. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 07:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Mr. S, this is really weird. I mean, Obama might be just left of Lenin, but I don't get the affirmative action thing. Do we know his SATs, LSATs, etc? Do we have any evidence that his "achievements" are based on AA? If not, then this will look to any sane person like a racist piece of poo article. I mean, c'mon, let's get this guy on the facts, not on bizarre assumptions. Just cuz he's black doesn't mean he benefited from AA. He may have, and if he did, where's the citation? Otherwise, it's racist gossip.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 16:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Agreed- this nonsense makes the article looks more like a smear campaign that a fact-based biography. Due to the absence of any evidence, I will be removing much of the AA material later this week. I am halfway through reading the law review article, and there's nothing wrong with it. You may have a different opinion, but the essay is solid- liberal in its views perhaps, but certainly not absurd. There is none of this alleged analysis of physics, only a well cited collection of the physics issues described so that a layman can understand the importance of their discovery and their effects on modern scientific thought. Note that these effects are the key point and they have more to do with the history of science than science itself, and do not require the absurd call for a background in physics. The credits cite Barack for being the last of five persons providing "analytic and research assistance", but do not specify his contribution, which could have been anywhere from analytic to gofering to the law library to make photocopies. It also mentions a Harvard physics professor as a source of technical comments, so the physics are probably sound. If Obama was a major contributor to this essay, he should be commended for a job well done, but the current evidence doesn't allow for either congratulations or condemnation. Please provide comments and present supporting evidence. If you want to comment on the article, try reading it first: Harvard Law Review- Volume 103 November 1989, Number 1. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 13:28, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Some childish heavy-handed coward anonymously and secretly blocked my account instead of using discussion to come to a conclusion on this matter. Whoever you are, you can't shut me up by clicking a check box. Give me a fair trial for violating site policy or prove me wrong. Keep blocking new accounts only proves your contempt for truth and free speech. [[User:NepotisMonachusB|NepotisMonachusB]] 08:46, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Im sorry but that AA thing is complete bigotry, you can be black and still achieve. This is very offencive , only a racist would be happy with it, no wonder only moderates and liberals will stand a chance of winning the election, be it McCain, clinton or obama, the conservative voice will never again take prominance in politics. Maybe after seeing this im quite releaved. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 12:02, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The total number of votes cast by Obama is meaningless, since the vast majority of them would be on non-controversial issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:Not a problem; I was just trying to add a bit of perspective to the point. However, you might want to reconsider or reformulate the second part of the paragraph (which you also reverted). It's unclear who exactly "opponent" refers to--I understand it means Jack Ryan, but Obama's main Dem primary rival came to a similar end (dropped out of the race when details of his divorce became public). Further, readers might recall that Obama defeated Alan Keyes in the general election and wrongly believe the sexual allegations refer to him. Hence, my phrasology of "initial Republican" and "dropped out". Also, thanks for (re)clarifying the research citation.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

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

Seems a little harsh (and uncited). Could it maybe be reworded slightly? His race is perhaps one factor, but ''surely'' it's not implied that Obama's entire life has consisted of coasting on a combination of his ethnicity and [[liberal]] [[affirmative action]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:28, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:That's extremely harsh, I agree, and veering towards the biased. Of all the thousands of people who have voted for him, surely what he has to say, what he has written and what he has done have all had a bigger impact than affirmative action? If affirmative action was in place, then why isn't Alan Keyes the Republican front-runner? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Republican voters do not support [[affirmative action]], and do care about military and other experience in choosing a Commander in Chief. Many (not all) Democratic voters care more about promoting [[racial quotas]]. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::: Aschlafly- you've avoided the point with more anti-liberal statements. While I'm happy to sling those around with you, bias is the question here. I'll try to make Feebasfactor's point a little clearer for you: Is there bias in the affirmative action statement, or is the accusation verifiable? If proof cannot be provided, how are we better are than the liberals on Wikipedia, who we bash daily on their bias? Do we even care anymore or have we abandoned Conservapedia's founding principles? [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 16:46, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Aschafly - If Republicans care about military experience, then why choose Reagan or G. W Bush, whose experience of warfare was minimal? And if I can point out something with my tongue firmly in my cheek, why are the current Republican candidates for the Oval Office all themselves from minorities - a Mormon, an Old Age Pensioner, an Evangelical, an African-American and a... a whatever the heck Ron Paul is? Isn't that affirmative action too? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::Aschafly - Let's say all the Democratic candidates for President are black. (Bear with me here.) These are all people who graduated from a prestigious school with high honors, worked as a lawyer, and served as a Congressman, governor, or mayor. Would you then say that all of them got to where they were as a result of affirmative action and nothing else? That none of the things they accomplished came as a result of their talent, or perhaps their intelligence? That successful minorities must be viewed upon with suspicion?

:::Kinda stupid hypothetical situation, I know, but I hope it gets my point across, however stupid you think that point may be. [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 20:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::Let's say there's a young white guy, not bad-looking, but not all that original a thinker. His parent is a famous theocrat and a founder of the new Religious Right in the late 70s/early 80s. Despite his lack of original thinking and intelligence, he manages to get into an ivy league school, and despite that, his greatest accomplishment is a bizarre blogwiki hybrid on which he spreads hate and fear to children. Isn't that affirmative action?
::::Never mind, it's too weird to contemplate.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Peggy Noonan, that well-known leftist, in the well-known leftist publication The Wall Street Journal:

"He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you.
(I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)"

Possibly she means you guys. I merely suggest. "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" is at least good enough to have been written by David Duke.
Archer070

I'm removing that line until a citation of some kind is given. If there was an affirmative action program for congress in place I am sure that its Conservapedia entry would be even more popular than the one on Homosexuality. [[User:NoraReed|NoraReed]] 23:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== African american ==

In this article is says that:"He is, as of 2007, the only African American serving in the United States Senate"
but
"Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii"
He is most certainly not african american.

He is not African American because he was born in Hawaii? You MUST be joking. O__O I mean, I have heard "He is not the descendant of African slaves, so he isn't really African American." and I have heard "Living all over the world, he surely isn't in touch with African American life." but I think you have taken the petty distinctions to a new low.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 12:31, 1 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==

Found a great article while searching for W's foreign policy experience before the war. The full article is here:
<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/24/president.2000/foreign.policy/</ref>

Here's the relevant portions:

<blockquote>
Just how much do new presidents need to know about international affairs?

Franklin Roosevelt had experience and led successfully during World War II. But when he died, the presidency passed to Harry Truman, who was so out of things Roosevelt had never even told him about the atomic bomb. But Truman had many foreign policy successes: the end of World War II; the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe; the policy of containing the Soviet Union; the Berlin airlift when the Soviets tried to cut the city off; the United Nations; and so on.

He couldn't end the Korean War, but in foreign policy, he had many more pluses than minuses. Dwight Eisenhower had lots of experience. He was the allied commander in World War II; ended the Korean War; demanded, successfully that Britain, France and Israel abandon their seizure of the Suez Canal. Successes.

John Kennedy grew up on foreign policy. His father was ambassador to Britain. And JFK wrote a study of British policy between world wars called "While England Slept."

As president, he had one big failure: the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. But it was followed by a big success: resolving the Cuban missile crisis by getting Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet Missiles from Cuba in exchange for withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey.

Lyndon Johnson had no direct experience aside from Senate debates. His administration passed historic domestic legislation: the civil rights and voting rights acts. But the unresolved war in Vietnam destroyed his presidency.

Richard Nixon had experience as Eisenhower's vice president and had solid success: detente with the Soviet Union, opening relations with China after decades of silence.
Carter
Former President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter had no experience, failed to free American hostages held in Iran, and said he was surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success: negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush's presidency.

Does experience matter? Yes, if you look at Johnson or Carter; no, if you look at Truman or Reagan.
</blockquote>

Seems that Reagan and W had about as much experience as Obama.

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

== removed false information ==

While Obama is left of Stalin on some matters, the Affirmative Action statement is blatant racism without some example given. Further, the Harvard law Review is hardly "liberal', as it counts among it's alum Supreme Court Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. And IT DOES NOT HAVE A QUOTA!

We can disagree with his policies, but we are not going to lie about him.

Having the same issues as reported above this is the second time I've had to remove the affirmative action statement, which is completely unquantifiable. I've also made edits removing language which is somewhat misleading and gives the article a very bias anti-Obama slant. If this site is dedicated to eliminating bias, it should not turn a blind-eye to conservative bias or in this case blatant racial discrimination. I have also expanded upon the issue surrounding his voting "present" so often. As stated in the article, voting "present" is commonplace in the Illinois Senate on both sides of the aisle. I kindly ask that [[Aschlafly]] stops reverting the article back to its previous biased and misleading state. If you disagree with the edits I've made write on my talk page or respond on the article's talk page instead of simply eliminating my changes, all of which seek to further expand the information in the article and maintain neutrality as best as possible.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 11:39, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: The Harvard Law review is extremely liberal, and it does have racial quotas in its admission. Your false accusation of lying are not appreciated and will not be allowed.

: The statement about [[affirmative action]] is accurate and will remain in the entry. Repeated attempts to remove it without justification will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Justified how? Saying that Obama's life amounts to nothing more than lucking out with affirmative action isn't a quantifiable statement...at all. It is nothing more than a completely biased statement and does in fact convey a sense of bigotry. The edits I've made to the article have not introduced some virile liberal bias, I've simply elaborated on contentious issues and removed language and phrasing which is decidedly opinionated. Just because someone disagrees with you [[Aschlafly]] does not make that person wrong. Stop using the power which you have been granted out of good faith by the rest of this site to act like the NKVD, censoring whatever you feel like, and threatening those who disagree with you through bans or some other reprimands when they have only sought to maintain neutrality and expand factuality.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 15:45, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Your racial bullying is not going to work here. [[Affirmative action]] is a big part of Obama's career and his support. Don't delete it from the entry and don't deny that the Harvard Law Review is a very liberal institution that uses [[racial quotas]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:51, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Racial bullying? I'm sorry my defective leftist brain must not be able to comprehend your superior Divine logic. But I'm not the one throwing baseless affirmative action rants into what should be a neutral and factual article. Even Clarence Thomas would tell you just how bigoted and perposturous such a claim is.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly: Enforcer of <s>Truth</s> ==

So, after having edited the Obama article for the third time to remove some of the more opinionated wording, removing the baseless affirmative action claim, and expanding on the procedures of the Illinois Senate to give people a better understanding of why Obama voted "present" 129 times, Conservapedia Fuhrer [[Aschlafly]] has threatened to ban me if I edit the article again, despite the neutrality and factuality of my edits. Does anybody else think this is somewhat of an abuse of power as well as an attempt to enforce his own opinion on the rest of the site, and, is there someway that we could replace him with someone who is not a fanatical reactionary.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)
:It's Andy's site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:49, 17 February 2008 (EST)
: :Agree it's Andy's site. Of course Andy should be ashamed of himself; but it's still his site. Andy has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of his mom's clout. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]
::: It's Andy's site?!?!?! I was under the opinion it was an encyclopedia![[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 09:57, 20 February 2008 (EST)

This is the reason liberals will win the whitehouse , people are tired of these attitudes , people need to move into the 21st century .... quickly. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:46, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== It's ASTOUNDING! . . . Why? Don't you people know how Congress works? ==

"For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times."

Why is that astounding? That is an incredibly SMALL number. Congresspersons vote on thousands of issues each TERM. And for Barack Obama to have been a Senator for EIGHT YEARS and to only not vote 130 times... lol.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

:"As for his voting performance, Obama liked sitting on the fence. He is recalled for taking full advantage of an Illinois rule that lets you vote "present" if you don't want to commit yourself. Illinois State Senator Bill Brady recalled: "I learned very quickly that the 'present' vote, where the button you press is very appropriately coloured yellow, is the chicken's way out." ([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''])[[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:14, 20 February 2008 (EST)

: Voting "present" 130 times is NOT a small number. It is an astounding large number of times to duck important issues, so large that even [[Hillary Clinton]] has ridiculed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:02, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::It's a fair point, but I'd suggest that the article should nonetheless give some concept of scale. 130 "present" votes translates to about 3% of the votes cast, which quite frankly isn't a lot. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:06, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: It is enormous. A politician is serving only himself, and not his constituents, by ducking so many important issues. You won't find any earnest politician voting "present" so many times and ducking so many important issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:10, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: But those statements that you make, Andrew, are all opinions that aren't sourced from cited sources. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, merely trying to ensure that we have the most accurately cited article we can have; all I'm saying is that in order to support the claim that voting present 3% of the time - which purely quantitatively doesn't '''seem''' like much to the average obsever - you'd actually need to give '''a solid, cited example''' of an "earnest politician" who hasn't voted present on a comparable proportion of issues. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:34, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The reversion removed a silly, self-serving quote that only filled the entry with junk. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 23 February 2008 (EST)

The reversion this morning reinserted a liberal deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Introduction to article ==

I don't disagree with the subject matter, but I think there's a problem with the introduction. Most of the information seems to relate to his ideological/political stances, and so would be better placed in the body of the article rather than posted up front. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: We put the important stuff first here. But thanks for your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Some things need altering like the affirmative action thing. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 15:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: What's the problem? No [[liberals]] have any problems in complaining about alleged special preferences for [[conservatives]]. When someone gets special treatment and then seeks to become president on that basis, it's fair game to criticize the special treatment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Maybe he DID get SOME special treatment , but the article suggests that everything he`s achieved in life is a result of AA. Maybe it needs a little tinkering with, it comes across too strongly , there is no problem saying that AA helped him but to say thats the only reason he got anywhere in life is a big jump. If he becomes president (trust me there is a good chance of it) are you going to say he only became president as a result of AA? Thats just not possible, people voted for him because they liked him and his ideas not because they felt sorry for him for past racism towards black people.--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 06:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:: To be fair, "no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained ... [by] affirmative action" is a much stronger statement than, say, "he could not have achieved the heights he has in the absence of affirmative action." The former claims he has _no_ achievements of his own, which seems so exaggerated that I'd believe it was written by a troll if you weren't defending it yourself. I would never consider entering politics, and even I have what might reasonably called "personal achievements." I'm sure Obama has some too. The latter statement merely (rightly!) observes that his achievements would never have elevated him to the status he's achieved, if it were not for liberal affirmative action; isn't that more like what you mean? [[User:Coas|Coas]] 16:31, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Needs a major overhaul... ==

On the whole, this article, I believe, needs a major overhaul. Firstly, too much of this, while true, is written in so many ways like gossip. A glaring error that any serious writer would immediatly reject is the phrase: "Obama is SO pro-abortion..." It sounds like some high-school kid exaggerating to a friend. While it may be true, to phrase it in such a way is very unprofessional, and degrades the credibility of the article.

Also, while I understand that many see this article as an outlet to vent frustration at an inexperienced, unproven candidate, to write the entire article in a highly critical light errodes the circumstantiated tone that I assume Conservapedia strives for. Those not well informed might see this article as bigoted and hateful, whith spurious and unsubstantiated claims. My advice is to write these facts in a neutral, detatched style, as is the case with most encyclopedias. To do otherwise detracts from Conservapedia as a whole.

A few suggestions just from the very beginning:

1. "Obama is so pro-abortion..." should be changed to something like: "Obama has a well-noted stance of pro-abortion, demostrated in cases such as his blocking of the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants protection act, which was unanimously supported by the U.S. Senate."

2. "Obama has absolutely no military..." needs to be reworked into something more or less as follows: "Obama has a distinct lack of military, executive, and foreign policy experience as evidenced by..." and include some example of how he simply has not been in a position where he could gain any of this experience.

3. "Throughout his career, he has repeatedly ducked..." has too much opinion attached to it, and the "...in an apparent attempt..." part reeks of unprofessionalism. A good alternative would be "Obama has many times abstained from taking a controversial stand on certain issues, voting 'present' instead of 'aye' or 'nay' a substantial 130 times during his career as an Illinois state senator."

Much, much more needs to be done for this to sound like an authoritative encyclopedic article instead of an opinionated rant.
--[[User:Churro|Churro]] 01:18, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==
I'd like to add a few paragraphs about Obama's foreign policy experience. Any chance the article can be unprotected? --Jimmy 21:29, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: The article was unprotected for a long time, and endured repeated attempts at liberal bias. How about suggesting your edits here first?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::== Foreign Policy Experience ==
::Sen. Obama has been a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations since his election to the Senate. <ref>http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/about.html </ref>

::He has visited many countries in his capacity as a Senator.

::Russia and former Soviet republics: Met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. Also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN).
::United Kingdom: Met with Prime Minister Tony Blair during visit with Sen. Lugar. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit </ref>

::Visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad: Discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/ </ref>

::Ten day tour of the Middle East: Talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/ </ref>--Jimmy 22:14, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Completely incorrect information in Foreign Policy==

The information provided is completely incorrect. Senator Obama has indeed visited Continental Europe on official business - he visited Eastern Europe in August 2005, taking in Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and the UK[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]. Please correct the article.

Not only is the article factually incorrect, but the suggestion is made that this 'lack of travel experience' would make him unsuitable for the Presidency. To which I would point out that the current President George W. Bush, had NEVER visited Europe until a year '''after''' taking the Presidency. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 13:32, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Political Views section ==

I don't know whether this is a valid criticism to make, but it occurred to me while reading the article that the "Political Views" seection is rather short and vague. Although it's great to make concise comments on issues such as illegal immigration etc., it doesn't really give us a good picture of exactly what he stands for (and no jokes about not standing for anything, please!). What I mean is: the second sentence claims that Obama has the record of a Marxist leftist, but nothing after that point under that section really justifies that statement. Indeed, much of it seems to be better placed under the next section "Faith and Values". It might be pertinent to have a more detailed analysis of individual parts of his policies and stances. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Obama's stances keep changing depending on which state is next in the primaries. It's a waste of time to attach any significance to his stated positions, other than to recognize how [[liberal]] he is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Perhaps pointing out these changes would be a better idea, Andy. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 20:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't view this as a priority, as Obama's supporters only care about his positions against the war and for abortion and don't care about much else, and those positions are spelled out. I'll unlock the entry for you if you'd like to add objective material that shows how he changes his position so often. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I know nothing of Obama's war opinion (aside troop withdrawal) and nothing of him pro-abortion position. Yet, I am still an Obama supporter, despite being non-US, as he is the only one who is not part of the great Washington machinery. It is time for change and the old stalwarts like McCain and Clinton need to go. Change can be good, not always but why not give it a chance?
Also, Bush Jnr had waaaaaaay less experience than Obama.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Can we un-lock, this artical needs to be updated ==

There is no information at all about how Obama was linked to the radical Afro-Centric "Church" in Chicago whose Pastor endorses crazy racialist theorys about Whites, the CIA did AIDS, Jews did 9/11, etcetera. ANd then of course he makes one silly speech that doesnt really say anything, and the liberal media fall over each other to praise him like the secnod coming of jesus. (btw, this isnt really my area of expertise, but I understand some American theologians have seriously considered whether he could be the anti-christ. i don't know if that's enough of a seriously taken theory but you folks should decide whether to mention it at least.

I dont understand why so many pages i try to edit are locked.

:: I think it is because reality has a well known liberal bias. (I joke, I joke) It just that liberals don't understand how to interpret reality but keep insisting that they do. It isn't like this problem is going away either.--[[User:Jroyale|Jroyale]] 21:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Étienne Léger
:Are you referring to Pastor Wright? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::Yes Jeremiah Wright is his name, he is basically an "afro-centric" race bigot who openly associates with Louis "Hitler was a great man" Farrakhan, he was Obama's chief Spiritual Advisor for many years except now he tries to deny it.

::: Please propose an encyclopedic-like addition, with a citation. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Agree: not sure why this article would be locked when it clearly needs to be updated to ensure the tone is encyclopedic and not simply derogatory. Otherwise, the reputation of this effort as a "trustworthy encyclopedia" will continue to be severely undermined.

: Im starting to think that it is too late to save this site. Its hard to take it seriously with articles like this . . . [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 18:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

OK Heres my suggestion, probably the English she needs work :) but I found lots of references and I think it's encyclopedia like. It should go under section 9 on "Faith and Values."

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

== This Article is Ridiculous ==

For God's sake, with articles like this Conservapedia is never going to be taken seriously. A “Marxist leftist"? This is just stupid, he's basically pro-life moderate conservative. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, you really are in the wrong place if you think anyone here is going to be fooled by your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::Fooled? I don't even especially like Barack Obama. Can you honestly say that Obama is a communist? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:47, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh I see, my bad, i meant pro-choice . . . Can i change it? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:49, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Could someone with access add something like "According to the Political Compass, Barack Obama would be better described as a moderate conservative <ref>http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008</ref>" after the Marxist comment? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::I agree that in no way can Obama be described a Marxist leftist. I've met Marxist leftists and argued with them a great deal (they tend to have very fixed ideals and observe an astonishing range of fallacies about the very unlamented Soviet Union) and compared to them Obama's a solid centrist. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 07:53, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, he's politically 'left' of Ann Coulter. By Conservapedian standards, that makes him a bomb-throwing Bolshevik revolutionary fnord. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

They also tend to be communists and call each other "comrade" and call for collectivism lol. But really, that quote either needs to be removed or balanced with another. Otherwise its just libel. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:05, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:It's not libel if it's a Liberal being lied about. Didn't you get the memo? That whole "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" thing only applies if thy neighbor is a Conservative. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, he's a liberal? I didn't know that! I can't find on the page where it says that he is a radical Islamic terrorist<ref>Barack HUSSEIN Obama!</ref>. He also a lying homosexual right? why isn't that included? If you need a source I can start a webpage and write that for you. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:21, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and Obama could hardly be called our neighbor. No blacks are allowed in conservapedia's neighborhood. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Voting "present" doesn't necessarily indicate a fence-sitter... ==

Oftentimes, a vote of present indicates that the candidate generally supports a proposal in principle, but is unable to support it in its current form. It's a way of saying "I'm here, I'm interested, but we can't do it this way." Say Congressman A is a strong fiscal conservative and hates deficits. A budget bill comes before the body which cuts taxes but also provides for incremental increases in government programs which Congressman A already believes are hopelessly bloated, and in so doing increases deficit spending. That Congressman might not be able to support the bill but voting "present" would put to the record that he did not outright reject the proposal, but rather that he might be open to supporting a similar, re-worked bill.

== Required Changes ==

This article needs a lot of work to bring it up to the standards of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'. Several claims don't pass muster.

- The claim "'''Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience'''" is laughingly false and makes this article look plain ignorant. There are well documented details of Obama's foreign policy experience in the article, yet this sentence remains. The reference for this claim is hopelessly incorrect. While this reference is in compliance with the commandments, it was obviously written by someone that didn't do their homework as proof of Obama's foreign policy experience is readily available. The same cannot be said of the next dubious claim.

:: You're clueless. Obama has zero military or executive experience, and his foreign policy experience is in the lowest 10% of senators. Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action'''." This comment is the sort of gossip that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Not only has this ridiculous claim been removed and reinserted many times, not a shred of evidence is presented to back up this basically idiotic nonsense. I'd like to think the leadership of this encyclopedia would set a good example for others to follow when writing articles, but there are way too many articles like this one that prove otherwise.

:: The evidence is overwhelming, with examples provided in the entry. All you have to do is cite some counterexamples. You can't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, the article states that Obama graduated from Harvard Law with honors. That strikes me as a "clear personal achievement". Are you suggesting, therefore, that he didn't deserve said honors, that faculty gave him an easy ride because he's African-American? --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:54, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He won a seat in the U.S. Senate after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, Alan Keyes'''." This claim is completely without merit. According to Fox News, Ryan was not forced out and the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged him to remain. The idea that '''liberals somehow obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records''' is disingenuous at the least and most likely a lie. According to Fox News, the records were released when the ''Chicago Tribune'' and Chicago TV station ''WLS'' sued. Divorce proceedings are a matter of public record unless the there is a compelling interest to make them private. According to the court, relevant portions of the divorce were kept private and the remaining portions were released. Please note that I am not quoting a liberal source for this information. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123716,00.html]

:: The records were confidential and the newspaper that sued for their relief was supportive of Obama. Yes, Jack Ryan was forced out as a result of the disclosures and no one familiar with politics credibly argues otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- This article was unlocked for a brief time a while ago until some vandals made their presence known. Even though the article was vandalized, it actually showed some signs of improvement. As it stands now, this article belongs on an Obama-hating lunatic fringe website, not part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.

:: I don't expect this factual entry to persuade anyone who is a big supporter of [[affirmative action]], because they don't care what Obama stands for or what his experience is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

The above seems to be someone's comments, debated by ASchlafly? But there's no name attached to any of these comments? Can you put back the signatures of whoever wrote those suggestions?

As to the actual comments ASchlafly, it seems you haven't actually read your own article. You ask "Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???", and the article clearly states that he has indeed been to London and met with Tony Blair. In comparison with all other candidates for the US Presidency, this leaves him "about the same". Most US Presidents do not come to the table with a huge amount of travel experience under their belts - witness the current President, who had never been out of the Continent before becoming President. No matter what you think of the candidate, the suggestion that the only things he has achieved are because of affirmative action beggars belief and doesn't even deserve a response, it's so unutterably stupid. Finally, referring to this article as a "factual entry" is revelatory. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:23, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

: "Western Europe" should be "continental Europe," because Obama did play second chair for an insignificant visit by a more experienced senator (Lugar) to Tony Blair. If that courtesy call is what you're hanging your hat on, then it merely underscores Obama's lack of experience. But I doubt you'd care anyway, as most Obama supporters don't support him for his experience or even his ever-changing or silent positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I'm delighted to see that you admit you were wrong, so thank you for that - it's good to keep the record straight. Now, for comparison to the other candidates, perhaps you'd like to list the foreign travel and policy experience of your candidate of choice? John McCain is off to Israel, London and Paris I see? Obama indeed does not have the French capital in his past itineraries, but comparing his Conservapedia article to Obama's, it would seem he is FAR more widely travelled than McCain. Finally, your suggestion about affirmative action might as well be directed at Clarence Thomas, since the only requirement you seem to need to make such a comment is the colour of these gentlemen's skin?

::PS Finally, could you please put back the sigs of whoever you were responding to? it's impossible to know where these comments come from? [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly: Contrary to your opinion, I am not the clueless one here. I happen to know that the United Kingdom is a part of Western Europe so therefore it can be concluded that Obama has made a trip to Western Europe since he visited London to see Tony Blair. Since you are making the claim that his foreign policy experience is the 'lowest 10% of senators', could you provide a reference please?

:::Where is this overwhelming evidence that Obama's success is explained by affirmative action? If it is so overwhelming, then you or the person that made this assertion should have absolutely no problem providing the reference. Where is the evidence in the article? I couldn't find anything. Could you provide this allegedly 'clueless' individual, as you like to call me, the specific line number?

:::Because Ryan refused to run for office after his divorce proceedings were made public, this means, using your line of reasoning, that the 'National Republican Senatorial Committee' lacks credibility. Perhaps this should be added to the article?

:::There are a lot of alleged 'facts' in this article that are nothing more than gossip and unsupported innuendo. According to the commandments that you wrote, these items should be removed. How can this article be a part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' if no attempt is made to follow the commandments and guidelines?

:::I happen to care what Obama, Clinton, and McCain stand for because I plan to vote and I want my vote to mean something. If someone wants to base their vote on what is written in Conservapedia, then they will be seriously misinformed. --Jimmy 21:30, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Law Professor ==

The sentence about Obama "falsely claiming to be a constitutional law professor" should be changed. According to the University of Chicago, he was considered to be a professor. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 19:14, 29 March 2008 (EST)

:He was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor. There's a big difference. The University of Chicago only ''considers'' Obama a professor, he wasn't actually one, as he falsely claimed to be. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::You're wasting your time, Tordenvaer. Certain people on here see nothing wrong in saying someone's not a professor if it suits their purposes and/or prejudices, even when there is ample evidence otherwise. See the Richard Dawkins [[Richard_Dawkins|article]] and [[Talk:Richard_Dawkins|Talk Page]] for an extremely good example of this. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:49, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::As an aside, Lyra, considering it is, in fact, universities that bestow the title of 'professor', if the University of Chicago basically saying that, as far as they were concerned, he was a professor, isn't 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? You also state that there is a big difference between 'Senior Lecturer' and 'professor'. Read the link given by Tordenvaer. The University of Chicago completely disagrees with you there. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:57, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: In other words, if [[liberals]] like someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[liberals]] are going to call him a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. Perhaps we should add this to [[liberal]] positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Done. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:54, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Alternatively, if [[conservatives]] dislike someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[conservatives]] are going to deny that he is a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:36, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

: Really? Perhaps you can tell us who peer-reviewed Obama's work, and when, and what the outcome was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Most likely the U of C law faculty did, repeatedly throughout his time working there, as all departments do with all faculty. The outcome was that they asked him to join the faculty full-time. In addition to the statement linked above, there is [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/701490,CST-NWS-obamaprof18.article] (para 3). They did not offer him a full-time position because they thought he was good-looking. [[User:Murray|Murray]]

:::: Well, I'll put it this way - who is more likely to be correct in who is or is not a professor? Aschlafly or the Universities of Chicago and Oxford? Personally, I'll go with the universities, and thus accept both Dawkins and Obama are professors, in one way or another. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 22:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: Certain people can't handle the ''truth'', Urushnor. Regardless of what U-Chicago's ''feeling'' is, he's a senior lecturer, not a professor. The university never gave him that title. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 23:31, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: 'The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

:::::: 'From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, '''Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School'''. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. '''Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors''', although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'[[User:Jtimber|Jtimber]] 23:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Precisely. It seems that certain people cannot handle the truth, indeed - Obama made a comment, in passing, which his opponents seized upon to try to brand him as a liar, because they thought it was wrong, as his actual title was 'Senior Lecturer', but now can't handle the truth that, in fact, 'Senior Lecturers' are regarded as professors, so the comment was correct. I also note, Lyra, that you still haven't actually answered my question - given that it is universities that bestow the title of professor, if a university saying that someone is or was a professor is not 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I believe I've already answered that question. My point was that he was not full-track. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:30, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::No, from the above, your point was quite clearly that 'he was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor', to quote you exactly. The University of Chicago says he was a 'Senior Lecturer', which is considered to be a professor. So you haven't actually answered that question at all, unless you changing your point is your way of saying, 'oops, I was wrong - he ''is'' a professor, just not a full-time or tenure-track one'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 01:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Allow me to explain. When he says he is a ''professor'', many people will assume he means a full-time teaching committment, regardless of U of C's technicalities. It's a bit deceitful. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::During the time he worked as a senior lecturer, he was practicing law as well. I've actually read ''The Audacity of Hope''. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't really think it's that deceitful; he's just using common parlance versus the technical term. Technically, yes, he was a senior lecturer/adjunct faculty, but I knew lecturers at the university who would hold themselves out as professors. It's not deceit, it's just simplification, I think.-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 20:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously. If someone like [[Dan Quayle]] had attempted Obama's self-serving "simplification", as you put it, then Quayle would have been strung up and run off the stage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::I totally concur--what Obama should be saying is he worked as a "part-time professor," if at all. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 20:34, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Obama held the position of senior lecturer for years, and surely understood what his title was. It doesn't seem too much to expect him not to exaggerate his credential.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:38, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

''In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously...'' Yes and no. Titles are meaningful, and indicate how prestigious a position is and generally the salary level. However, titles vary dramatically across university systems. For example, in the U. of Illinois system, Adjunct Professor is the equivalent a Lecturer at U of C - it indicates someone who is a part-time faculty member, hired solely to teach classes, either because there are not enough full-time faculty or to allow the full-timers more time for research. In the U. of California system though, an Adjunct Professor is a full-time faculty member, and UC guidelines suggest that on, for example, grant applications, an Adjunct Professor use the title of Professor to avoid confusion. So an Adjunct Professor in Champaign would be stretching it to use the title of Professor, whereas someone with the same title in LA or Berkeley would not. So titles are certainly meaningful, but their specific meaning isn't always readily apparent [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:36, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Would someone unlock this for a brief moment? Thanks! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== First St. Francis Assisi, then Mentang Besuki ==

There's a line in the Early Life section of the bio that gets the order of Obama's Indonesian elementary schools reversed. The Catholic one was first, for almost three years. The public one was only the last year or so. The misinformation is repeated in Faith and Values section. Says his father was a nonpracticing Muslim. Other sources say atheist. His stepfather was a practicing Muslim, however. No mention of the Afrocenric theology of TUCC. See Linda Chavez' article in NR online on this. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] 10:29, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Questions about This Article ==

No offense, but this article is very biased, and much of it lacks sources. Shouldn't there be sources for it, and if there are none should it not be removed? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:14, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: 43 citations. How many more do you want?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:53, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps something to cite things that are obviously personal attacks, such as this:
"He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action.". That sounds more like an opinion than a definition of fact, and there's not citation for it anyway. Also, the lead for his article seems to be one giant summary of his political views, portrayed negatively. Very biased. Not sure how that is delt with here, but we try to keep things neutral on Wikipedia. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:31, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:Conservapedia does not require citations for statements like that. And even if they were there, they would just be links to conservative opinion pieces. Best to just leave it alone... the article as it is stands quite well as a reminder to visitors that this is a very different site from Wikipedia, for a variety of interesting reasons.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Image switch ==
I think you meant to say ''add'' placement bias. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama built his campaign on anti-American donations. A photo of his anti-patriotic posture reflects his campaign far more than a standard and unrevealing portrait photo does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::Here are Obama's top 20 donors: Goldman Sachs, University of California, UBS, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers (investment banking firm), Citigroup, National Amusements (who own 1400 theaters), Sidney Austin (law firm), Harvard, Google, Skadden Arps (law firm), Exelon, Morgan Stanley, Time Warner, Jones Day (law firm), Wilmerhale (law firm), Latham Watkins (more lawyers), University of Chicago, Kirkland & Ellis (lawyers), Citadel Investment Group. Not exactly a list of crazy liberals. But the point was really the comparison to all the pages of other senators here, all of which (if they have an image) have an official picture at the top. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:16, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Meaningless statistic, and only a tiny fraction of Obama's fundraising. His big money source is moveon.org types, and no one can deny that he's tapping into the stridently anti-war (and often anti-American) types. People are going to Obama's entry because he's running for president, not because he's a senator, and the photo placement should reflect that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Furthermore, I do not see how you can call forces within America anti-American, that title used to be restricted to ''foreign'' forces. Soviet Russia was anti-American. MoveOn is not. The American Colonies were anti-British, I suppose. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:18, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::You might as well give it up, before you get 90/10ed. From reading this site, it's pretty clear that on Planet Conservapedia, the GOP '''is''' America, and Liberals are all mindless robot drones created by Satan himself to DESTROY AMERICA, propelled by their disgusting glandular urges, hatred for all things Good and Holy and American and Conservative (as redundant as that is), and the occasional telepathic directive from the Ghost of Charles Darwin fnord. Thus, the very concept of [[Liberal patriotism]] is an [[oxymoron]]. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In Soviet Russia, rules follow you! In any case, Liberal just means willing to embrace new ideas and ''change''. More people should recogize that. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I know its not really important, but the colonials mainly considered themselves British and were fighting for their British rights about up until the Decleration of Indepedence was signed. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:And after that, they would've all been hanged as traitors to Crown and Country if they'd lost. Got to remember that part... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Well, the mini-series "John Adams" is very good, but the assertion that FernoKlump makes is not correct. Originally they were fighting for the rights afforded to all British subjects, but long before the Declaration of Independence was signed, most of the "heavy hitters" had long since realized there would be no reconciliation with the Crown. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes. The Founding Fathers must have been considered very unpatriotic by the British during the Revolution. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Maybe most of the "heavy hitters" had realized they were fighting for their independence, but the avererage colonial didn't really realize that until the decleration. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 10:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
==Category==
Put him in [[:Category:African Americans]]
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:07, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: This is absurd. [[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:49, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::Except for segregationists [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:26, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Those were primarily Democrats, you realize? Racists are just that, and don't depend on idealogical labels to be so. I know so-called "liberals" and "conservatives" who often express racist thinking. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Shall I put [[Adam Sandler]] into [[:Category:Jewish Americans]] too, Deborah? --

:Those segregationists were southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") and were social conservatives. Status as a Democrat or Republican doesn't necessarily label people in the past as liberal or conservative. Today Republicans tend to be conservative and Democrats tend to be liberal, but the Republican party was originally established to end slavery. Abolitionism was a VERY liberal idea at the time. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:56, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:: No, [[abolitionism]] came from [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]], and they were [[conservative]]. Southern Democrats (like [[Jimmy Carter]]) were not [[conservative]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::They weren't conservative if they wanted an end to slavery. Liberal, by definition, is the advocacy of change. An end to slavery would have been change. Therefore, an advocacy of the end of slavery would be liberal. Southern democrats, like Governor George Wallace, were conservatives because they sought to ''preserve'' the existing institution of segregation.

From dictionary.com:

Liberal- Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs

Conservative- Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

[[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your definition is meaningless. [[Conservatives]], for example, want big change on [[abortion]]. Use the more meaningful definitions and explanations found on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::No, Conservatives want to ''revert'' back to before abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade. Look at that definition again. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:58, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::FernoKlump, your history at CP is one of endless talk, talk, talk, argue, argue, argue. Yet, coming here, you were told up-front, if by nothing else than the name, ''this is a conservative encyclopedia''. Somehow a very small number of users, feel they have a right or obligation to turn this encyclopedia into a debate site. I feel an obligation to point out to you CP wasn't put here to provide a debate vehicle for you and other liberals.

:::You might want to look up, while you are busy with that dictionary, the meaning of "goodbye". I have a feeling you're going to need it. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:19, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::TK, you probably shouldn't be indulging in personal remarks of that quality, which go against the Conservapedia Guidelines ("You must be civil. No bullying.") Your shirt is still the right color, though, so maybe you'll be okay. Just thought I'd let you know.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:40, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

*TomMore, please keep in mind that Conservapedia rejects the European and Wikipedia definitions of being "civil" and "bullying". Me stating facts, about arguing and endless talk, are factual, therefore conservatives do not view that as bullying, or uncivil. What is uncivil is the introduction, ''the forced introduction'', of foreign definitions that American conservatives expressly reject. Users who do nothing but post contentious comments to conservatives, and denigrate what we believe, should perhaps consider starting their own liberal encyclopedia and stop wasting time here. CP doesn't grant the right of endless arguing, talk, talk, talk. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:28, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

::Guys, this is silly. Lets end it. And he is right, this is an encyclopedia, not a debate site. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:46, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

1) I'm not a liberal.
2) I understand that this encyclopedia is supposed to have a conservative bias, but it has degenerated into a "how liberals are ruining America" encyclopedia. I really like the idea of an encyclopedia that tries to present things from a conservative view, but this site is just embarassing to the conservative cause and unrealistic (like "[[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race", when reality says otherwise). There is a big difference between a conservative point of view and a conservative version of reality. If I deserved to be banned for fighting against the lies that make conservapedia unreliable, then ban me. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:09, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sorry, not in the MVSN. Doesn't count.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:11, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::MVSN? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:15, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The blackshirts (Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale) ? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:17, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Don't know who they are... I looked at [[blackshirt]]s but there's nothing there. It's just a nickname :)--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:20, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
I didn't see anything on conservapedia about what 'MVSN' would mean, so I thought it might be a wikipedia term. I searched and got the blackshirts, which are basically Italian fascists. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:25, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Alright, this obviously has nothing to do with improving the article, so lets end it. Thanks in advance, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:27, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Proposed addition ==

It is seeming like this was lost due to all the chatter on the talk page, i don't know what everybody thinks of it. here is my proposal under "faith and values" section:

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

: I've unprotected the page for you to edit it as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Ideologically motivated "citation needed" insertions, for statements that are not seriously disputed, are not allowed. This is not [[Wikipedia]] where that same stunt by liberals occurs repeatedly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thank-you for the explanation. My citation request was not 'ideologically motivated', it was a simple request for a reference to an 'ideologically motivated' statement. My request also follows Commandment #2, something you have been willing to overlook in many of the articles I have edited. I get the idea that I would not be afforded the same opportunity to make the same statements without references since I'm not an administrator or the founder of this encyclopedia.--Jimmy 22:17, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'm reinserting the other edit since you have no objection to it, thanks. --Jimmy 22:20, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama's actual title was Senior Lecturer, not Professor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
: And according to his university, a senior lecturer is a professor. It's that simple. --Jimmy 22:27, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:: You're misconstruing what the media relations department said. Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I am really interested to know what you are basing your "Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't)" on Aschlafly?
What info do you have to say it is the perception of the media dep. and not actually true?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:52, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

If you cannot give ANY evidence to back your claims up Aschlafly then the article should include what the university states. And, I might add, the media dep. is responsible for answering media enquiries hence the media dep. answering the query whether or not Obama is a prof. or not.
So ADD THE REFERENCE OR LOOK LIKE A FOOL. Your choice
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your quarrel is with the dictionary, not with me, and the citations about the "professor" issue are well-supported by the entry. In case you have problems following a link, I'll quote the observation on the Democratic Underground site, which is also well-supported with cites: [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307]

::[Obama's] publications page lists his two autobiographical books, but no academic work of any sort .... Now, given his relatively strong academic credentials and the extent of [[affirmative action]] in academic hiring, if Obama had written articles about, well, pretty much anything, he would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position. But he didn't.

::... [H]e is not a Professor of Constitutional Law. Nor is he an assistant professor or associate professor. ...

By the way, AdenJ, any more namecalling from you in violation of our rules will result in blocking of your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:Heh. We see what you did there--quoting the website Democratic Underground as if to show that even liberals think Obama's professor claim is invalid. In reality, of course, the DU item was posted by an anonymous commentator ("agdlp"), something anyone could do, and hardly a reliable cite given that said post provides no evidence, just links repeating the claim. I could go on that site and write a post saying that Obama is an alien from the planet Mar’xennui, but that wouldn't make it true or cite-able. And as to your (repetition of the) claim that "given his relatively strong academic credentials...Obama would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position...but he didn't", please note that the UofChicago statement notes that Obama was offered a tenure-track position several times, but declined.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Your comments don't add anything. Look, if it makes you feel better to believe that Obama is somehow a professor, then suit yourself. By objective standards, including the dictionary, he plainly is not and never was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::How about we compromise? "Obama has claimed he was a constitutional law professor when he was actually a Senior Lecturer." That seems to fit with the facts better, and it circumvents what is starting to amount to a semantics debate. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, that doesn't capture the false boasting. And, by the way, your other edits to this entry also do not convey the truth, as in the boasting about the poverty bill that was a non-starter and never passed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which edit was that? The only edits I've made to the page were the foreign policy experience one (which you've reverted) and helping organize the sections a bit. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question about lead ==
The opening line of the third paragraph reads "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience." While nobody can dispute the lack of military or executive experience, could his position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee count as foreign policy experience? Don't get me wrong, it's still not much experience, but it would seem to be enough to remove the foreign policy part. Thoughts? --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:41, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Mere membership on a congressional committee does not constitute "foreign policy" experience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: It doesn't make him a scholar or an expert on it, but I would've thought it would move him out of the category of "absolutely none". --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:09, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ampersand: You are now finding out that facts are not a substitute for the world that the Conservapedia leadership has constructed. It is a fact that Obama has foreign policy experience, but that does not matter to the people in charge. I have brought up issues like this numerous times on many other articles but usually nothing happens. Nothing happens to the articles this is, but I have been blocked on numerous occasions for trying to make this encyclopedia reflect the real world. Good luck! --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:59, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Merely being on a committee is not foreign policy experience. That is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You are absolutely 100% correct. But it has been demonstrated that Obama has made overseas trips with the Foreign Affairs Committee and has discussed policy with other world leaders and diplomats. This is a fact that cannot be denied in face of the irrefutable evidence that has been provided. No matter how limited his foreign policy experience has been; the sentence in the opening paragraph (Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience) is laughingly false. Presenting such inaccurate information as fact only gives ammunition to Conservapedia's critics. There are plenty of other factual criticisms that can be leveled at Obama without making up dumb factoids. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lead section question ==

In the second paragraph, this sentence "According to political expert and Republican strategist Karl Rove, became his "political mentors," and launched is state Senate campaign and subsequent national political career" seems to be missing a word. Does anyone know what it is?

== Ok, there is so much misinformation here idk where to start ==

I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives, but there is a ton of bad information here that really is not true and to discriminate against this man is blatently racist, especially in the way its being done: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" wtf people?? First of all, generalization such as this is a breach of most online encyclopedia protocol. Second of all, the assumption that he benefited from affirmative action is nothing more than an assumption, NOT fact. He went to Harvard, thus he is a smart man. Furthermore, why should he have to provide proof in a "clear personal achievement" that he does not rely on affirmative action? Assuming that a black man cannot succeed without affirmative action is not only racist, but also untrue. Next controversial statement in this article: "Barack Obama has captivated black and educated white voters, largely because of his race". How can anyone make that assessment? It is, once again, based off pure imagination rather than fact, as is further demonstrated by the lack of any sources backing it. The author also claims that Bill Clinton dismissed Barack's claim that he was against the war from the start as a "fairy tale". I checked the source of this statement, which is in actuality a website acknowledging Clinton's apology towards the "fairy tale" comment. Furthermore we must realize that Hillary and Bill Clinton are in fact married, which might perhaps explain why Bill Clinton might want to tarnish the rep of Clinton's main opponent. Again, more BS: "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience" Sure, he isn't as experienced as Hillary, but generally, when a candidate runs for the presidency, they do not have experience in being president. Another ridiculous claim here: Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in physics, yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." I checked up on this source as well, which has been misinterpreted by the author of this page here. Obama wrote a paper on the constitution, to which he used an analogy of space-time physics. In much the same way George Orwell's animal farm uses a farm to relate to communism. Orwell didn't have to be a farmer to write the book, and Obama doesn't need to be a nuclear physicist to read up on relativity. If anything, Obama's ability to understand the basic gist of physics without taking physics courses actually lends credence to his own intellect. Something that didn't come as a result of affirmative action. AND... he can say "nuclear". Neo-cons have no right to bash intelligence. Further on in the article, the author claims that "Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses[9] on the Constitution.[10]" Note the sources. They aren't sources. They don't lead anywhere or cite anything, but are just statements. AND they have nothing to do with this statement. If this encyclopedia is so trustworthy, why can't it provide proper sources for its misinformation?? Later on, the author makes the statement that Barack Obama has voted present 130 time in the IL senate and this is a reason to disbelieve him. This is in fact, true information, but I do have a problem with the heavy slant. Obama's aides say Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. Also, in Illinois law it is not unusual to protest bills with a present vote. You can check up on my facts, because it is found in the same source our author used to make the claim that Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times." In the second paragraph, the author says "He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at The University of Chicago Law School as of 2004.[14] He is no longer active at the school". Whereas the same source that was cited claims that "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Thus he WAS a professor after all. Check your information next time. I don't mind conservatives, in the old sense of the word. A true conservative worked to maintain the rights of business owners and left the economy alone. A true conservative kept taxes low and government spending no higher. What we get today are social conservatives. People who believe in the white christian male america. People who claim that the only way a smart, educated black man could be running for president is due to affirmative action. You criticize Reverend Wright for saying "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God." Look at yourselves. Give this man a chance; he did not go to Harvard because he was black nor does he recieve the support of both white and black america, red and blue america, and male and female america because he is black. This article is not trustworthy, or factual, but it is a bash. Now I am too tired to go through the remaining half of the article. Time to get a kick out of the Kangaroo one.
:I stopped reading after your bigoted "''I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives,'''" remark. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't even have to read that far. The above long-winded rant, too incoherent to read, let alone understand, illustrates the [[liberal]] style. I doubt he'd even agree with a conservative who says that "2+2=4".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Annie Oakley ==
This one needs to be phrased a little better. Just because something is outside of one's generation doesn't mean they can't possibly know what it is. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Nothing in Obama's background suggests he would have any idea who Annie Oakley was, and all evidence (including Obama's age) suggests he wouldn't. The conclusion by USA Today is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::I still think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that because someone was born after a certain date they're immune to cultural influences preceding them. Also, the conclusion's by a syndicated columnist, not USA Today itself. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Even John McCain wasn't alive when Annie Oakley died :D . And even Obama knows that Oakley was a female gun shooter. He was using it to make it appear that Hillary exaggerated her experience with guns as a child. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The "Choice" bill is not just "supported by" the [[abortion]] industry, but is for its direct benefit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lapel pin ==
The sentence "Notice Obama's lack of an American flag lapel pin" completely ignores how he's not wearing a jacket. No lapel, no lapel pin. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 00:43, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama doesn't wear the flag when he is wearing a jacket either. By the way, I do think pins work on shirts! The caption could profitably omit the word "lapel".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: True, and criticism of him for it is valid. I'm still uncomfortable with the sentence being there at all since it seems like kind of a weak way to attack him on it, though. A more effective attack would be to find pictures of McCain and Hillary wearing them and one of him not and putting them together side by side in a single image to illustrate him not wearing a lapel pin. That'd drive the point home more effectively, I think. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:49, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

== How Mike Ditka Unintentionally Boosted Obama's Rise to Prominence ==

An observation that I've not seen commented on in the press...

When scandal ridden Jack Ryan's Illinois US Senate campaign was falling apart, Obama looked like a shoe in....until ex-Bear's coach Mike Ditka seriously began considering pleas from some top Republcians that he should run for the Senate. And Ditka was doing interviews about his and his wife's thoughts on the matter, giving IL Republicans considerable hope. Suddenly, Democrats feared that even Chicago's normally reliable voters might hand the popular Ditka a landslide.

It was during this two or three week frenzy over the question of whether Ditka would run that Obama, with little seniority and experience, was picked to give a major address at the Democrat's National Convention endorsing John Kerry...a move clearly intended to give Obama a boost with Illinois voters. Obama ran with the opportunity and gave a speech that garnered lot's of favorable press and turned him into a media darling and pushed him toward a an extremely early presidential run. In my opinion, his rise to stardom was indirectly sparked by the fear that Mike Ditka might "steal" the IL senate seat out from under the Democrats. Unfortunately, Mike (apparantly at the behest of his wife) decided the Senate life wasn't for him afterall.

Without Mike's near run, Obama never would have become such a media darling...at least not so early in his career.--[[User:Billy21|Billy21]] 13:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Interesting analysis, but I doubt one evening at the Democratic National Convention had much to do with this. I'd say Hillary's electoral weakness is a bigger factor. And, of course, the [[liberal media]] has long been obsessed with race. When [[Rush Limbaugh]] commented that he felt a media focus on race influenced the choice of quarterback on an NFL team, he had to quit his job as a sports analyst.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I always thought the media's obsession with race and gender was incorrect in this race. From my experience, the main dividing line in the Democratic Party right now is generational. Clinton represents the baby boomers while Obama represents the youth, which is a large part of why her strength has been older voters and his strength has been younger ones. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I think there is a higher correlation in voting based on race than on age here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Race is definitely a factor, but within the white Democratic electorate you can see some definite splits that indicate a generational gap. The wealthier you are, the higher your education and the lower your age, the more likely you are to vote for Obama. The lower your income, the lower your education and the higher your age, the more likely you are to vote for Clinton. Now, given that many senior citizens, especially those who were blue-collar workers, are on fixed incomes and pensions, we could partially tie income into age. Education-wise, there tend to be more college graduates in the younger demographics than in the older demographics simply because young people have more educational opportunities than their parents or grandparents had. Now of course there are exceptions, just like there are exceptions to everything. But personally? I view the Democratic primary as a fight between my generation and a generation that's still in a metaphorical way fighting the Vietnam War. That's this young college liberal's take on the Democratic race. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Affirmative action==

* He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]].

Who said this? Should we endorse it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:49, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Joseph Farah: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=58632 The affirmative-action president]

Maybe we should give him credit; I would hate to be accused of [[plagiarism]] over this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:Here's some things I found on the subject: [http://www.cnbc.com/id/23579121/][http://www.slate.com/id/2187718/][http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=][http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070515_obama_cools_on_affirmative_action/] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: I think Conservapedia had the term first, see [[Affirmative Action President]], but I'm all for adding citations to others who also use it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::From a couple of the links I provided above, the remark may have come from Geraldine Ferraro. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:02, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:::No, I think the Ferraro kerfuffle was early March. CP's article on the subject began in January. I think all of these other johnny-come-latelys need to give Andy credit.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:22, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::This quote comes from here [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=]:
:::::''"This presents Barack Obama with unique opportunity. Having campaigned against the passage of the Michigan initiative, can he chart a new path now that he is running for president? And, having admitted he attended Harvard law school because of affirmative action, can he now say the time has come to try something different?"'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I've checked some more and apparently Conservapedia coined the term [[Affirmative Action President]] first. The uses by others were subsequent to the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:19, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations Andy... I guess you coined it first! :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:10, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reopening request to erase professor sentence ==

The accusation that Obama was not a professor at University of Chicago has been thoroughly debunked by the University itself. Does anyone mind if I remove the offending sentence? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 19:32, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
: Also note the contents of source #15, which is the press release by the University of Chicago on the subject. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 19:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-04-29T23:39:21Z

PostoStudanto: /* Reopening request to erase professor sentence */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]

==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)

People should also be aware that placing one's hand over their heart is required only for the pledge of allegiance, it is not required when one hears the star spangled banner (the national anthem).

== 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)

:Ahhh, so we have a self-admitted Godless Liberal, accusing conservatives, all of them apparently, of being racists. Nice and intellectual! Once again a "mobocracy" trait shining through, ignoring all logic and putting idealogical hatred first! Nice. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:58, 31 March 2008 (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)
:Exactly, because obviously an American sounding name makes a great president. Look at George Walker Bush. [[User:Kip|Kip]] 07:26, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::He's not a Muslim. He became a very religious Christian in his early 20's and then he met Rev. Wright who's a racist, Afro-centrist Christian, and he's still a member of that church. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

In response to the original question, Obama would not be a good candidate because the only thing he has going for him is his charisma. Example: when asked, he said if elected, he would immediately pull all American troops out of Iraq. Wether you agree with the war or not doesn't matter - that would be irrisponsible. It is not a matter of race by any means - I would love to see a black president, but one who is actually qualified for the job.--[[User:Justintree|Justintree]] 14:51, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

== 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)

== Rumours ==
This article is somewhat sloppy in its attributions and quotes. The part about the allegations about Obama's childhood are a good case in point. Surely it should be made clear that the allegations that he attended a madrassa are lies? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggest Protection ==

There's a vandal who was blocked once today for targeting presidential candidate entries. Since the primary is tonight (fingers crossed for Huck!) I expect vandalism to go up on these articles, before it goes down! I would recommend protecting articles like this for a week, maybe?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

: No need for protection. We'll be watching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Affirmative action in summary ==

I'm sorry about not discussing the recent change I made- I didn't see how it was major, as MexMax suggests, or even arguable. Here's why I did it:

The summary contains an anti-Obama statement claiming he is nothing more than a black man, who gained his status due to affirmative action. I removed the section because this very article states that he not only graduated Harvard Law, but did so magna cum laude ("with highest honors"). I can understand someone having issue with the possibility of his getting accepted due to his race, but graduating at the top of his class is far from proven to be race-based.

Regarding the paper he wrote, it's just fluff. His lack of a background in physics is unrelated since he was not authoring a paper in physics. He was writing about law, using physics as an analogy of legal matters. If the editor who put this text here actually bothered to read the reference, they would have seen that the context of the quote was actually a compliment Tribe: "...he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades." Again, where is affirmative action in this?

Conservapedia is about truth, not spreading propaganda (correct me if my impression is mistaken). I understand that Obama does not share conservative values but lying is morally wrong as well and we should not tolerate it here.

-- [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 12:00, 30 January 2008 (EST)

: Obama's record and support is full of puffery, preferences, and advantages based on his race. Your comments above only reinforce some of them, rather than rebut them. He was credited with analyzing a paper on physics, without any background in the topic. In fact, he apparently had no formal background in constitutional law at the time either! We're going to tell the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: You should be a bit careful, though, Andy. You don't want to get hung out to dry like you did over Dawkins. A word to the wise! [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:13, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:Removed the personal opinion on Tribe's remarks regarding Obama. Tribe can state whatever he wants regarding Obama, and if it's going to be referenced, do so straight up. CP isn't the place to debate Tribe's remark as he can't respond. If we include his remark (or the reference) we shouldn't be expounding on it. I didn't think an encyclopedia should contain personal opinion. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:17, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: Accounts will be blocked if they remove facts or quotes here, or in the Dawkins entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::How is "absurdly insisted" a fact and not an opinion? If it just said insisted, that's a fact because it was a direct quote. But to add the adverb "absurdly", that makes it opinion.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You deleted the Tribe quotes also, which is unacceptable. If you want to remove "absurdly" then insert "liberal" next to Tribe's name so that readers can see for themselves how ridiculous the quotes are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::Jdellaro's right, you know. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: "MatthewHopkins", you seem to love to talk, talk, talk. I'm going to check your edits now to see if there is any substance there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: That's rich. Check away, old horse. You'll find good stuff there, and most of the talk is attempting to argue sense into [[Liberals]]. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 16:05, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Aschalfly- First, we can't change things without talking, now Matt gets slammed because he tried to discuss the issue. You claim this is a meritocracy, but you push people around just because you don't know them. Your action here is that of a tyrant- threatening someone who is only trying to help the encyclopedia. I know you are concerned about liberals defacing the encyclopedia, but I don't think you've found one in this case. I've checked his edits without malice, and he seems to deserve good standing. You should be ashamed when you finish your witch hunt and apologize. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 07:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Mr. S, this is really weird. I mean, Obama might be just left of Lenin, but I don't get the affirmative action thing. Do we know his SATs, LSATs, etc? Do we have any evidence that his "achievements" are based on AA? If not, then this will look to any sane person like a racist piece of poo article. I mean, c'mon, let's get this guy on the facts, not on bizarre assumptions. Just cuz he's black doesn't mean he benefited from AA. He may have, and if he did, where's the citation? Otherwise, it's racist gossip.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 16:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Agreed- this nonsense makes the article looks more like a smear campaign that a fact-based biography. Due to the absence of any evidence, I will be removing much of the AA material later this week. I am halfway through reading the law review article, and there's nothing wrong with it. You may have a different opinion, but the essay is solid- liberal in its views perhaps, but certainly not absurd. There is none of this alleged analysis of physics, only a well cited collection of the physics issues described so that a layman can understand the importance of their discovery and their effects on modern scientific thought. Note that these effects are the key point and they have more to do with the history of science than science itself, and do not require the absurd call for a background in physics. The credits cite Barack for being the last of five persons providing "analytic and research assistance", but do not specify his contribution, which could have been anywhere from analytic to gofering to the law library to make photocopies. It also mentions a Harvard physics professor as a source of technical comments, so the physics are probably sound. If Obama was a major contributor to this essay, he should be commended for a job well done, but the current evidence doesn't allow for either congratulations or condemnation. Please provide comments and present supporting evidence. If you want to comment on the article, try reading it first: Harvard Law Review- Volume 103 November 1989, Number 1. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 13:28, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Some childish heavy-handed coward anonymously and secretly blocked my account instead of using discussion to come to a conclusion on this matter. Whoever you are, you can't shut me up by clicking a check box. Give me a fair trial for violating site policy or prove me wrong. Keep blocking new accounts only proves your contempt for truth and free speech. [[User:NepotisMonachusB|NepotisMonachusB]] 08:46, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Im sorry but that AA thing is complete bigotry, you can be black and still achieve. This is very offencive , only a racist would be happy with it, no wonder only moderates and liberals will stand a chance of winning the election, be it McCain, clinton or obama, the conservative voice will never again take prominance in politics. Maybe after seeing this im quite releaved. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 12:02, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The total number of votes cast by Obama is meaningless, since the vast majority of them would be on non-controversial issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:Not a problem; I was just trying to add a bit of perspective to the point. However, you might want to reconsider or reformulate the second part of the paragraph (which you also reverted). It's unclear who exactly "opponent" refers to--I understand it means Jack Ryan, but Obama's main Dem primary rival came to a similar end (dropped out of the race when details of his divorce became public). Further, readers might recall that Obama defeated Alan Keyes in the general election and wrongly believe the sexual allegations refer to him. Hence, my phrasology of "initial Republican" and "dropped out". Also, thanks for (re)clarifying the research citation.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

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

Seems a little harsh (and uncited). Could it maybe be reworded slightly? His race is perhaps one factor, but ''surely'' it's not implied that Obama's entire life has consisted of coasting on a combination of his ethnicity and [[liberal]] [[affirmative action]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:28, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:That's extremely harsh, I agree, and veering towards the biased. Of all the thousands of people who have voted for him, surely what he has to say, what he has written and what he has done have all had a bigger impact than affirmative action? If affirmative action was in place, then why isn't Alan Keyes the Republican front-runner? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Republican voters do not support [[affirmative action]], and do care about military and other experience in choosing a Commander in Chief. Many (not all) Democratic voters care more about promoting [[racial quotas]]. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::: Aschlafly- you've avoided the point with more anti-liberal statements. While I'm happy to sling those around with you, bias is the question here. I'll try to make Feebasfactor's point a little clearer for you: Is there bias in the affirmative action statement, or is the accusation verifiable? If proof cannot be provided, how are we better are than the liberals on Wikipedia, who we bash daily on their bias? Do we even care anymore or have we abandoned Conservapedia's founding principles? [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 16:46, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Aschafly - If Republicans care about military experience, then why choose Reagan or G. W Bush, whose experience of warfare was minimal? And if I can point out something with my tongue firmly in my cheek, why are the current Republican candidates for the Oval Office all themselves from minorities - a Mormon, an Old Age Pensioner, an Evangelical, an African-American and a... a whatever the heck Ron Paul is? Isn't that affirmative action too? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::Aschafly - Let's say all the Democratic candidates for President are black. (Bear with me here.) These are all people who graduated from a prestigious school with high honors, worked as a lawyer, and served as a Congressman, governor, or mayor. Would you then say that all of them got to where they were as a result of affirmative action and nothing else? That none of the things they accomplished came as a result of their talent, or perhaps their intelligence? That successful minorities must be viewed upon with suspicion?

:::Kinda stupid hypothetical situation, I know, but I hope it gets my point across, however stupid you think that point may be. [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 20:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::Let's say there's a young white guy, not bad-looking, but not all that original a thinker. His parent is a famous theocrat and a founder of the new Religious Right in the late 70s/early 80s. Despite his lack of original thinking and intelligence, he manages to get into an ivy league school, and despite that, his greatest accomplishment is a bizarre blogwiki hybrid on which he spreads hate and fear to children. Isn't that affirmative action?
::::Never mind, it's too weird to contemplate.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Peggy Noonan, that well-known leftist, in the well-known leftist publication The Wall Street Journal:

"He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you.
(I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)"

Possibly she means you guys. I merely suggest. "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" is at least good enough to have been written by David Duke.
Archer070

I'm removing that line until a citation of some kind is given. If there was an affirmative action program for congress in place I am sure that its Conservapedia entry would be even more popular than the one on Homosexuality. [[User:NoraReed|NoraReed]] 23:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== African american ==

In this article is says that:"He is, as of 2007, the only African American serving in the United States Senate"
but
"Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii"
He is most certainly not african american.

He is not African American because he was born in Hawaii? You MUST be joking. O__O I mean, I have heard "He is not the descendant of African slaves, so he isn't really African American." and I have heard "Living all over the world, he surely isn't in touch with African American life." but I think you have taken the petty distinctions to a new low.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 12:31, 1 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==

Found a great article while searching for W's foreign policy experience before the war. The full article is here:
<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/24/president.2000/foreign.policy/</ref>

Here's the relevant portions:

<blockquote>
Just how much do new presidents need to know about international affairs?

Franklin Roosevelt had experience and led successfully during World War II. But when he died, the presidency passed to Harry Truman, who was so out of things Roosevelt had never even told him about the atomic bomb. But Truman had many foreign policy successes: the end of World War II; the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe; the policy of containing the Soviet Union; the Berlin airlift when the Soviets tried to cut the city off; the United Nations; and so on.

He couldn't end the Korean War, but in foreign policy, he had many more pluses than minuses. Dwight Eisenhower had lots of experience. He was the allied commander in World War II; ended the Korean War; demanded, successfully that Britain, France and Israel abandon their seizure of the Suez Canal. Successes.

John Kennedy grew up on foreign policy. His father was ambassador to Britain. And JFK wrote a study of British policy between world wars called "While England Slept."

As president, he had one big failure: the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. But it was followed by a big success: resolving the Cuban missile crisis by getting Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet Missiles from Cuba in exchange for withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey.

Lyndon Johnson had no direct experience aside from Senate debates. His administration passed historic domestic legislation: the civil rights and voting rights acts. But the unresolved war in Vietnam destroyed his presidency.

Richard Nixon had experience as Eisenhower's vice president and had solid success: detente with the Soviet Union, opening relations with China after decades of silence.
Carter
Former President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter had no experience, failed to free American hostages held in Iran, and said he was surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success: negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush's presidency.

Does experience matter? Yes, if you look at Johnson or Carter; no, if you look at Truman or Reagan.
</blockquote>

Seems that Reagan and W had about as much experience as Obama.

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

== removed false information ==

While Obama is left of Stalin on some matters, the Affirmative Action statement is blatant racism without some example given. Further, the Harvard law Review is hardly "liberal', as it counts among it's alum Supreme Court Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. And IT DOES NOT HAVE A QUOTA!

We can disagree with his policies, but we are not going to lie about him.

Having the same issues as reported above this is the second time I've had to remove the affirmative action statement, which is completely unquantifiable. I've also made edits removing language which is somewhat misleading and gives the article a very bias anti-Obama slant. If this site is dedicated to eliminating bias, it should not turn a blind-eye to conservative bias or in this case blatant racial discrimination. I have also expanded upon the issue surrounding his voting "present" so often. As stated in the article, voting "present" is commonplace in the Illinois Senate on both sides of the aisle. I kindly ask that [[Aschlafly]] stops reverting the article back to its previous biased and misleading state. If you disagree with the edits I've made write on my talk page or respond on the article's talk page instead of simply eliminating my changes, all of which seek to further expand the information in the article and maintain neutrality as best as possible.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 11:39, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: The Harvard Law review is extremely liberal, and it does have racial quotas in its admission. Your false accusation of lying are not appreciated and will not be allowed.

: The statement about [[affirmative action]] is accurate and will remain in the entry. Repeated attempts to remove it without justification will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Justified how? Saying that Obama's life amounts to nothing more than lucking out with affirmative action isn't a quantifiable statement...at all. It is nothing more than a completely biased statement and does in fact convey a sense of bigotry. The edits I've made to the article have not introduced some virile liberal bias, I've simply elaborated on contentious issues and removed language and phrasing which is decidedly opinionated. Just because someone disagrees with you [[Aschlafly]] does not make that person wrong. Stop using the power which you have been granted out of good faith by the rest of this site to act like the NKVD, censoring whatever you feel like, and threatening those who disagree with you through bans or some other reprimands when they have only sought to maintain neutrality and expand factuality.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 15:45, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Your racial bullying is not going to work here. [[Affirmative action]] is a big part of Obama's career and his support. Don't delete it from the entry and don't deny that the Harvard Law Review is a very liberal institution that uses [[racial quotas]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:51, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Racial bullying? I'm sorry my defective leftist brain must not be able to comprehend your superior Divine logic. But I'm not the one throwing baseless affirmative action rants into what should be a neutral and factual article. Even Clarence Thomas would tell you just how bigoted and perposturous such a claim is.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly: Enforcer of <s>Truth</s> ==

So, after having edited the Obama article for the third time to remove some of the more opinionated wording, removing the baseless affirmative action claim, and expanding on the procedures of the Illinois Senate to give people a better understanding of why Obama voted "present" 129 times, Conservapedia Fuhrer [[Aschlafly]] has threatened to ban me if I edit the article again, despite the neutrality and factuality of my edits. Does anybody else think this is somewhat of an abuse of power as well as an attempt to enforce his own opinion on the rest of the site, and, is there someway that we could replace him with someone who is not a fanatical reactionary.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)
:It's Andy's site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:49, 17 February 2008 (EST)
: :Agree it's Andy's site. Of course Andy should be ashamed of himself; but it's still his site. Andy has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of his mom's clout. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]
::: It's Andy's site?!?!?! I was under the opinion it was an encyclopedia![[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 09:57, 20 February 2008 (EST)

This is the reason liberals will win the whitehouse , people are tired of these attitudes , people need to move into the 21st century .... quickly. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:46, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== It's ASTOUNDING! . . . Why? Don't you people know how Congress works? ==

"For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times."

Why is that astounding? That is an incredibly SMALL number. Congresspersons vote on thousands of issues each TERM. And for Barack Obama to have been a Senator for EIGHT YEARS and to only not vote 130 times... lol.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

:"As for his voting performance, Obama liked sitting on the fence. He is recalled for taking full advantage of an Illinois rule that lets you vote "present" if you don't want to commit yourself. Illinois State Senator Bill Brady recalled: "I learned very quickly that the 'present' vote, where the button you press is very appropriately coloured yellow, is the chicken's way out." ([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''])[[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:14, 20 February 2008 (EST)

: Voting "present" 130 times is NOT a small number. It is an astounding large number of times to duck important issues, so large that even [[Hillary Clinton]] has ridiculed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:02, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::It's a fair point, but I'd suggest that the article should nonetheless give some concept of scale. 130 "present" votes translates to about 3% of the votes cast, which quite frankly isn't a lot. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:06, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: It is enormous. A politician is serving only himself, and not his constituents, by ducking so many important issues. You won't find any earnest politician voting "present" so many times and ducking so many important issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:10, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: But those statements that you make, Andrew, are all opinions that aren't sourced from cited sources. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, merely trying to ensure that we have the most accurately cited article we can have; all I'm saying is that in order to support the claim that voting present 3% of the time - which purely quantitatively doesn't '''seem''' like much to the average obsever - you'd actually need to give '''a solid, cited example''' of an "earnest politician" who hasn't voted present on a comparable proportion of issues. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:34, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The reversion removed a silly, self-serving quote that only filled the entry with junk. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 23 February 2008 (EST)

The reversion this morning reinserted a liberal deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Introduction to article ==

I don't disagree with the subject matter, but I think there's a problem with the introduction. Most of the information seems to relate to his ideological/political stances, and so would be better placed in the body of the article rather than posted up front. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: We put the important stuff first here. But thanks for your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Some things need altering like the affirmative action thing. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 15:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: What's the problem? No [[liberals]] have any problems in complaining about alleged special preferences for [[conservatives]]. When someone gets special treatment and then seeks to become president on that basis, it's fair game to criticize the special treatment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Maybe he DID get SOME special treatment , but the article suggests that everything he`s achieved in life is a result of AA. Maybe it needs a little tinkering with, it comes across too strongly , there is no problem saying that AA helped him but to say thats the only reason he got anywhere in life is a big jump. If he becomes president (trust me there is a good chance of it) are you going to say he only became president as a result of AA? Thats just not possible, people voted for him because they liked him and his ideas not because they felt sorry for him for past racism towards black people.--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 06:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:: To be fair, "no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained ... [by] affirmative action" is a much stronger statement than, say, "he could not have achieved the heights he has in the absence of affirmative action." The former claims he has _no_ achievements of his own, which seems so exaggerated that I'd believe it was written by a troll if you weren't defending it yourself. I would never consider entering politics, and even I have what might reasonably called "personal achievements." I'm sure Obama has some too. The latter statement merely (rightly!) observes that his achievements would never have elevated him to the status he's achieved, if it were not for liberal affirmative action; isn't that more like what you mean? [[User:Coas|Coas]] 16:31, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Needs a major overhaul... ==

On the whole, this article, I believe, needs a major overhaul. Firstly, too much of this, while true, is written in so many ways like gossip. A glaring error that any serious writer would immediatly reject is the phrase: "Obama is SO pro-abortion..." It sounds like some high-school kid exaggerating to a friend. While it may be true, to phrase it in such a way is very unprofessional, and degrades the credibility of the article.

Also, while I understand that many see this article as an outlet to vent frustration at an inexperienced, unproven candidate, to write the entire article in a highly critical light errodes the circumstantiated tone that I assume Conservapedia strives for. Those not well informed might see this article as bigoted and hateful, whith spurious and unsubstantiated claims. My advice is to write these facts in a neutral, detatched style, as is the case with most encyclopedias. To do otherwise detracts from Conservapedia as a whole.

A few suggestions just from the very beginning:

1. "Obama is so pro-abortion..." should be changed to something like: "Obama has a well-noted stance of pro-abortion, demostrated in cases such as his blocking of the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants protection act, which was unanimously supported by the U.S. Senate."

2. "Obama has absolutely no military..." needs to be reworked into something more or less as follows: "Obama has a distinct lack of military, executive, and foreign policy experience as evidenced by..." and include some example of how he simply has not been in a position where he could gain any of this experience.

3. "Throughout his career, he has repeatedly ducked..." has too much opinion attached to it, and the "...in an apparent attempt..." part reeks of unprofessionalism. A good alternative would be "Obama has many times abstained from taking a controversial stand on certain issues, voting 'present' instead of 'aye' or 'nay' a substantial 130 times during his career as an Illinois state senator."

Much, much more needs to be done for this to sound like an authoritative encyclopedic article instead of an opinionated rant.
--[[User:Churro|Churro]] 01:18, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==
I'd like to add a few paragraphs about Obama's foreign policy experience. Any chance the article can be unprotected? --Jimmy 21:29, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: The article was unprotected for a long time, and endured repeated attempts at liberal bias. How about suggesting your edits here first?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::== Foreign Policy Experience ==
::Sen. Obama has been a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations since his election to the Senate. <ref>http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/about.html </ref>

::He has visited many countries in his capacity as a Senator.

::Russia and former Soviet republics: Met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. Also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN).
::United Kingdom: Met with Prime Minister Tony Blair during visit with Sen. Lugar. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit </ref>

::Visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad: Discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/ </ref>

::Ten day tour of the Middle East: Talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/ </ref>--Jimmy 22:14, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Completely incorrect information in Foreign Policy==

The information provided is completely incorrect. Senator Obama has indeed visited Continental Europe on official business - he visited Eastern Europe in August 2005, taking in Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and the UK[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]. Please correct the article.

Not only is the article factually incorrect, but the suggestion is made that this 'lack of travel experience' would make him unsuitable for the Presidency. To which I would point out that the current President George W. Bush, had NEVER visited Europe until a year '''after''' taking the Presidency. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 13:32, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Political Views section ==

I don't know whether this is a valid criticism to make, but it occurred to me while reading the article that the "Political Views" seection is rather short and vague. Although it's great to make concise comments on issues such as illegal immigration etc., it doesn't really give us a good picture of exactly what he stands for (and no jokes about not standing for anything, please!). What I mean is: the second sentence claims that Obama has the record of a Marxist leftist, but nothing after that point under that section really justifies that statement. Indeed, much of it seems to be better placed under the next section "Faith and Values". It might be pertinent to have a more detailed analysis of individual parts of his policies and stances. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Obama's stances keep changing depending on which state is next in the primaries. It's a waste of time to attach any significance to his stated positions, other than to recognize how [[liberal]] he is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Perhaps pointing out these changes would be a better idea, Andy. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 20:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't view this as a priority, as Obama's supporters only care about his positions against the war and for abortion and don't care about much else, and those positions are spelled out. I'll unlock the entry for you if you'd like to add objective material that shows how he changes his position so often. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I know nothing of Obama's war opinion (aside troop withdrawal) and nothing of him pro-abortion position. Yet, I am still an Obama supporter, despite being non-US, as he is the only one who is not part of the great Washington machinery. It is time for change and the old stalwarts like McCain and Clinton need to go. Change can be good, not always but why not give it a chance?
Also, Bush Jnr had waaaaaaay less experience than Obama.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Can we un-lock, this artical needs to be updated ==

There is no information at all about how Obama was linked to the radical Afro-Centric "Church" in Chicago whose Pastor endorses crazy racialist theorys about Whites, the CIA did AIDS, Jews did 9/11, etcetera. ANd then of course he makes one silly speech that doesnt really say anything, and the liberal media fall over each other to praise him like the secnod coming of jesus. (btw, this isnt really my area of expertise, but I understand some American theologians have seriously considered whether he could be the anti-christ. i don't know if that's enough of a seriously taken theory but you folks should decide whether to mention it at least.

I dont understand why so many pages i try to edit are locked.

:: I think it is because reality has a well known liberal bias. (I joke, I joke) It just that liberals don't understand how to interpret reality but keep insisting that they do. It isn't like this problem is going away either.--[[User:Jroyale|Jroyale]] 21:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Étienne Léger
:Are you referring to Pastor Wright? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::Yes Jeremiah Wright is his name, he is basically an "afro-centric" race bigot who openly associates with Louis "Hitler was a great man" Farrakhan, he was Obama's chief Spiritual Advisor for many years except now he tries to deny it.

::: Please propose an encyclopedic-like addition, with a citation. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Agree: not sure why this article would be locked when it clearly needs to be updated to ensure the tone is encyclopedic and not simply derogatory. Otherwise, the reputation of this effort as a "trustworthy encyclopedia" will continue to be severely undermined.

: Im starting to think that it is too late to save this site. Its hard to take it seriously with articles like this . . . [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 18:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

OK Heres my suggestion, probably the English she needs work :) but I found lots of references and I think it's encyclopedia like. It should go under section 9 on "Faith and Values."

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

== This Article is Ridiculous ==

For God's sake, with articles like this Conservapedia is never going to be taken seriously. A “Marxist leftist"? This is just stupid, he's basically pro-life moderate conservative. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, you really are in the wrong place if you think anyone here is going to be fooled by your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::Fooled? I don't even especially like Barack Obama. Can you honestly say that Obama is a communist? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:47, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh I see, my bad, i meant pro-choice . . . Can i change it? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:49, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Could someone with access add something like "According to the Political Compass, Barack Obama would be better described as a moderate conservative <ref>http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008</ref>" after the Marxist comment? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::I agree that in no way can Obama be described a Marxist leftist. I've met Marxist leftists and argued with them a great deal (they tend to have very fixed ideals and observe an astonishing range of fallacies about the very unlamented Soviet Union) and compared to them Obama's a solid centrist. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 07:53, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, he's politically 'left' of Ann Coulter. By Conservapedian standards, that makes him a bomb-throwing Bolshevik revolutionary fnord. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

They also tend to be communists and call each other "comrade" and call for collectivism lol. But really, that quote either needs to be removed or balanced with another. Otherwise its just libel. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:05, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:It's not libel if it's a Liberal being lied about. Didn't you get the memo? That whole "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" thing only applies if thy neighbor is a Conservative. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, he's a liberal? I didn't know that! I can't find on the page where it says that he is a radical Islamic terrorist<ref>Barack HUSSEIN Obama!</ref>. He also a lying homosexual right? why isn't that included? If you need a source I can start a webpage and write that for you. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:21, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and Obama could hardly be called our neighbor. No blacks are allowed in conservapedia's neighborhood. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Voting "present" doesn't necessarily indicate a fence-sitter... ==

Oftentimes, a vote of present indicates that the candidate generally supports a proposal in principle, but is unable to support it in its current form. It's a way of saying "I'm here, I'm interested, but we can't do it this way." Say Congressman A is a strong fiscal conservative and hates deficits. A budget bill comes before the body which cuts taxes but also provides for incremental increases in government programs which Congressman A already believes are hopelessly bloated, and in so doing increases deficit spending. That Congressman might not be able to support the bill but voting "present" would put to the record that he did not outright reject the proposal, but rather that he might be open to supporting a similar, re-worked bill.

== Required Changes ==

This article needs a lot of work to bring it up to the standards of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'. Several claims don't pass muster.

- The claim "'''Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience'''" is laughingly false and makes this article look plain ignorant. There are well documented details of Obama's foreign policy experience in the article, yet this sentence remains. The reference for this claim is hopelessly incorrect. While this reference is in compliance with the commandments, it was obviously written by someone that didn't do their homework as proof of Obama's foreign policy experience is readily available. The same cannot be said of the next dubious claim.

:: You're clueless. Obama has zero military or executive experience, and his foreign policy experience is in the lowest 10% of senators. Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action'''." This comment is the sort of gossip that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Not only has this ridiculous claim been removed and reinserted many times, not a shred of evidence is presented to back up this basically idiotic nonsense. I'd like to think the leadership of this encyclopedia would set a good example for others to follow when writing articles, but there are way too many articles like this one that prove otherwise.

:: The evidence is overwhelming, with examples provided in the entry. All you have to do is cite some counterexamples. You can't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, the article states that Obama graduated from Harvard Law with honors. That strikes me as a "clear personal achievement". Are you suggesting, therefore, that he didn't deserve said honors, that faculty gave him an easy ride because he's African-American? --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:54, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He won a seat in the U.S. Senate after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, Alan Keyes'''." This claim is completely without merit. According to Fox News, Ryan was not forced out and the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged him to remain. The idea that '''liberals somehow obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records''' is disingenuous at the least and most likely a lie. According to Fox News, the records were released when the ''Chicago Tribune'' and Chicago TV station ''WLS'' sued. Divorce proceedings are a matter of public record unless the there is a compelling interest to make them private. According to the court, relevant portions of the divorce were kept private and the remaining portions were released. Please note that I am not quoting a liberal source for this information. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123716,00.html]

:: The records were confidential and the newspaper that sued for their relief was supportive of Obama. Yes, Jack Ryan was forced out as a result of the disclosures and no one familiar with politics credibly argues otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- This article was unlocked for a brief time a while ago until some vandals made their presence known. Even though the article was vandalized, it actually showed some signs of improvement. As it stands now, this article belongs on an Obama-hating lunatic fringe website, not part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.

:: I don't expect this factual entry to persuade anyone who is a big supporter of [[affirmative action]], because they don't care what Obama stands for or what his experience is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

The above seems to be someone's comments, debated by ASchlafly? But there's no name attached to any of these comments? Can you put back the signatures of whoever wrote those suggestions?

As to the actual comments ASchlafly, it seems you haven't actually read your own article. You ask "Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???", and the article clearly states that he has indeed been to London and met with Tony Blair. In comparison with all other candidates for the US Presidency, this leaves him "about the same". Most US Presidents do not come to the table with a huge amount of travel experience under their belts - witness the current President, who had never been out of the Continent before becoming President. No matter what you think of the candidate, the suggestion that the only things he has achieved are because of affirmative action beggars belief and doesn't even deserve a response, it's so unutterably stupid. Finally, referring to this article as a "factual entry" is revelatory. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:23, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

: "Western Europe" should be "continental Europe," because Obama did play second chair for an insignificant visit by a more experienced senator (Lugar) to Tony Blair. If that courtesy call is what you're hanging your hat on, then it merely underscores Obama's lack of experience. But I doubt you'd care anyway, as most Obama supporters don't support him for his experience or even his ever-changing or silent positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I'm delighted to see that you admit you were wrong, so thank you for that - it's good to keep the record straight. Now, for comparison to the other candidates, perhaps you'd like to list the foreign travel and policy experience of your candidate of choice? John McCain is off to Israel, London and Paris I see? Obama indeed does not have the French capital in his past itineraries, but comparing his Conservapedia article to Obama's, it would seem he is FAR more widely travelled than McCain. Finally, your suggestion about affirmative action might as well be directed at Clarence Thomas, since the only requirement you seem to need to make such a comment is the colour of these gentlemen's skin?

::PS Finally, could you please put back the sigs of whoever you were responding to? it's impossible to know where these comments come from? [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly: Contrary to your opinion, I am not the clueless one here. I happen to know that the United Kingdom is a part of Western Europe so therefore it can be concluded that Obama has made a trip to Western Europe since he visited London to see Tony Blair. Since you are making the claim that his foreign policy experience is the 'lowest 10% of senators', could you provide a reference please?

:::Where is this overwhelming evidence that Obama's success is explained by affirmative action? If it is so overwhelming, then you or the person that made this assertion should have absolutely no problem providing the reference. Where is the evidence in the article? I couldn't find anything. Could you provide this allegedly 'clueless' individual, as you like to call me, the specific line number?

:::Because Ryan refused to run for office after his divorce proceedings were made public, this means, using your line of reasoning, that the 'National Republican Senatorial Committee' lacks credibility. Perhaps this should be added to the article?

:::There are a lot of alleged 'facts' in this article that are nothing more than gossip and unsupported innuendo. According to the commandments that you wrote, these items should be removed. How can this article be a part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' if no attempt is made to follow the commandments and guidelines?

:::I happen to care what Obama, Clinton, and McCain stand for because I plan to vote and I want my vote to mean something. If someone wants to base their vote on what is written in Conservapedia, then they will be seriously misinformed. --Jimmy 21:30, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Law Professor ==

The sentence about Obama "falsely claiming to be a constitutional law professor" should be changed. According to the University of Chicago, he was considered to be a professor. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 19:14, 29 March 2008 (EST)

:He was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor. There's a big difference. The University of Chicago only ''considers'' Obama a professor, he wasn't actually one, as he falsely claimed to be. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::You're wasting your time, Tordenvaer. Certain people on here see nothing wrong in saying someone's not a professor if it suits their purposes and/or prejudices, even when there is ample evidence otherwise. See the Richard Dawkins [[Richard_Dawkins|article]] and [[Talk:Richard_Dawkins|Talk Page]] for an extremely good example of this. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:49, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::As an aside, Lyra, considering it is, in fact, universities that bestow the title of 'professor', if the University of Chicago basically saying that, as far as they were concerned, he was a professor, isn't 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? You also state that there is a big difference between 'Senior Lecturer' and 'professor'. Read the link given by Tordenvaer. The University of Chicago completely disagrees with you there. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:57, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: In other words, if [[liberals]] like someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[liberals]] are going to call him a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. Perhaps we should add this to [[liberal]] positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Done. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:54, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Alternatively, if [[conservatives]] dislike someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[conservatives]] are going to deny that he is a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:36, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

: Really? Perhaps you can tell us who peer-reviewed Obama's work, and when, and what the outcome was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Most likely the U of C law faculty did, repeatedly throughout his time working there, as all departments do with all faculty. The outcome was that they asked him to join the faculty full-time. In addition to the statement linked above, there is [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/701490,CST-NWS-obamaprof18.article] (para 3). They did not offer him a full-time position because they thought he was good-looking. [[User:Murray|Murray]]

:::: Well, I'll put it this way - who is more likely to be correct in who is or is not a professor? Aschlafly or the Universities of Chicago and Oxford? Personally, I'll go with the universities, and thus accept both Dawkins and Obama are professors, in one way or another. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 22:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: Certain people can't handle the ''truth'', Urushnor. Regardless of what U-Chicago's ''feeling'' is, he's a senior lecturer, not a professor. The university never gave him that title. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 23:31, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: 'The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

:::::: 'From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, '''Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School'''. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. '''Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors''', although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'[[User:Jtimber|Jtimber]] 23:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Precisely. It seems that certain people cannot handle the truth, indeed - Obama made a comment, in passing, which his opponents seized upon to try to brand him as a liar, because they thought it was wrong, as his actual title was 'Senior Lecturer', but now can't handle the truth that, in fact, 'Senior Lecturers' are regarded as professors, so the comment was correct. I also note, Lyra, that you still haven't actually answered my question - given that it is universities that bestow the title of professor, if a university saying that someone is or was a professor is not 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I believe I've already answered that question. My point was that he was not full-track. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:30, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::No, from the above, your point was quite clearly that 'he was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor', to quote you exactly. The University of Chicago says he was a 'Senior Lecturer', which is considered to be a professor. So you haven't actually answered that question at all, unless you changing your point is your way of saying, 'oops, I was wrong - he ''is'' a professor, just not a full-time or tenure-track one'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 01:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Allow me to explain. When he says he is a ''professor'', many people will assume he means a full-time teaching committment, regardless of U of C's technicalities. It's a bit deceitful. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::During the time he worked as a senior lecturer, he was practicing law as well. I've actually read ''The Audacity of Hope''. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't really think it's that deceitful; he's just using common parlance versus the technical term. Technically, yes, he was a senior lecturer/adjunct faculty, but I knew lecturers at the university who would hold themselves out as professors. It's not deceit, it's just simplification, I think.-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 20:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously. If someone like [[Dan Quayle]] had attempted Obama's self-serving "simplification", as you put it, then Quayle would have been strung up and run off the stage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::I totally concur--what Obama should be saying is he worked as a "part-time professor," if at all. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 20:34, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Obama held the position of senior lecturer for years, and surely understood what his title was. It doesn't seem too much to expect him not to exaggerate his credential.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:38, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

''In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously...'' Yes and no. Titles are meaningful, and indicate how prestigious a position is and generally the salary level. However, titles vary dramatically across university systems. For example, in the U. of Illinois system, Adjunct Professor is the equivalent a Lecturer at U of C - it indicates someone who is a part-time faculty member, hired solely to teach classes, either because there are not enough full-time faculty or to allow the full-timers more time for research. In the U. of California system though, an Adjunct Professor is a full-time faculty member, and UC guidelines suggest that on, for example, grant applications, an Adjunct Professor use the title of Professor to avoid confusion. So an Adjunct Professor in Champaign would be stretching it to use the title of Professor, whereas someone with the same title in LA or Berkeley would not. So titles are certainly meaningful, but their specific meaning isn't always readily apparent [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:36, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Would someone unlock this for a brief moment? Thanks! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== First St. Francis Assisi, then Mentang Besuki ==

There's a line in the Early Life section of the bio that gets the order of Obama's Indonesian elementary schools reversed. The Catholic one was first, for almost three years. The public one was only the last year or so. The misinformation is repeated in Faith and Values section. Says his father was a nonpracticing Muslim. Other sources say atheist. His stepfather was a practicing Muslim, however. No mention of the Afrocenric theology of TUCC. See Linda Chavez' article in NR online on this. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] 10:29, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Questions about This Article ==

No offense, but this article is very biased, and much of it lacks sources. Shouldn't there be sources for it, and if there are none should it not be removed? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:14, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: 43 citations. How many more do you want?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:53, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps something to cite things that are obviously personal attacks, such as this:
"He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action.". That sounds more like an opinion than a definition of fact, and there's not citation for it anyway. Also, the lead for his article seems to be one giant summary of his political views, portrayed negatively. Very biased. Not sure how that is delt with here, but we try to keep things neutral on Wikipedia. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:31, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:Conservapedia does not require citations for statements like that. And even if they were there, they would just be links to conservative opinion pieces. Best to just leave it alone... the article as it is stands quite well as a reminder to visitors that this is a very different site from Wikipedia, for a variety of interesting reasons.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Image switch ==
I think you meant to say ''add'' placement bias. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama built his campaign on anti-American donations. A photo of his anti-patriotic posture reflects his campaign far more than a standard and unrevealing portrait photo does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::Here are Obama's top 20 donors: Goldman Sachs, University of California, UBS, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers (investment banking firm), Citigroup, National Amusements (who own 1400 theaters), Sidney Austin (law firm), Harvard, Google, Skadden Arps (law firm), Exelon, Morgan Stanley, Time Warner, Jones Day (law firm), Wilmerhale (law firm), Latham Watkins (more lawyers), University of Chicago, Kirkland & Ellis (lawyers), Citadel Investment Group. Not exactly a list of crazy liberals. But the point was really the comparison to all the pages of other senators here, all of which (if they have an image) have an official picture at the top. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:16, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Meaningless statistic, and only a tiny fraction of Obama's fundraising. His big money source is moveon.org types, and no one can deny that he's tapping into the stridently anti-war (and often anti-American) types. People are going to Obama's entry because he's running for president, not because he's a senator, and the photo placement should reflect that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Furthermore, I do not see how you can call forces within America anti-American, that title used to be restricted to ''foreign'' forces. Soviet Russia was anti-American. MoveOn is not. The American Colonies were anti-British, I suppose. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:18, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::You might as well give it up, before you get 90/10ed. From reading this site, it's pretty clear that on Planet Conservapedia, the GOP '''is''' America, and Liberals are all mindless robot drones created by Satan himself to DESTROY AMERICA, propelled by their disgusting glandular urges, hatred for all things Good and Holy and American and Conservative (as redundant as that is), and the occasional telepathic directive from the Ghost of Charles Darwin fnord. Thus, the very concept of [[Liberal patriotism]] is an [[oxymoron]]. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In Soviet Russia, rules follow you! In any case, Liberal just means willing to embrace new ideas and ''change''. More people should recogize that. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I know its not really important, but the colonials mainly considered themselves British and were fighting for their British rights about up until the Decleration of Indepedence was signed. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:And after that, they would've all been hanged as traitors to Crown and Country if they'd lost. Got to remember that part... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Well, the mini-series "John Adams" is very good, but the assertion that FernoKlump makes is not correct. Originally they were fighting for the rights afforded to all British subjects, but long before the Declaration of Independence was signed, most of the "heavy hitters" had long since realized there would be no reconciliation with the Crown. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes. The Founding Fathers must have been considered very unpatriotic by the British during the Revolution. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Maybe most of the "heavy hitters" had realized they were fighting for their independence, but the avererage colonial didn't really realize that until the decleration. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 10:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
==Category==
Put him in [[:Category:African Americans]]
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:07, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: This is absurd. [[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:49, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::Except for segregationists [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:26, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Those were primarily Democrats, you realize? Racists are just that, and don't depend on idealogical labels to be so. I know so-called "liberals" and "conservatives" who often express racist thinking. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Shall I put [[Adam Sandler]] into [[:Category:Jewish Americans]] too, Deborah? --

:Those segregationists were southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") and were social conservatives. Status as a Democrat or Republican doesn't necessarily label people in the past as liberal or conservative. Today Republicans tend to be conservative and Democrats tend to be liberal, but the Republican party was originally established to end slavery. Abolitionism was a VERY liberal idea at the time. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:56, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:: No, [[abolitionism]] came from [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]], and they were [[conservative]]. Southern Democrats (like [[Jimmy Carter]]) were not [[conservative]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::They weren't conservative if they wanted an end to slavery. Liberal, by definition, is the advocacy of change. An end to slavery would have been change. Therefore, an advocacy of the end of slavery would be liberal. Southern democrats, like Governor George Wallace, were conservatives because they sought to ''preserve'' the existing institution of segregation.

From dictionary.com:

Liberal- Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs

Conservative- Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

[[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your definition is meaningless. [[Conservatives]], for example, want big change on [[abortion]]. Use the more meaningful definitions and explanations found on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::No, Conservatives want to ''revert'' back to before abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade. Look at that definition again. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:58, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::FernoKlump, your history at CP is one of endless talk, talk, talk, argue, argue, argue. Yet, coming here, you were told up-front, if by nothing else than the name, ''this is a conservative encyclopedia''. Somehow a very small number of users, feel they have a right or obligation to turn this encyclopedia into a debate site. I feel an obligation to point out to you CP wasn't put here to provide a debate vehicle for you and other liberals.

:::You might want to look up, while you are busy with that dictionary, the meaning of "goodbye". I have a feeling you're going to need it. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:19, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::TK, you probably shouldn't be indulging in personal remarks of that quality, which go against the Conservapedia Guidelines ("You must be civil. No bullying.") Your shirt is still the right color, though, so maybe you'll be okay. Just thought I'd let you know.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:40, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

*TomMore, please keep in mind that Conservapedia rejects the European and Wikipedia definitions of being "civil" and "bullying". Me stating facts, about arguing and endless talk, are factual, therefore conservatives do not view that as bullying, or uncivil. What is uncivil is the introduction, ''the forced introduction'', of foreign definitions that American conservatives expressly reject. Users who do nothing but post contentious comments to conservatives, and denigrate what we believe, should perhaps consider starting their own liberal encyclopedia and stop wasting time here. CP doesn't grant the right of endless arguing, talk, talk, talk. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:28, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

::Guys, this is silly. Lets end it. And he is right, this is an encyclopedia, not a debate site. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:46, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

1) I'm not a liberal.
2) I understand that this encyclopedia is supposed to have a conservative bias, but it has degenerated into a "how liberals are ruining America" encyclopedia. I really like the idea of an encyclopedia that tries to present things from a conservative view, but this site is just embarassing to the conservative cause and unrealistic (like "[[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race", when reality says otherwise). There is a big difference between a conservative point of view and a conservative version of reality. If I deserved to be banned for fighting against the lies that make conservapedia unreliable, then ban me. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:09, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sorry, not in the MVSN. Doesn't count.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:11, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::MVSN? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:15, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The blackshirts (Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale) ? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:17, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Don't know who they are... I looked at [[blackshirt]]s but there's nothing there. It's just a nickname :)--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:20, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
I didn't see anything on conservapedia about what 'MVSN' would mean, so I thought it might be a wikipedia term. I searched and got the blackshirts, which are basically Italian fascists. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:25, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Alright, this obviously has nothing to do with improving the article, so lets end it. Thanks in advance, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:27, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Proposed addition ==

It is seeming like this was lost due to all the chatter on the talk page, i don't know what everybody thinks of it. here is my proposal under "faith and values" section:

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

: I've unprotected the page for you to edit it as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Ideologically motivated "citation needed" insertions, for statements that are not seriously disputed, are not allowed. This is not [[Wikipedia]] where that same stunt by liberals occurs repeatedly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thank-you for the explanation. My citation request was not 'ideologically motivated', it was a simple request for a reference to an 'ideologically motivated' statement. My request also follows Commandment #2, something you have been willing to overlook in many of the articles I have edited. I get the idea that I would not be afforded the same opportunity to make the same statements without references since I'm not an administrator or the founder of this encyclopedia.--Jimmy 22:17, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'm reinserting the other edit since you have no objection to it, thanks. --Jimmy 22:20, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama's actual title was Senior Lecturer, not Professor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
: And according to his university, a senior lecturer is a professor. It's that simple. --Jimmy 22:27, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:: You're misconstruing what the media relations department said. Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I am really interested to know what you are basing your "Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't)" on Aschlafly?
What info do you have to say it is the perception of the media dep. and not actually true?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:52, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

If you cannot give ANY evidence to back your claims up Aschlafly then the article should include what the university states. And, I might add, the media dep. is responsible for answering media enquiries hence the media dep. answering the query whether or not Obama is a prof. or not.
So ADD THE REFERENCE OR LOOK LIKE A FOOL. Your choice
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your quarrel is with the dictionary, not with me, and the citations about the "professor" issue are well-supported by the entry. In case you have problems following a link, I'll quote the observation on the Democratic Underground site, which is also well-supported with cites: [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307]

::[Obama's] publications page lists his two autobiographical books, but no academic work of any sort .... Now, given his relatively strong academic credentials and the extent of [[affirmative action]] in academic hiring, if Obama had written articles about, well, pretty much anything, he would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position. But he didn't.

::... [H]e is not a Professor of Constitutional Law. Nor is he an assistant professor or associate professor. ...

By the way, AdenJ, any more namecalling from you in violation of our rules will result in blocking of your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:Heh. We see what you did there--quoting the website Democratic Underground as if to show that even liberals think Obama's professor claim is invalid. In reality, of course, the DU item was posted by an anonymous commentator ("agdlp"), something anyone could do, and hardly a reliable cite given that said post provides no evidence, just links repeating the claim. I could go on that site and write a post saying that Obama is an alien from the planet Mar’xennui, but that wouldn't make it true or cite-able. And as to your (repetition of the) claim that "given his relatively strong academic credentials...Obama would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position...but he didn't", please note that the UofChicago statement notes that Obama was offered a tenure-track position several times, but declined.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Your comments don't add anything. Look, if it makes you feel better to believe that Obama is somehow a professor, then suit yourself. By objective standards, including the dictionary, he plainly is not and never was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::How about we compromise? "Obama has claimed he was a constitutional law professor when he was actually a Senior Lecturer." That seems to fit with the facts better, and it circumvents what is starting to amount to a semantics debate. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, that doesn't capture the false boasting. And, by the way, your other edits to this entry also do not convey the truth, as in the boasting about the poverty bill that was a non-starter and never passed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which edit was that? The only edits I've made to the page were the foreign policy experience one (which you've reverted) and helping organize the sections a bit. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question about lead ==
The opening line of the third paragraph reads "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience." While nobody can dispute the lack of military or executive experience, could his position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee count as foreign policy experience? Don't get me wrong, it's still not much experience, but it would seem to be enough to remove the foreign policy part. Thoughts? --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:41, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Mere membership on a congressional committee does not constitute "foreign policy" experience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: It doesn't make him a scholar or an expert on it, but I would've thought it would move him out of the category of "absolutely none". --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:09, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ampersand: You are now finding out that facts are not a substitute for the world that the Conservapedia leadership has constructed. It is a fact that Obama has foreign policy experience, but that does not matter to the people in charge. I have brought up issues like this numerous times on many other articles but usually nothing happens. Nothing happens to the articles this is, but I have been blocked on numerous occasions for trying to make this encyclopedia reflect the real world. Good luck! --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:59, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Merely being on a committee is not foreign policy experience. That is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You are absolutely 100% correct. But it has been demonstrated that Obama has made overseas trips with the Foreign Affairs Committee and has discussed policy with other world leaders and diplomats. This is a fact that cannot be denied in face of the irrefutable evidence that has been provided. No matter how limited his foreign policy experience has been; the sentence in the opening paragraph (Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience) is laughingly false. Presenting such inaccurate information as fact only gives ammunition to Conservapedia's critics. There are plenty of other factual criticisms that can be leveled at Obama without making up dumb factoids. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lead section question ==

In the second paragraph, this sentence "According to political expert and Republican strategist Karl Rove, became his "political mentors," and launched is state Senate campaign and subsequent national political career" seems to be missing a word. Does anyone know what it is?

== Ok, there is so much misinformation here idk where to start ==

I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives, but there is a ton of bad information here that really is not true and to discriminate against this man is blatently racist, especially in the way its being done: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" wtf people?? First of all, generalization such as this is a breach of most online encyclopedia protocol. Second of all, the assumption that he benefited from affirmative action is nothing more than an assumption, NOT fact. He went to Harvard, thus he is a smart man. Furthermore, why should he have to provide proof in a "clear personal achievement" that he does not rely on affirmative action? Assuming that a black man cannot succeed without affirmative action is not only racist, but also untrue. Next controversial statement in this article: "Barack Obama has captivated black and educated white voters, largely because of his race". How can anyone make that assessment? It is, once again, based off pure imagination rather than fact, as is further demonstrated by the lack of any sources backing it. The author also claims that Bill Clinton dismissed Barack's claim that he was against the war from the start as a "fairy tale". I checked the source of this statement, which is in actuality a website acknowledging Clinton's apology towards the "fairy tale" comment. Furthermore we must realize that Hillary and Bill Clinton are in fact married, which might perhaps explain why Bill Clinton might want to tarnish the rep of Clinton's main opponent. Again, more BS: "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience" Sure, he isn't as experienced as Hillary, but generally, when a candidate runs for the presidency, they do not have experience in being president. Another ridiculous claim here: Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in physics, yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." I checked up on this source as well, which has been misinterpreted by the author of this page here. Obama wrote a paper on the constitution, to which he used an analogy of space-time physics. In much the same way George Orwell's animal farm uses a farm to relate to communism. Orwell didn't have to be a farmer to write the book, and Obama doesn't need to be a nuclear physicist to read up on relativity. If anything, Obama's ability to understand the basic gist of physics without taking physics courses actually lends credence to his own intellect. Something that didn't come as a result of affirmative action. AND... he can say "nuclear". Neo-cons have no right to bash intelligence. Further on in the article, the author claims that "Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses[9] on the Constitution.[10]" Note the sources. They aren't sources. They don't lead anywhere or cite anything, but are just statements. AND they have nothing to do with this statement. If this encyclopedia is so trustworthy, why can't it provide proper sources for its misinformation?? Later on, the author makes the statement that Barack Obama has voted present 130 time in the IL senate and this is a reason to disbelieve him. This is in fact, true information, but I do have a problem with the heavy slant. Obama's aides say Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. Also, in Illinois law it is not unusual to protest bills with a present vote. You can check up on my facts, because it is found in the same source our author used to make the claim that Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times." In the second paragraph, the author says "He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at The University of Chicago Law School as of 2004.[14] He is no longer active at the school". Whereas the same source that was cited claims that "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Thus he WAS a professor after all. Check your information next time. I don't mind conservatives, in the old sense of the word. A true conservative worked to maintain the rights of business owners and left the economy alone. A true conservative kept taxes low and government spending no higher. What we get today are social conservatives. People who believe in the white christian male america. People who claim that the only way a smart, educated black man could be running for president is due to affirmative action. You criticize Reverend Wright for saying "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God." Look at yourselves. Give this man a chance; he did not go to Harvard because he was black nor does he recieve the support of both white and black america, red and blue america, and male and female america because he is black. This article is not trustworthy, or factual, but it is a bash. Now I am too tired to go through the remaining half of the article. Time to get a kick out of the Kangaroo one.
:I stopped reading after your bigoted "''I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives,'''" remark. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't even have to read that far. The above long-winded rant, too incoherent to read, let alone understand, illustrates the [[liberal]] style. I doubt he'd even agree with a conservative who says that "2+2=4".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Annie Oakley ==
This one needs to be phrased a little better. Just because something is outside of one's generation doesn't mean they can't possibly know what it is. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Nothing in Obama's background suggests he would have any idea who Annie Oakley was, and all evidence (including Obama's age) suggests he wouldn't. The conclusion by USA Today is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::I still think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that because someone was born after a certain date they're immune to cultural influences preceding them. Also, the conclusion's by a syndicated columnist, not USA Today itself. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Even John McCain wasn't alive when Annie Oakley died :D . And even Obama knows that Oakley was a female gun shooter. He was using it to make it appear that Hillary exaggerated her experience with guns as a child. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The "Choice" bill is not just "supported by" the [[abortion]] industry, but is for its direct benefit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lapel pin ==
The sentence "Notice Obama's lack of an American flag lapel pin" completely ignores how he's not wearing a jacket. No lapel, no lapel pin. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 00:43, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama doesn't wear the flag when he is wearing a jacket either. By the way, I do think pins work on shirts! The caption could profitably omit the word "lapel".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: True, and criticism of him for it is valid. I'm still uncomfortable with the sentence being there at all since it seems like kind of a weak way to attack him on it, though. A more effective attack would be to find pictures of McCain and Hillary wearing them and one of him not and putting them together side by side in a single image to illustrate him not wearing a lapel pin. That'd drive the point home more effectively, I think. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:49, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

== How Mike Ditka Unintentionally Boosted Obama's Rise to Prominence ==

An observation that I've not seen commented on in the press...

When scandal ridden Jack Ryan's Illinois US Senate campaign was falling apart, Obama looked like a shoe in....until ex-Bear's coach Mike Ditka seriously began considering pleas from some top Republcians that he should run for the Senate. And Ditka was doing interviews about his and his wife's thoughts on the matter, giving IL Republicans considerable hope. Suddenly, Democrats feared that even Chicago's normally reliable voters might hand the popular Ditka a landslide.

It was during this two or three week frenzy over the question of whether Ditka would run that Obama, with little seniority and experience, was picked to give a major address at the Democrat's National Convention endorsing John Kerry...a move clearly intended to give Obama a boost with Illinois voters. Obama ran with the opportunity and gave a speech that garnered lot's of favorable press and turned him into a media darling and pushed him toward a an extremely early presidential run. In my opinion, his rise to stardom was indirectly sparked by the fear that Mike Ditka might "steal" the IL senate seat out from under the Democrats. Unfortunately, Mike (apparantly at the behest of his wife) decided the Senate life wasn't for him afterall.

Without Mike's near run, Obama never would have become such a media darling...at least not so early in his career.--[[User:Billy21|Billy21]] 13:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Interesting analysis, but I doubt one evening at the Democratic National Convention had much to do with this. I'd say Hillary's electoral weakness is a bigger factor. And, of course, the [[liberal media]] has long been obsessed with race. When [[Rush Limbaugh]] commented that he felt a media focus on race influenced the choice of quarterback on an NFL team, he had to quit his job as a sports analyst.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I always thought the media's obsession with race and gender was incorrect in this race. From my experience, the main dividing line in the Democratic Party right now is generational. Clinton represents the baby boomers while Obama represents the youth, which is a large part of why her strength has been older voters and his strength has been younger ones. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I think there is a higher correlation in voting based on race than on age here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Race is definitely a factor, but within the white Democratic electorate you can see some definite splits that indicate a generational gap. The wealthier you are, the higher your education and the lower your age, the more likely you are to vote for Obama. The lower your income, the lower your education and the higher your age, the more likely you are to vote for Clinton. Now, given that many senior citizens, especially those who were blue-collar workers, are on fixed incomes and pensions, we could partially tie income into age. Education-wise, there tend to be more college graduates in the younger demographics than in the older demographics simply because young people have more educational opportunities than their parents or grandparents had. Now of course there are exceptions, just like there are exceptions to everything. But personally? I view the Democratic primary as a fight between my generation and a generation that's still in a metaphorical way fighting the Vietnam War. That's this young college liberal's take on the Democratic race. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Affirmative action==

* He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]].

Who said this? Should we endorse it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:49, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Joseph Farah: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=58632 The affirmative-action president]

Maybe we should give him credit; I would hate to be accused of [[plagiarism]] over this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:Here's some things I found on the subject: [http://www.cnbc.com/id/23579121/][http://www.slate.com/id/2187718/][http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=][http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070515_obama_cools_on_affirmative_action/] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: I think Conservapedia had the term first, see [[Affirmative Action President]], but I'm all for adding citations to others who also use it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::From a couple of the links I provided above, the remark may have come from Geraldine Ferraro. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:02, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:::No, I think the Ferraro kerfuffle was early March. CP's article on the subject began in January. I think all of these other johnny-come-latelys need to give Andy credit.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:22, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::This quote comes from here [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=]:
:::::''"This presents Barack Obama with unique opportunity. Having campaigned against the passage of the Michigan initiative, can he chart a new path now that he is running for president? And, having admitted he attended Harvard law school because of affirmative action, can he now say the time has come to try something different?"'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I've checked some more and apparently Conservapedia coined the term [[Affirmative Action President]] first. The uses by others were subsequent to the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:19, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations Andy... I guess you coined it first! :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:10, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reopening request to erase professor sentence ==

The accusation that Obama was not a professor at University of Chicago has been thoroughly debunked by the University itself. Does anyone mind if I remove the offending sentence? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 19:32, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
: Also note the contents of source #15. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 19:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-04-29T23:32:51Z

PostoStudanto: Reopening request to erase professor sentence

Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?

2008-01-30T05:16:28Z

PostoStudanto: Start debate topic: Preferred Democrat for the White House?

{{debate}}

If the White House went to a Democrat, would it be better (from a Conservapedian's prospective) for the Democrat to be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 00:16, 30 January 2008 (EST)

----
Hmm... interesting debate topic. I'd rather have Obama than Hillary myself. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-01-30T05:10:46Z

PostoStudanto: Add topic: Preferred Democrat for the White House?

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]

==Scientific debates==

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Bisexual

2007-11-26T18:50:58Z

PostoStudanto: rm vandalism, typo, wikisyntax mistake.

[[Image:San fe symbol.jpg|right]]
'''Bisexual''' is a person with both [[heterosexual]] and [[homosexual]] desires. An animal or plant having both male and female reproductive organs is [[hermaphrodite]].

In a national survey, 90% of men aged 18-44 considered themselves to be heterosexual, 2.3% as homosexual, 1.8% as bisexual, and 3.9% as 'something e-lse' (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005). <ref>[http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html Homosexuality] The Kinsey Institute for Research in ex, Gender, and Reproduction, Inc. </ref>

<blockquote>
The [[Catholic]] Catechism states: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choosetheir homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and0 sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their lregard should be avoided. The persons are called to fulfill [[God]]'s will in their lives and, if they are [[Christians]], to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition" (CCC 2358).

While they may not choose their desires, homosexuals do have the ability to choose whether they act on those desires, just as an alcholic has the choice of whether to act on his desire to get drunk and just as a heterosxual has the choice of acting on his desires. For this reason, the Catechism states, "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, traditions has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to natural law . . . . Under no circumstances can they be approved . . . . Homosexual persons are called to [[chastity]]. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support o disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357, 2359). <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock94.htm Quick Questions] Catholic Library. </ref>
</blockquote>

== External links ==

''"For a little love you pay all your life."'' Yiddish folk saying.

*[http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~tomshoemaker/StudentPapers/JewishSexuality.html Sexuality in Judaism (is wrong)]
*[http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=25922 BNP news]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Health]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-11-26T02:39:52Z

PostoStudanto: /* #4 Justice Byron White Error */

{{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)

== 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)

== 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]]

== 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)

== 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)

==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)

==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 me how the the Oxford statement "was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford." continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-11-26T01:30:39Z

PostoStudanto: /* #4 Justice Byron White Error */ reply

{{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)

== 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)

== 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]]

== 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)

== 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)

==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)

==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)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell me how the the Oxford statement "was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford." continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Texas Rangers (baseball team)

2007-11-25T18:49:14Z

PostoStudanto: George Bush is 43rd president

[[Image:Ameriquest Field.jpg|right|280px]]
The '''Texas Rangers''' are a [[Major League Baseball]] team located in [[Arlington]], [[Texas]]. They play in the American League, Western Division.

One of the more famous owners of the team was the 43rd, and current, [[President]] of the [[United States]], [[George W. Bush]], who owned the team for a period of time. The Rangers are the oldest Major League baseball team never to have played in the [[World Series]].

== Team ==
The Texas Rangers are a team known for having an explosive batting lineup that scores a lot of runs, but also a team that gives up a lot of runs with average or worse pitching. Some of the more famous players their lineup include aged certain to be baseball hall of framer [[Sammy Sosa]] and young rising stars such as [[Michael Young]] and [[Ian Kinsler]]. On the pitching side [[Kevin Millwood]] is considered the ace of the unit.

=== Offensive ===
'''Catcher'''
*[[Gerald Laird]]

'''1st Base'''
*[[Mark Teixeira]]

'''2d Base'''
*[[Ian Kinsler]]

'''Shortstop'''
*[[Michael Young]]

'''3d Base'''
*[[Hank Blalock]]

'''Left Field'''
*[[Brad Wilkerson]]

'''Center Field'''
*[[Kenny Lofton]]

'''Right Field'''
*[[Sammy Sosa]]

'''Backup Outfielder'''
*[[Nelson Cruz]]

'''DH'''
*[[Frank Catalanotto]]

=== Pitching Staff ===

'''Starting Pitchers'''
*[[Kevin Millwood]]
*[[Vicente Padilla]]
*[[Brandon McCarthy]]
*[[Robinson Tejeda]]
*[[Kameron Loe]]

'''Relievers'''
*[[Scott Feldman]]
*[[Joaquin Benoit]]
*[[Ron Mahay]]
*[[C.J. Wilson]]

'''Closer'''
*[[Akinori Otsuka]]

== External Links ==
*[http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=tex Official Website]

{{Nb_sl_mlb_american}}

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-11-22T04:34:53Z

PostoStudanto: /* Seigenthaler controversy */

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-11-16T03:41:57Z

PostoStudanto: /* Does it really matter? */

==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)

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-11-14T02:38:45Z

PostoStudanto: /* Does it really matter? */

Harry Hay

2007-11-13T04:54:37Z

PostoStudanto: correct link

[[Image:Harry Hay.jpg|thumbnail|150px|Many consider Harry Hay to be the founder of the American homosexual movement.]]
'''Harry Hay''' was an advocate of [[statutory rape]] and the widely acknowledged founder and and progenitor of the activist [[homosexual agenda]] in the United States. Hay joined the [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) in 1934. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref>

Born '''Henry Hay''', from 1936 to 1938 he worked on the End Poverty in California campaign, the Hollywood Writers’ Mobilization, the [[American League Against War and Fascism]], the Mobilization for Democracy, the Workers’ Alliance of America and Labor’s Non-Partisan League. <ref>[http://www.workers.org/2005/us/lgbtseries-0428/ Harry Hay heard ‘siren song of revolution’], Leslie Feinberg, ''Workers World'', Apr 20, 2005. </ref>

The original founders of the Mattachine Foundation were all either former CPUSA members or fellow travelers. The first step Hay took in organizing the Mattachine Foundation was to recommend to the CPUSA that he be expelled in 1951 after eighteen years as a member. Rather than do that in light of his years of service to the party and work as a teacher at the California Labor School, <ref>[http://www.sojournertruth.net/ipp.html#i In Partial Payment Class Struggle, Sexuality and Gay Liberation (1978)], by A. Rausch. Retrieved from ''Urgent Tasks: [[Leftist|Journal of the Revolutionary Left]]'', Sojourner Truth Organization Digital Archive , 10 May 2007. </ref> they released him as “a security risk but a life-long friend of the people.” The early leadership of the Foundation shaped the organization to reflect the cell structure of the Communist Party, in which "secrecy, hierarchical structures, and centralized leadership predominated." <ref>John D'Emilio, ''Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), quoted in Martin Meeker, Behind the Mask of Respectability, ''Journal of the History of Sexuality'', (2001) 78-116. </ref>
Hay and his comrades took began circulating the [[USSR]] and the East European Communist parties sponsored anti-war Stockholm Peace petition against the Korean War <ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/germberia.htm New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis,]Milton Leitenberg, Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. </ref> at a gay beach in Los Angeles. Some of the contacts they gained in this way were later organized into their first study and discussion groups. The first months produced hundreds of members.

Hay was a regular speaker at [[NAMBLA]] Conferences and NAMBLA continues to carry a special tribute to Hay on its homepage along with his published material. Hay was known for making public statements to justify sexual abuse of minors. In 1983 Hay addressed a NAMBLA conference in New York Hay said,
{{Cquote|Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. <ref>''The American Spectator'' Special Report, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10450 When Nancy Met Harry], Jeffrey Lord, 10/5/2006.</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Communist Party USA members]]
[[Category:Liberal activists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Hay, Harry}}

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-11-13T01:15:02Z

PostoStudanto: /* Seigenthaler controversy */

{{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)

== 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)

== 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]]

== 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)

== 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)

==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)

==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)

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-11-10T21:43:46Z

PostoStudanto: When censoring, at least use the template correctly

==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 well said, Mathers! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==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 {{Remove personal remark|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: {{Remove personal remark|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.

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-11-09T20:23:10Z

PostoStudanto: /* Does it really matter? */ highlighting

==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 well said, Mathers! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==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.

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-11-09T04:14:33Z

PostoStudanto: /* Does it really matter? */ sig format mistake

==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 well said, Mathers! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==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 [[deceit|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.

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-11-09T04:13:14Z

PostoStudanto: Does it really matter?

==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 well said, Mathers! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==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 [[deceit|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.

Flying Spaghetti Monster

2007-10-25T04:02:47Z

PostoStudanto: wikify

[[Image:FlyingSpaghettiMonster.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Artist's rendition of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.]]
The '''Flying Spaghetti Monster''' is a parody that began as a critique of the [[Kansas Board of Education]]'s decision to allow the teaching of [[Intelligent Design]] in public schools. Arguing that [[Intelligent Design]] was a thinly-veiled attempt to bring religion into the classroom, Bobby Henderson constructed "Pastafarianism" as a new theological system and argued that it too should be taught alongside Evolution and [[Intelligent Design]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082700019.html?nav=most_emailed Verbatim: Noodle This, Kansas - Washington Post]</ref> on the notion of "teaching the controversy."

[[Richard Dawkins]] uses the flying spaghetti monster in his book ''[[The God Delusion]]'' attacking belief in God.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

== External Links ==
*[http://www.venganza.org Official website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]
[[category:culture]]

The God Delusion

2007-10-23T01:23:27Z

PostoStudanto: /* Andrew Brown: Prospect Magazine */ Cquote

'''''The God Delusion''''' is a "surprisingly intolerant" <ref>{{cite book
|quote=For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe.
|publisher=Publishers Weekly
|title=The God Delusion
|year=2006
|month=August
|url=http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004
|
}}</ref> book by the famous [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]].

==Contents==

In his book, Dawkins' main objectives are to convince his readers that the existence of [[God]] or any other [[deity]] is highly unlikely, that the Bible is incoherent, that morality does not come from religion, and that if religion does effect morality, it only does so negatively.

Dawkins also intends to teach that atheists can live happy, intelligent, lives - perhaps even happier lives than religious people. It asserts that atheists do not do evil things in the name of [[atheism]], while [[religion|religious]] people have been known to commit atrocities in the name of their religion.

=== Deeply Religious Non-Believer===
Dawkins attempts to establish Einstein as nonreligious, and to prove that religion is unworthy of respect.

===The God Hypothesis===
Dawkins explains the different kinds of religion, including the divide between [[Monotheism]] and [[Polytheism]]. He also asserts that the founding fathers of the USA were nonreligious. He continues to explain Secularism, Agnosticism, and some basic assertions of the religious.

===Arguments for God's Existence===
Dawkins summarizes some common proofs for God and attempts to debunk them.

===Why There Almost Certainly is No God===
Dawkins gives his reasons for believing that God is about as likely as "fairies living under his garden".

===The Roots of Religion===
Dawkins gives and explains some thoughts about the origins of religion that have been proposed by atheists.

===The Roots of Morality: Why are We Good?===
Dawkins explains why he believes that morality "evolved".

===The 'Good' Book and the Changing [[Moral Zeitgeist]]===
Dawkins suggests that morality does not come from religion, but rather a changing moral ''Zeitgeist''.

===What's Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?===
Dawkins shows why he believes that religion is evil and repressive.

===Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Relgion===
Dawkins explains why he believes that religion is "child abuse", and that the scars from the "indoctrination" last into adulthood and even the child's entire life.

===A Much Needed Gap?===
Dawkins concludes his book on a more positive level, giving inspiration to those whom he may have convinced to "de-convert" from their religion.

==Criticism==
''The God Delusion'' has been subject to a great deal of criticisms from the religious and the non-religious alike.

===Andrew Brown: Prospect Magazine===
{{Cquote|
"It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works."<ref>http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803</ref>
}}
Andrew Brown of Prospect Magazine was unimpressed by Dawkins' book. Brown calls atheism "unnatural" and points out that many atheists were violent in their belief (or lack thereof), citing Stalin killing members of the clergy.

Brown also attacks Dawkins' argument that suicide bombers are caused by religious schools. While Dawkins states that if these children were not taught what he calls "faith without question", suicide bombings would not be an issue. Brown, however, says that religion is not a necessity in suicide bombings. He points out that it is a tactic used by Marxists in Sri Lankav.

===Marilynne Robinson: Harper's Magazine===
<blockquote>
"There is a pervasive exclusion of historical memory in Dawkins's view of science. Consider this sentence from his preface, which occurs in the context of his vision of a religion-free world: 'Imagine . . . no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers.'"<ref>http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20</ref>
</blockquote>

Robinson's major complaints about ''The God Delusion'' lie in how sheerly false the book is in many aspects. Although Dawkins claims that "the majority of us believe in free speech", she points out that most countries do not, pointing out that [[China]] (population 1.3 billion<ref>http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/chinapopulation.htm</ref>) does not. In her review, Robinson basically says that Dawkins purposefully ignored important parts of history in his attempt to convince his readers. "It's a shame," she says, "to see him reduced to one long argument from professorial incredulity."

===Terry Eagleton: London Review of Books===
<blockquote>
"Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins [...] are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding."
</blockquote>

===Alister McGrath: The Dawkins Delusion?===
''The Dawkins Delusion?'' is a response to Dawkins' ''The God Delusion'' by [[Alister McGrath]].

== Quotes from ''The God Delusion'' ==
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
::-Chapter 2

"I am one of an increasing number of biologists who see religion as a ''by-product'' of something else."
::-Chapter 5

"By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, [[evolution]]) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence... Books about evolution are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence."
::-Chapter 8

"... [Moral absolutism] rules the minds of a great number of people in the world today, most dangerously so in the Muslim world and in the incipient American theocracy... Such absolutism nearly always results from strong religious faith, and it constitutes a major reason for suggesting that religion can be a force for evil in the world."
::-Chapter 8

==References==
<references/>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.richarddawkins.net RichardDawkins.net]

[[category:Books]]
[[category:Atheism]]

The God Delusion

2007-10-23T01:17:31Z

PostoStudanto: add one citation, cleanup format, others

'''''The God Delusion''''' is a "surprisingly intolerant" <ref>{{cite book
|quote=For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe.
|publisher=Publishers Weekly
|title=The God Delusion
|year=2006
|month=August
|url=http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004
|
}}</ref> book by the famous [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]].

==Contents==

In his book, Dawkins' main objectives are to convince his readers that the existence of [[God]] or any other [[deity]] is highly unlikely, that the Bible is incoherent, that morality does not come from religion, and that if religion does effect morality, it only does so negatively.

Dawkins also intends to teach that atheists can live happy, intelligent, lives - perhaps even happier lives than religious people. It asserts that atheists do not do evil things in the name of [[atheism]], while [[religion|religious]] people have been known to commit atrocities in the name of their religion.

=== Deeply Religious Non-Believer===
Dawkins attempts to establish Einstein as nonreligious, and to prove that religion is unworthy of respect.

===The God Hypothesis===
Dawkins explains the different kinds of religion, including the divide between [[Monotheism]] and [[Polytheism]]. He also asserts that the founding fathers of the USA were nonreligious. He continues to explain Secularism, Agnosticism, and some basic assertions of the religious.

===Arguments for God's Existence===
Dawkins summarizes some common proofs for God and attempts to debunk them.

===Why There Almost Certainly is No God===
Dawkins gives his reasons for believing that God is about as likely as "fairies living under his garden".

===The Roots of Religion===
Dawkins gives and explains some thoughts about the origins of religion that have been proposed by atheists.

===The Roots of Morality: Why are We Good?===
Dawkins explains why he believes that morality "evolved".

===The 'Good' Book and the Changing [[Moral Zeitgeist]]===
Dawkins suggests that morality does not come from religion, but rather a changing moral ''Zeitgeist''.

===What's Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?===
Dawkins shows why he believes that religion is evil and repressive.

===Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Relgion===
Dawkins explains why he believes that religion is "child abuse", and that the scars from the "indoctrination" last into adulthood and even the child's entire life.

===A Much Needed Gap?===
Dawkins concludes his book on a more positive level, giving inspiration to those whom he may have convinced to "de-convert" from their religion.

==Criticism==
''The God Delusion'' has been subject to a great deal of criticisms from the religious and the non-religious alike.

===Andrew Brown: Prospect Magazine===
<blockquote>
"It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works."<ref>http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803</ref>
</blockquote>
Andrew Brown of Prospect Magazine was unimpressed by Dawkins' book. Brown calls atheism "unnatural" and points out that many atheists were violent in their belief (or lack thereof), citing Stalin killing members of the clergy.

Brown also attacks Dawkins' argument that suicide bombers are caused by religious schools. While Dawkins states that if these children were not taught what he calls "faith without question", suicide bombings would not be an issue. Brown, however, says that religion is not a necessity in suicide bombings. He points out that it is a tactic used by Marxists in Sri Lankav.

===Marilynne Robinson: Harper's Magazine===
<blockquote>
"There is a pervasive exclusion of historical memory in Dawkins's view of science. Consider this sentence from his preface, which occurs in the context of his vision of a religion-free world: 'Imagine . . . no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers.'"<ref>http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20</ref>
</blockquote>

Robinson's major complaints about ''The God Delusion'' lie in how sheerly false the book is in many aspects. Although Dawkins claims that "the majority of us believe in free speech", she points out that most countries do not, pointing out that [[China]] (population 1.3 billion<ref>http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/chinapopulation.htm</ref>) does not. In her review, Robinson basically says that Dawkins purposefully ignored important parts of history in his attempt to convince his readers. "It's a shame," she says, "to see him reduced to one long argument from professorial incredulity."

===Terry Eagleton: London Review of Books===
<blockquote>
"Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins [...] are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding."
</blockquote>

===Alister McGrath: The Dawkins Delusion?===
''The Dawkins Delusion?'' is a response to Dawkins' ''The God Delusion'' by [[Alister McGrath]].

== Quotes from ''The God Delusion'' ==
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
::-Chapter 2

"I am one of an increasing number of biologists who see religion as a ''by-product'' of something else."
::-Chapter 5

"By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, [[evolution]]) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence... Books about evolution are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence."
::-Chapter 8

"... [Moral absolutism] rules the minds of a great number of people in the world today, most dangerously so in the Muslim world and in the incipient American theocracy... Such absolutism nearly always results from strong religious faith, and it constitutes a major reason for suggesting that religion can be a force for evil in the world."
::-Chapter 8

==References==
<references/>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.richarddawkins.net RichardDawkins.net]

[[category:Books]]
[[category:Atheism]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-18T04:14:19Z

PostoStudanto: /* Factual corrections on Henry Liddell */

{{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)

== 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)

== 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]]

== 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)

==#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|Hmwith]] 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== 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)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-17T23:51:56Z

PostoStudanto: /* Factual corrections on Henry Liddell */

{{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)

== 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)

==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)

== 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]]

== 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)

==#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|Hmwith]] 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== 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)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-17T23:44:07Z

PostoStudanto: Factual corrections on Henry Liddell

{{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)

== 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)

==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)

== 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]]

== 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)

==#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|Hmwith]] 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== 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 weren'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)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-17T01:04:53Z

PostoStudanto: /* grammatical note */

{{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)

== 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)

*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)

==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)

== 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]]

== 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)

== 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)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-14T04:28:33Z

PostoStudanto: /* Homosexuality */

{{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)

== 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)

== 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)

*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)

==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)

== 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]]

== 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)

== 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)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-13T21:10:35Z

PostoStudanto: /* Homosexuality */

Talk:Gay pride

2007-10-13T19:18:42Z

PostoStudanto: How did Proverbs 30:20 get in here?

== How did Proverbs 30:20 get in here? ==

Ed, I'm not exactly sure what an adulterous woman denying that what she has done is wrong has to do with pride in one's identity. Could you explain? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 15:18, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-12T17:53:04Z

PostoStudanto: /* Richard Dawkins' edit */ accidental omissions...

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-12T17:45:20Z

PostoStudanto: Richard Dawkins' edit

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-10T00:28:01Z

PostoStudanto: /* Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-04T17:11:33Z

PostoStudanto: /* Homosexuality */ redo some math

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-04T00:59:42Z

PostoStudanto: /* Homosexuality */

Talk:Fox Derangement Syndrome

2007-09-28T23:57:17Z

PostoStudanto: Remove of "been shown by" statement

This is some kind of joke, right? [[User:EnFrancaisSVP|EnFrancaisSVP]] 12:37, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
* Nope, it's a legit term in the political word. In the words of Rosie O'Donnell, "google it." -- [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] 12:52, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

well, I'll be.... Snippy comment cheerfully withdrawn. How about some more cites, then? [[User:EnFrancaisSVP|EnFrancaisSVP]] 12:54, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Nonsense. There are only 32 Google web hits on the exact phrase [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fox%20derangement%20syndrome%22&btnG=Search+Books&sa=N&tab=pw "Fox Derangement Syndrome,"] an utterly insignificant number for a Web search. More to the point, there are '''no''' hits on [http://books.google.com/books?um=1&tab=wp&q=%22fox%20derangement%20syndrome%22 Google Books], which I find to be more stable, reliable, less affected by search engine optimization, etc.

I'll grant you that [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] did not originate it, but it's not a "real" phrase... not yet. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:47, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
* Dpbsmith, you using the same logic that Wikipedia's users use to push their bias.
::Yes, it's what's called "logic." It's neither liberal nor conservative. It's sometimes used dishonestly by people to push bias, and it's sometimes used by people to determine as fairly as possible what material is or is not encyclopedic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:09, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
"Fox Derangement Syndrome" IS a "real" phrase...now. Bernard Goldberg even wrote about the subject in an entire chapter of his latest book. Heck, "Fox Derangement Syndrome" is the title of the chapter! -- [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] 14:02, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, and many people write many books with many chapter titles, but that doesn't make them real phrases that have made it into the language. Are you sure Goldberg didn't coin the phrase himself? Please give some evidence that it is a real phrase other than "proof by repeated assertion."
:::I think you just like Goldberg's phrase and are trying to promote it. As of today it gets 33 Google hits ''on the web.'' That's utterly negligible. When it gets to a couple of thousand, which at this rate will take several years, it may deserve an article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:07, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

*Dpbsmith, I'm tempted to call you an idiot. Goldberg didn't coin the term. It was used on Michelle Malkin's site well over a year before his book was published. You know, just because you've never heard of "Fox Derangement Syndrome" doesn't mean it's not a legit term. You apparently have the ego of a liberal. Take your biased agenda to Wikipedia, where you will be more at home. This is Conservapedia! -- [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]]

::You're right about Michelle Malkin using it before Goldberg, my apologies. (Does Goldberg's book credit her as the originator? That would be good to have in any discussion of the term).
::Malkin also has used [http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005376.htm Rove Derangement Syndrome], [http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005831.htm Condi Derangement Syndrome], [http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006584.htm?print=1 Laura Bush Derangement Syndrome], [http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006820.htm?print=1 Iraq Derangement Syndrome], [http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007499.htm?print=1 Rush Derangement Syndrome], [http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006391.htm?print=1 Diebold Derangement Syndrome], and [http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004591.htm?print=1 Cheney Derangement Syndrome]. Are these legit? Should we have articles on them? What would you suggest as a criterion for deciding which of these are important terms that deserve Conservapedia articles? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:01, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
*Wasn't this article merged before with Goldberg? It should be merged again, in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 22:23, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

== Remove of "been shown by" statement ==

I've been asked to justify the removal of the sentence:
:Fox Derangement Syndrome has been said to have been shown by Keith Olbermann, Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, Chris Matthews, Angelina Jolie, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Robert Greenwald.
The sentence has sat around for months totally unsourced. I took a look around the Internet for <code>"Fox Derangement Syndrome" "Keith Olbermann"</code> and got nothing. I don't have the time to look around for all of the people, but it's clear that the statement totally shreds Commandments 1 and 2. If there are no protests within the next few hours then I will remove the sentence. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 19:57, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Fox Derangement Syndrome

2007-09-28T23:27:42Z

PostoStudanto: Remove unsourced, weasel word statement

'''Fox Derangement Syndrome''' is a political term referring to some liberals' wildly exaggerated overreaction to the news, opinion shows, and very existence of the [[Fox News Channel]]. Although the term did not exist at the time, a good example occurred during the December 1, 2003 broadcast of ''Hardball with Chris Matthews'', in which [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator [[Chris Matthews]] asked liberal Democrat politican [[Howard Dean]], "Would you break up Fox?". To which Dean replied, "On ideological grounds, absolutely yes."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3607157/</ref>

Political commentator [[Michelle Malkin]] used the phrase on her website on February 16, 2006<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004571.htm</ref> Journalist [[Bernard Goldberg]] uses it as a chapter title of his book, ''Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve,'' which was reviewed by U. S. News and World Report.<ref>http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2007/4/11/have-you-got-fox-derangement-syndrome.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Woody Allen

2007-09-28T15:57:51Z

PostoStudanto: switch to wikimarkup formatting, remove oddly formatted source

[[Image:Woody_Allen.jpg|thumb|200px|Woody Allen is a three time Academy Award winner]]
'''Woody Allen''' (1935 - ) was born in [[Brooklyn]]], [[New York]]. He is a former stand-up [[comedian]], and currently an acclaimed [[writer]], [[director]] and [[actor]]. He now lives in the [[Manhattan]] borough of New York City. Best known for his offbeat and often self-deprecating comedies, Allen produced his most popular film's in the 1970's, most notably "Annie Hall" which set a mold for romantic comedies that others would try to emulate. His work in the 80's and 90's changed to darker comedies. Whether because of the scandal he caused in the 1990's (see below) or the natural ebb and flow of movie making creativity and what is popular, Allen has not had a hit in many years. Allen has continued to write and direct movies however, but his view of the quality of his work does not match the general box office. He considers his 2005 movie "Match Point" to be one of his best.

== Actor, Writer, Producer & Director ==

*Directed 14 different actors/actresses in performances that went on to be Academy Award nominated : Diane Keaton, Geraldine Page, Maureen Stapleton, Mariel Hemingway, Michael Caine, Dianne Wiest, Martin Landau, Judy Davis, Chazz Palminteri, Jennifer Tilly, Mira Sorvino, Sean Penn, Samantha Morton and himself. Keaton, Caine, Wiest and Sorvino won Oscars for their performances in his movies.

*He made 13 movies where he casted Mia Farrow: Broadway Danny Rose (1984), Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989), Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), Alice (1990), Another Woman (1988), The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985), September (1987), Husbands and Wives (1992), A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (1982), New York Stories (1989), Radio Days (1987), Shadows and Fog (1992) and Zelig (1983).

== Personal/Family Life ==

*He married his first wife, Harlene Rosen on March 15, 1956, at the age of 21. They were divorced six years later.

*His second marriage was to the noted actress [[Louise Lasser]] in 1966, and they divorced after five years.

*"Common Law", cohabitation with actress [[Mia Farrow]], 1980-1992.

*[[Soon-Yi Previn]] (22 December 1997 - present) 2 children

===Scandal===

Allen was involved in a scandal that broke in 1992 when it was revealed he had taken naked pictures of [[Soon-Yi Previn]], the adopted daughter of his [[Common Law]] wife, [[Mia Farrow]], who was then only 16. This ended his 12 year "Common Law" marriage to Farrow and made public his intimate relationship with Soon-Yi. Towards the end of the multi-year wrangling, Soon-Yi was 22 and Allen was 57. In 1997, the two married. Allen says this about leaving out the naked pictures that Mia Farrow found of her adopted daughter: ''' "...it was just one of those fortuitous events, one of the great pieces of luck in my life."'''<ref>[http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2005/12/woodyallen200512?currentPage=3 Vanity Fair Online, Dec 2005]</ref> According to Mia Farrow's biography, "What Falls Away", [[Frank Sinatra]] (her former husband) offered to have Allen's legs broken when he was found to be having an affair with her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn. <ref>Internet Movie Database [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000095/bio]</ref>

== Filmography ==

===Director===
*"What's Up, Tiger Lily?" (1966)
*"Take the Money and Run" (1969)
*"Bananas" (1971)
*"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex" (1972)
*"Sleeper" (1973)
*"Love and Death" (1975)
*"Annie Hall" (1977) (Oscar, best director)
*"Interiors" (1978) (Oscar nomination, best director)
*"Manhattan" (1979)
*"Stardust Memories" (1980)
*"A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" (1982)
*"Zelig" (1983)
*"Broadway Danny Rose" (1984) (Oscar nomination, best director)
*"The Purple Rose of Cairo" (1985)
*"Hannah and Her Sisters" (1986) (Oscar nomination, best director)
*"September" (1987)
*"Radio Days" (1987)
*"Another Woman" (1988)
*"New York Stories" (1989)
*"Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989) (Oscar nomination, best director)
*"Alice" (1990)
*"Shadow and Fog" (1992)
*"Husbands and Wives" (1992)
*"Manhattan Murder Mystery" (1992)
*"Bullets Over Broadway" (1994) (Oscar nomination, best director)
*"Mighty Aphrodite" (1995)
*"Everyone Says I Love You" (1997)
*"Deconstructing Harry" (1997)
*"Sweet and Lowdown" (1999)
*"Small Time Crooks" (2000)
*"The Curse of the Jade Scorpion" (2001)
*"Hollywood Ending" (2002)
*"Anything Else" (2003)

===Actor===
*"That Was the Week That Was" (1964)
*"What's New, Pussycat" (1965)
*"What's Up, Tiger Lily?" (1966)
*"Casino Royale" (1967)
*"Take the Money and Run" (1969)
*"Bananas" (1971)
*"Play It Again, Sam" (1972)
*"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex" (1972)
*"Sleeper" (1973)
*"Love and Death" (1975)
*"The Front" (1976)
*"Annie Hall" (1977) (Oscar nomination, best actor)
*"Manhattan" (1979)
*"Stardust Memories" (1980)
*"A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" (1982)
*"Zelig" (1983)
*"Broadway Danny Rose" (1984)
*"Hannah and Her Sisters" (1986)
*"King Lear" (1987)
*"Radio Days" (1987)
*"Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989)
*"New York Stories" (1989)
*"Scenes From a Mall" (1991)
*"Husbands and Wives" (1992)
*"Shadows and Fog" (1992)
*"Manhattan Murder Mystery" (1993)
*"Don't Drink the Water" (1994)
*"Mighty Aphrodite" (1995)
*"Everyone Says I Love You" (1997)
*"Deconstructing Harry" (1997)
*"Wild Man Blues" (1998)
*"Antz" (1998) (voice)
*"Sweet and Lowdown" (1999)
*"Picking Up the Pieces" (2000)
*"Small Time Crooks" (2000)
*"Company Man" (2000)
*"The Curse of the Jade Scorpion" (2001)
*"Hollywood Ending" (2002)
*"Anything Else" (2003) 

===Writer===
*"The Laugmaker" (1962)
*"What's New, Pussycat" (1965)
*"What's Up, Tiger Lily?" (1966)
*"Take the Money and Run" (1969)
*"Don't Drink the Water" (1969)
*"Bananas" (1971)
*"Play It Again, Sam" (1972)
*"Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex" (1972)
*"Sleeper" (1973)
*"Love and Death" (1975)
*"Annie Hall" (1977) (Oscar, best original screenplay)
*"Interiors" (1978) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Manhattan" (1979) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Stardust Memories" (1980)
*"A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" (1982)
*"Zelig" (1983)
*"Broadway Danny Rose" (1984) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"The Purple Rose of Cairo" (1985) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Hannah and Her Sisters" (1986) (Oscar, best original screenplay)
*"September" (1987)
*"Radio Days" (1987) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Another Woman" (1988)
*"New York Stories" (1989)
*"Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Alice" (1990) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Shadows and Fog" (1992)
*"Husbands and Wives" (1992) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Manhattan Murder Mystery" (1993)
*"Bullets Over Broadway" (1994) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Mighty Aphrodite" (1995) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay)
*"Everyone Says I Love You" (1997)
*"Deconstructing Harry" (1997) (Oscar nomination, best original screenplay) "Celebrity" (1998)
*"Sweet and Lowdown" (1999)
*"Small Time Crooks" (2000)
*"The Curse of the Jade Scorpion" (2001)
*"Hollywood Ending" (2002)
*"Anything Else" (2003)

== See also ==
*[[Shia LaBeouf]]
*[[Salma Hayek]]
*[[Dean Martin]]
*[[Petula Clark]]

==External Links==
*http://www.rkpuma.com/woody.htm
*http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9702/05/farrow.book/index.html

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Allen, Woody}}

[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Directors]]

Conservapedia:Desk/speedy

2007-09-28T15:43:59Z

PostoStudanto:

{| class="wikitable"
!Immediate Deletion Articles 
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Desk/speedy&action=edit Add an article]
|-|[[Feminista]]
|-|[[Womens Liberation]]
|[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates]]

|-|[[Extremist Attitude]]
|}

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-27T18:11:30Z

PostoStudanto: /* Bias or Error? */ source for elementary proof?

Hippie

2007-09-23T03:41:34Z

PostoStudanto: grammar & syntax error

'''Hippie''' is a term used for members of the [[Counterculture|counter-culture]] of the 1960's who opted to "drop out (of school and the career [[rat race]]), turn on (by taking [[psychedelic]] [[drug]]s) and tune in (to an alternative way of looking at the [[universe]])", rejecting the [[materialism|materialistic]] values of the society around them. The non-violent movement was largely in response to the the [[Vietnam War]], and used the slogan "peace and love." Hippie [[culture]] also became associated with [[rock music|rock and roll]], recreational [[drug]] use, "[[free love]], as reflected by the slogan "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll." Hippies wore their hair long. "Jesus freaks" were hippies who were born-again [[Christian]]s and followed Christ's commandments regarding the importance of [[love]], and eschewing the use of drugs. Many hippies experimented with alternative living arrangements such as [[commune]]s, where all work and all possessions were shared. In the movie "[[Easy Rider]]" the protagonists visit a hippie commune in [[California]]. [[Tom Wolfe]]'s account of [[Ken Kesey]]'s [[Merry Pranksters]] in his book "[[The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test]]" documented one aspect of the hippie scene.

Hippies were preceded by the counter-culture [[beatnik]] movement in the 1950's.

It was the capitalistic society in which the hippie was born that gave them financial support. The largesses of their parents and free public handouts helped buoy the idealistic and misguided cultural experiments they attempted. Hippies failed in the end to affect real change since their world view was based on a flawed concept of human nature. They believed that people were willing to live in a lessened state of materialistic ease and were altruistic as opposed to self-interested. This same flaw led to the fall of communism and the failure of all the 1960s communes.

To this day, one of the reasons that politicians tend not to wear facial hair is because some voters can make a negative connection with hippies<ref>{{cite news
|first = Michael
|last = Brus
|title = Beards
|url = http://www.slate.com/id/113390/
|publisher = Slate
|accessdate = 2007-09-22
|date = 2001-10-09
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
|first = Betsy
|last = Rothstein
|title = Capital Living - Voters want their pols clean shaven
|date = 2006-20-09
|accessdate = 2007-9-22
|publisher = The Hill
|url = http://www.socialimage.net/2006_09_20_the_hill.html}}</ref>.

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Politics]]
[[category:culture]]

Hippie

2007-09-23T00:12:23Z

PostoStudanto: revising hippie-beard-politician section

'''Hippie''' is a term used for members of the [[Counterculture|counter-culture]] of the 1960's who opted to "drop out (of school and the career [[rat race]]), turn on (by taking [[psychedelic]] [[drug]]s) and tune in (to an alternative way of looking at the [[universe]])", rejecting the [[materialism|materialistic]] values of the society around them. The non-violent movement was largely in response to the the [[Vietnam War]], and used the slogan "peace and love." Hippie [[culture]] also became associated with [[rock music|rock and roll]], recreational [[drug]] use, "[[free love]], as reflected by the slogan "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll." Hippies wore their hair long. "Jesus freaks" were hippies who were born-again [[Christian]]s and followed Christ's commandments regarding the importance of [[love]], and eschewing the use of drugs. Many hippies experimented with alternative living arrangements such as [[commune]]s, where all work and all possessions were shared. In the movie "[[Easy Rider]]" the protagonists visit a hippie commune in [[California]]. [[Tom Wolfe]]'s account of [[Ken Kesey]]'s [[Merry Pranksters]] in his book "[[The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test]]" documented one aspect of the hippie scene.

Hippies were preceded by the counter-culture [[beatnik]] movement in the 1950's.

It was the capitalistic society in which the hippie was born that gave them financial support. The largesses of their parents and free public handouts helped buoy the idealistic and misguided cultural experiments they attempted. Hippies failed in the end to affect real change since their world view was based on a flawed concept of human nature. They believed that people were willing to live in a lessened state of materialistic ease and were altruistic as opposed to self-interested. This same flaw led to the fall of communism and the failure of all the 1960s communes.

To this day, one of the reasons that politicians tend not to wear facial hair is because some voters can make a negative connection with hippies.<ref>{{cite news
|first = Michael
|last = Brus
|title = Beards
|url = http://www.slate.com/id/113390/
|publisher = Slate
|accessdate = 2007-09-22
|date = 2001-10-09
}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news
|first = Betsy
|last = Rothstein
|title = Capital Living - Voters want their pols clean shaven
|date = 2006-20-09
|accessdate = 2007-9-22
|publisher = The Hill
|url = http://www.socialimage.net/2006_09_20_the_hill.html}}</ref>.

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Politics]]
[[category:culture]]

Talk:Hippie

2007-09-22T23:24:14Z

PostoStudanto:

[[Hippy]]

The second part of this article is clearly someone's personal view of the description of 'hippie', especially the ridiculous last remark about politicians not wanting to grow beards. Clearly the person who wrote this trying to be comical. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]]

: Nope. Guess again. This time offer your alternative reason why politicians almost never grow beards today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Humility, so as not to look like Jesus? Or... anti-Christian sentiment, so as not to evoke Christian patriarchs? I want to know your opinion. Mr. Schlafly, did you know that [[beard|beards]] were a major symbol in ancient times? I wrote a short article on it.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:47, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Where is his reason for suggesting it in the first place. I can't understand how this can hold up. Maybe politicans don't have beards because of fashion trends, or because they don't want to have to shave. Michael Savage has a beard - does that make him a hippie? [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 00:45, 14 June 2007 (AUS)

I note that Michael Savage is not a politician, however I am sure he has negative views on hippies. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 01:13, 14 June 2007 (AUS)

----

I was taking a glance around the Internet at various pieces of speculation on why politicians generally don't wear a beard. The best two public access articles I found were at [http://www.slate.com/id/113390/ Slate], [http://www.socialimage.net/2006_09_20_the_hill.html The Hill], and [http://thetyee.ca/Life/2006/08/09/Beards/ The Tyee] (A Canadian news site). Warning: The Canadian news site as of today has minor nudity in an ad on the sidebar. If you are offended by minor nudity then temporarily turn off images in your browser or don't visit the site to begin with.

From what the articles say, facial hair on politicians has gone in and out of fashion quite a few times in history. For instance, Lincoln started up a facial hair trend that lasted for several presidents, but facial hair went out of style again in the early 20th century. It's not at all certain exactly why people tend to prefer beard-less politicians. Hippies do make ''some'' appearance in the articles, so I've put in a toned down version of the current sentence. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 19:24, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-09-22T05:06:38Z

PostoStudanto: changing Wikilinks to point to the correct article

{{Essay}}

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze [[liberal]] behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

# Liberals frequently deny the existence of practices or rules, even though the liberals defend the practice or rule. For example, liberals who deny that partial-birth abortion existed, even though they defended the practice. Why deny the existence of something that one defends? Liberals also deny that classroom prayer is prohibited, even though they defend the prohibition. Apparently liberals think their denial can deflect attention away from the indefensible.
# Liberals, particularly liberal vandals, seem to have a strong desire for attention. This may motivate many of their statements and arguments. Lacking motivation based on reason or faith, they seem to enjoy attracting attention for the mere sake of attention itself. The discussions and debates go nowhere, but their mission is accomplished by having someone pay attention to them.
# Many liberals think that two wrongs, or a wrong and perceived wrong, make a right. Specifically, they feel that vandalism can be justified by claiming that someone was wrongly excluded from a private association or private property. For example, one critic of Conservapedia declared on 5/22/07 that "[t]his site deserves at least 70-80% of the vandalism it receives." Under the conservative view, nothing justifies vandalism and two wrongs do not make a right.
# Many liberals do not recognize vandalism as being wrong. Even some liberals who do recognize vandalism as being wrong do not think it is wrong to help others who commit vandalism.
# Liberals refuse to admit that people who were atheists or deists in their youth can find [[faith]] as they grow older. Examples include [[Abraham Lincoln]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]], but liberals deny this.
# Liberals deny that their totalitarian positions, such supporting [[gun control]] or banning [[homeschooling]], were instrumental to [[Adolf Hitler]]'s power.
# Liberals seem to think nearly everyone else agrees with them, and even seem shocked and offended when they encounter someone who does not. In the United States, conservatives outnumber liberals by a 2:1 ratio, yet most liberals do not recognize that. Ask a liberal, for example, what percentage of people accept the [[Deluge]] as recounted in the Bible and the liberal's answer can be off by a factor of ten.
# Liberals are almost always more aggressive than conservatives here, as liberals insist on the last word, insist on continuing debate long after it has become tiresome, and repeat complaints after they have been rejected. That could represent an attempt to waste an opponent's time or a refusal to recognize that there are legitimate reasons to reject liberal viewpoints. Regardless of the reason, this can be observed on numerous talk pages.
# Liberals refuse to allow even the possibility of certain conservative views, and this reflects a liberal close-mindedness that is not shared by conservatives. Liberals categorically declare something to be impossible, such as changes in the laws of physics over time or the feasibility of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]. Conservatives rarely declare something to be impossible.
# Name-calling, particularly as a [[Parthian shot]], is overused by liberals. In one recent exchange, a critic finished his remarks with "you've just conceded that you are a deceitful liar. Thanks, that's all I needed to know."
# Almost no liberal admits he's liberal, or that he holds a liberal belief, or that he is using a liberal argument. More often a liberal will claim to be a conservative, and try to make a liberal argument sound better with the preface, "Well, I'm a conservative, but I support gun control!" But why are so many people embarrassed to admit they are liberal???
# A surprising absence of reliance on logic. Quite the contrary, logical arguments are often met with ridicule or disdain by liberals today, or a demand to see if any authority can be found who made the same logical argument, in the hope of discrediting that authority. In school 30 years ago it seemed that liberals would be the first to appeal to logic, but apparently not today.
# An enjoyment and tolerance of deceit. Liberal editors almost never criticized deceitful behavior as being "wrong". Liberals generally reject the [[Ten Commandments]], and oppose teaching them to children. Often liberal editors have defended or applauded deceitful behavior here. This is remniscent of [[Wikipedia]] co-founder Jimmy Wales offering Essjay a position ''after'' his misrepresentations were disclosed, until public criticism compelled Wales to change his mind.
# A preference for obscenity. Many liberal editors have complained about Commandment #3 in the [[rules]], which prohibits obscenity. Frequently liberal editors have introduced obscenity into Conservapedia despite the rules, often leading to blocking accounts. This is like Wikipedia's popular pages containing pornography, as described in [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].
# A preference for complaining rather than submitting new entries. Many liberal editors have complained 9 times more often than they have made a substantive addition, which violates the [[rule]] against 90% talk per 10% substantive edits. In some cases this has even necessitated blocking accounts.
# Strident objections to the point in [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] quantifying how Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It is not that anyone (other than Jimmy Wales) attempts to deny that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Instead, liberal editors appear to object to ''quantifying'' it, particularly at a multiple of six. But why isn't that claim flattering to them? Conservatives would not object to a claim that they are __ times more conservative than such-and-such. Perhaps assigning a number to the bias makes it difficult for liberals to deny it exists.
# Over-reliance by liberals on mockery rather than logical argument.
# There are repeated attempts to convert liberal opinion into a statement of fact. This can be done by citing a liberal advocate as an authority or by selectively invoking a liberal perception about what "most people think." This style of argument occurs too often, and too selectively, to reflect mere lack of intellectual rigor. It appears to be central to the liberal style of reasoning.
# Liberals often express decidedly liberal viewpoints as "common usage".

Over 100,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here.

Talk:Neanderthal

2007-09-19T21:32:34Z

PostoStudanto: How many redirects?

''Thought by evolutionists to represent some sort of "caveman". In fact, fits well within the normal height-weight ratios of modern humans''

How does the fact that they were physically similar to modern humans in some characteristics preclude them from having lived in caves? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 07:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:You need to consider the connotation of ''caveman'', not just its denotation.
:*denotation: a human being who lives in a cave : cave-dweller
:*connotation: a primitive (practical subhuman) creature having the appearance of ''homo sapiens'' and yet not really a person

:This is rough, of course, or I'd simply add it to the article. Do you get my drift? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

So why use the term "caveman" in the article? In what way does the height/weight ratio of the neanderthals have a bearing on whether they were modern humans or not? Can you link to some evolutionist researh in which neanderthals are described as subhuman? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 08:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, I can't. I don't know enough about [[human origins]] to do that. You sound like you know more about this than I do. May I offer you some writing tasks to volunteer for? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Good job on this, too bad it isn't going to last long.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Don't mess with this article!==

I wrote 90% of this article and it now falls under my protection:

* I will only allow additions with credible references:

: Good: accredited news agencies, science journals, university websites and research papers

: Bad: blogs, 100 year old books, AiG, CMI,...

* I will not allow creationist material in this article: this one's for science, if you're a YEC, go to a debate page or go vandalize the [[Dinosaur]] article

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:95%? Give me a bit more credit thatn that, it took me a while to get this article properly started. Your work on the article is superb, but I claim th eright to assist with this project. Your work is excellent though, in transforming my text to a full article and I wonder if you would be interested in doing the same for [[Homo]] [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]]

Is 90% ok?
But, yeah, of course you can edit, anyone can edit this, as long as it's properly sourced.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
:: 90%, Ah, go on then, but I am only letting you off on account of the funky photos. [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]]

Here goes your article. I hope you have the strength and power to defend your version. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:What's this about it being under ''your'' protection? All articles on Conservapedia are subject to being edited by others. And what's wrong with AiG and CMI as sources? Just because they have a different worldview to you is no reason to malign them.
:And what's with the (offensive) distinction between "science" and "creationist material"? Since when does the atheistic worldview have a monopoly on science?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I think his claim of "Under his protection" is based on user:conservative's protecting the articles that he writes, the majority of, without allowing other editors, non sysops, to make changes.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::TimS has it right, I guess. And definitely not "All articles" are open to being edited.
:::P.S. Fortunately, science is not monopolized by a religious or areligious group/worldview. Many scientists are Christians. But they do science, not religion. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Some articles (too many) are locked to prevent vandalism or liberal edits, but none are limited to a single author (some essays excepted).
::::[[physical science|Origins science]] does tend to be monopolised by one religion: atheism. Even many of the Christians working in science have been bluffed into thinking atheistically.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Obviously not. And not. But this is not the place for that kind of discussion. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Then why start it here? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Good question, only you know the answer. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Why did someone change the opening to this article? It was well written and factual. The reference to Mousterian tool tradition is accurate. Shouldn't the editor give some explanation as to why parts have been removed?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 11:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Society in anatomy ==

I see alot of items concerning society being included in the anatomy section. Could someone more wiki-savvy than I clear that up? [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 10:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Minor fix...all done[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 10:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Copyright of images ==

What is the copyright status of the images in the article? A quick glance would suggest to me that they have simply been copied from a web-site. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:02, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is incorrect==
CPWebmaster, the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is not the correct name for the neanderthal. It is Homo neanderthalensis. Neanderthalensis and Sapiens are different species. Please correct.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

This article really should be renamed Homo neanderthalensis. The Homo sapien neanderthalensis classification was largely based on Willian King's 1864 observations and conclusions that Neanderthals were very closely related to modern humans. Current research into Neanderthal DNA has revealed no evolutionary link between the two species, therefore many anthropologists tend to classfy Neanderthals as a seperate species. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 11:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The Smithsonian Institution classifies neanderthal as Homo neanderthalensis http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:35, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wasn't going to comment because I should be in bed by now, but would an acceptable compromise be to name the article either "Neanderthal Man" or "Neandertal Man" (there's justification for both) and then explain the scientific name(s) in the body of the article? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps but it does sidestep the scientific naming of the organism. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::How does it "sidestep" it? It would still be included, and in more detail; it just wouldn't be in the title. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The issue is what the correct naming is. When you are using a scientific name for an organism like Homo sapiens, you list it as genius then species. The title here is incorrect, if we remove it then continue to use Homo sapiens neanderthalensis we would still be wrong. What CPWebmaster did was basically reclassify that species Neanderthal is. He has placed it on the same level as Asian, White, Black ect. If this were true then the extinction of Neanderthal would have also provided the extinction of the whites in the same areas.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: You think that Homo sapiens is a genius?
:::: Seriously, I haven't checked the references, but I think I'm correct in saying that secular scientists have at some time in the past classified Neanderthal Man as fully human (i.e. Homo sapiens Neanderthalis), also that some people still consider him that, and ''possibly'' even that some of that second group are secular scientists.
:::: So wouldn't it be better to explain all that (or whatever the precise story is) in the body of the article, and not "take sides" by choosing one of the titles for the article title?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::He meant "genus", not "genius".--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 00:43, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::That's a four-month-old message you are replying to. And I knew that anyway; it was my humorous way of pointing out his spelling error. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:43, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Homo is the genius, sapiens is the species. The way this article reads is Homo (genius) Sapiens (species), Neanderthalis (subspecies). That classification was changes upon DNA evidence and more understanding of physiological data. Look at my link to the Smithsonian's classification.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

[[Homo neanderthalensis]] already exists here, and is protected. I suggest the articles be merged (I couldn't figure out the tag). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

And I have a suggestion re:nomenclature. Since things are still being discovered and debated in the scientific community, why not call the article something like "neanderthal man" and address the naming issues there? [[User:Human|Human]] 19:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==History according to Creationists==
"Malnutrition and longer life spans could cause features similar to those seen in Neanderthal skeletons." If malnutrition was a cause of features then the features would not be passed down to their offspring. Only genetic mutation would cause this, thus speciation. Please explain this stance for as of now it A. shows that neanderthal was speciated B. that the statement is incorrect about nutrition causing the features and that they were homo sapians if they had the same nutritional avaliblity as the rest of man kind.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The claims that Neanderthals could speak exactly as modern humans is still hotly debated by physical anthropologists. Stating this as a fact is grossly misleading. In addition, many of the cranial features of neanderthals are NOT seen in modern humans. Mainly the abscence of a chin, the extreme prognathic midface, the larger brows, and the much lower cranial vault. The occipital bones protrude alot, and sport a depression caled the suprainiac fossa for the attachment of much larger neck muscles. There also exists a retromolar gap. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree. CPWebmaster is pulling from the AIG website which has trouble finding empirical evidence for their claims on Neanderthal. Their mtDNA claim is refuted by what I posted below. They have not even updated to the new science evidence.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:03, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, how do fossils prove the use of complex syntax in spoken language? Also the claim that Neanerthals used tools to create complex tools is kinda misleading as well. Neanderthals didn't make complex tools. Almost all Neanderthal lithics are in the form of scrapers, flakes, and retouch points. None of these are "complex" tools.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

===mtDNA===
In 1999, scientists successfully extracted a 345 base pair sequence of mtDNA from a second Neandertal, a 29,000 year-old fossil of a baby recently discovered in Mesmaiskaya cave in south-western Russia. (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000, Höss 2000) The results of this study were similar to the previous ones, putting the Mezmaiskaya specimen outside the range of modern human mtDNA.

In addition, the two Neandertals are fairly similar, differing from each other in 12 base pairs. The difference is greater than that usually found between pairs of modern Europeans or Asians (only 1% of whom differ in 12 or more places), but comparable to the differences between modern Africans (37% of whom differ by 12 or more).

The distance between Mezmaiskaya and a particular modern human sequence known as the reference sequence (Anderson et al. 1981) was 22, compared to 27 for the first Neandertal. (However, no figures are given for the minimum, average and maximum distances between Mezmaiskaya and modern humans; it is unclear whether Mezmaiskaya is in general closer to modern humans than Feldhofer is.)

The phylogenetic analyses of Ovchinnikov et al. show the two Neandertals grouped together, and separated from all modern humans. As with the first specimen, Mezmaiskaya also appears to be equidistant from all groups of modern humans, strengthening the conclusion that Neandertals are not closely related to modern Europeans.

Because this second individual was discovered about 2,500 km (1,500 miles) from the first, it provides very strong confirmation of the previous results.

The fact that its mtDNA was also fairly close to that of the first Neandertal makes it much less likely that Neandertals and the ancestors of modern humans were both part of an interbreeding population with a large amount of mtDNA genetic variation that has been mostly lost:

"In particular, these data reduce the likelihood that Neanderthals contained enough mtDNA sequence diversity to encompass modern human diversity" (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000)

Interestingly, the preservation of the Mezmaiskaya specimen appears to be much better than that of the Feldhofer specimen. It is so good, in fact, that there is a possibility that its entire mtDNA genome may be able to be sequenced, and there is even a possibility that some of its nuclear DNA may be retrievable.

mtDNA from a third Neandertal
In 2000, scientists announced the sequencing of a third Neandertal mtDNA specimen from a cave at Vindija, Croatia (Krings et al. 2000). When the three Neandertals are compared with modern humans, all three of them cluster together, and apart from all modern humans. This conclusion is reinforced by a study by Knight (2003). Knight excluded from the comparison sites in the mtDNA genome which are known to have mutated more than once, and which are therefore poor indicators of phylogenetic relationships. His study strongly confirmed earlier ones showing deeply divergent histories for modern human mtDNA lineages and the known Neandertal ones.

Like modern humans, Neandertals had low genetic diversity compared to apes. The diversity of the three Neandertal mtDNA sequences (3.73%) is lower than that of chimpanzees (14.82+/-5.7%) and gorillas (18.57+/-5.26%), and similar to that of modern humans worldwide (3.43+/-1.22%). If modern humans are sorted into continental groups, the diversity of the three Neandertals is similar to (within one standard deviation of) that for Africans, Asians, native Americans and Australian aboriginals, and Oceanians. Modern Europeans, who live in approximately the same region as the Neandertals, have less diversity than the Neandertals.

Still more Neandertal mtDNA
Schmitz et al. (2002) reported on a fourth Neandertal mtDNA sequence from the second Neandertal fossil found at Feldhofer, the site in Germany at which the first Neandertal fossil was found. It was closely related to the previous Neandertal mtDNA sequences.
Serre et al. (2004) were able to sequence mtDNA from four other Neandertal fossils, along with mtDNA from five early modern humans. The four Neandertals all had mtDNA similar to those found in the previous Neandertals. Serre and his colleagues found no evidence of mtDNA gene flow between modern humans and Neandertals in either direction, but could not rule out the possibility of limited gene flow. Interestingly, the mtDNA sequences from the Vindija Neandertals, which have a less extreme Neandertal anatomy than the classic Neandertals, and are considered transitional between modern humans and classic Neandertals by some scientists, were no closer to modern humans than the rest of the Neandertal fossils.

Is the Neandertal outside the human range?
Yes.

Note that because two modern human sequences are 24 bases apart, while the smallest Neandertal/human difference is only 22, does not mean the Neandertal sequence is within the range of modern humans. To use an analogy, suppose we measured the height of 994 adult humans, and they varied from 4'8" to 6'8" (a difference of 24 inches). Suppose we then found a skeleton which was 8'6" in height. No one would claim that it fell within the modern human range because it was closer to the nearest human (22 inches) than the tallest human was from the shortest human (24 inches).

Note also that the two figures (22 and 24) are measuring very different things, making it invalid to compare the two figures. Just as the Neandertal was compared against 994 modern humans, any of those humans could be similarly compared against the other 993 humans. We could compute the minimum, average, and maximum distance from that human to the other humans, just as was done for the Neandertal. If we calculated those values for all the humans, we could then calculate minimum, average and maximum values of all the individual minima, averages and maxima, and compare those values against the equivalent values for the Neandertal.

We do not know from the Krings et al. 1997 paper the distribution of minimum distances of humans from other humans. The smallest such value is 1. The largest such value might, I suspect, be as much as 5. The same value for the Neandertal is 22, well outside the human range.

For average distances of humans to other humans, we know the average value is 8.0. The minimum average distance will be a little less; the maximum average value must be at least 12 (this can be deduced from the fact that there are two humans 24 apart) and less than 24; I would guess it might be about 16 for a highly atypical human. For the Neandertal, the value is 27, again well outside the human range.

For maximum distances, the maximum such value is 24, but for most humans, the maximum distance to any other human will be less than that. The value of 24 is highly atypical, because it is taken between the two individuals who have indepently diverged farthest from mitochondrial Eve, and is the maximum of nearly half a million (994 * 993 / 2) comparisons among modern humans. For the Neandertal, the value is 36, again well outside the human range.

In other words, for all three measurements (minimum, average and maximum distances to other humans), the Neandertal measurement is much larger than the maximum value of the same measurement from a sample of 994 modern humans, and even further from the average value. The Neandertal is not merely outside the human range, but well outside it.
:--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Respect!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

==Logic==
From CPWebmaster's talk page
:<blockquote>
When it comes to origins, AIG is obviously more valid than the Smithsonian. I am aware that Homo neanderthalensis is the "accepted" species, but this is merely hopeful thinking by evolutionists. In reality, Homo neanderthalensis is HUMAN. I placed it under a sub-species because I did not want it to conflict with the human article. CPWebmaster 11:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>
:If homo neanderthalensis is human as you said above, then why not list it with Homo sapiens? CPWebmaster, I can not understand why you would perceive AIG as more valid than the Smithsonian. There are thousands more scientists working and submitting to the Smithsonian than AIG. This provides a more critical environment for research. AIG struggles to have PhDs write articles within the scope of their discipline. How many times have you seen a physicist write about biology at AIG? The point is that if you plan to use taxonomy to describe an organism then you must follow taxonomy rules to describe the organism. Meaning if you wish to say that Neanderthal was a subspecies of Homo sapiens then you need to list Neanderthal as Homo sapiens. Otherwise you need to place it back with homo neanderthalensis.--TimS 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know why I'm even trying to correct this article. You cannot use logic against religious conviction. No matter what we say he is still going to put a creationist slant on the article. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Do I even have to mention that based on a taxonomy the way this article is listed Neanderthal is of the same level as European, African, Asian, ect. If this is the case then why did they die out while Europeans thrived? If you place any of the other sub races of Homo sapiens into the environment they survive. (This is assuming that Neanderthal came about due to the tower of Babel, like the other races of man according to YECs)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure that I follow this point, but one answer is that they did survive. There is evidence of similarities with modern humans which suggests that modern humans are, in part, descended from Neanderthals. Also, one YEC idea is that their distinctive features were due to diet and conditions, not genetics, which would suggest that they were not a separate group that died out, but are humans, and humans are still here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:There is an issue about the YEC diet claim, If we are to follow the YEC timeline then Humans lived in the same areas as Neanderthals at the same time so we would show a difference among all of the remains instead of a particular group. If it was based on diet and not genetics than how is what I posted above with mtDNA found in Neanderthal remains explained? Their physiology is much different than a human, not something that could come from diet (You do not get eyebrow ridges, or extra length of ribs from diet)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Just to add if you and CPWebmaster claim that Neanderthal were humans then you should add them to the races article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You mean the [[Race]] article I presume? No, I wouldn't add them there, for the following reason. Creationists don't recognise that there are different races. We are all one race—the human race. So Neanderthals were not a different race. The article does list some "races", as they were formerly believed to be, but first, it doesn't say who believed this (I suspect an evolutionary basis), and second, for whatever reason, Neanderthals were, as far as I know, never considered as separate race, so it wouldn't be appropriate to add them to a list of what is actually a historical record. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::That is the point I am making Philip. If this were the case then CPWebmaster is wrong in labeling this page as Homo Sapiens Neaderthalensis. This is why it should either be Homo Neaderthalensis or just Homo Sapiens. To add the other delineator would mean that it would be a race of human.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== editing ==
By-the-by, going in and pulling the creationist part above the evolutionist part is kinda pathetic and childish.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I would have to agree, it is a bit sophomoric. Not to mention the statement of taxonomic labeling.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Somebody found some talking fossils apparently.

==Remind me not to spend hours on an article ever again! P.S. please don't <s>stone</s> ban me for expressing my opinion (see [[First amendment]])==

Just 2 days after I wrote this article, using only reliable sources, it's already been vandalized beyond recognition, look! It even has quotes of questionable origin already!

Do we really have to have this "but creationist assert this and quote <s>mine</s> that, and the flood ..." thingy in every article, there's plenty of that on other pages.

I did not claim this article for myself, I just set some guidelines for other editors to keep it factual and respectable (most people out there aren't YECs you know!)

Why the f*ck are there no dates in the intro anymore? Do they threaten the emotional comfort of your little <s>medieval</s> sheltered world? You think you're making Jesus proud through ignorance?

And yes, of course that picture of neanderthal men came from a website: I can't exactly go take a picture of a living neanderthal myself, now can I?

And it's "Homo neanderthlalensis", not "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" as in separate species, Tims is a molecular biologist, what are you?

What's wrong with writing an article according to the current scientific consensus? Sure I could make something up too, maybe even twist the facts just enough to make everything fit in with Egyptian mythology! But I chose to follow the experts instead.

If the reader is a YEC he's not gonna believe this article anyway!

AiG more credible than the Smithsonian?
Yeah, of course <s>a bunch of uneducated hillbillies</s> AiG's YECs are more credible than the Smithsonian's accredited biologists and archaeologists when it comes to science!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

Middleman, I agree with you. I thought this was conservapedia not YECpedia. No one has said that being a conservative means rejecting science as a whole. What CPWebmaster did would be considered vandalism if the POV was change.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I tried to add some stuff and keep it scientific, but I was reverted by the ConservativeChristianYoungEarthAntiScience Aganda. Just give up, this site is a joke anyway. The only reason I know about it is a student of mine actually used it as a source in writing a paper. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Is it that your information has been removed or merely that creationist viewpoints have been added as well? I hope both viewpoints are allowed to stand and I hope it is done in a way that is respectful to the work that each of you has put into the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunatly, no, the overlords have erased information that is scientific in nature and replaced it with their own ideas.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I have created separate articles now, with links to one another at the bottom: one for YECs and one for science, I will revert all creationist material on the evolutionary version, however I don't care about what's being written in the creationist version, feel free to add whatever "alternative worldviews" you want to that one!

YEC: [[Homo neanderthalensis (Creationist's view)|here]].

Evo: [[Homo neanderthalensis|here]]

:::stick with one article please. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 15:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

But this one's too crappy.
And that one page would have to be called Homo neanderthalensis.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

P.S. this particular page (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) should be deleted for this to avoid confusion.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:Your naming will never survive based upon how you have constructed it. You'll need to have separate sections with 'Creationist' in one title and 'Evolutionist' in the other. Also the article called 'Creationist' view appears to be merely a copy of the current article and is replete with information that does not match Creationist thought. You may wish to consider a different strategy if you wish to have any chance of success. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

If you don't like it (the creationist version) in its current form you can always edit it.

Evolution is the dominant theory, the default setting, creationism is an alternative for a minority.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

I am still wanting to see what CPWebmaster's logic is based on what I listed above for the genius and species of Homo Neanderthalensis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, these 3 pages seem to act like coupled photons: whatever you type on one talk page, instantaneously appears on the other two as well!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

"No other organisms, either living or fossil, made tools to make other complex tools, buried their dead, had controlled use of fire, practiced religious ceremonies, used complex syntax in their spoken grammar, and played musical instruments, yet we know from their fossils that Neanderthal engaged in all."
I still want to know how a fossilized piece of bone can tell you about complex syntax. Last time I checked fossils don't talk.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Just a quick note, nobody will come to an "encyclopedia" like this and search for [[Homo neanderthalensis]] or [[Homo sapiens neanderthalensis]]. Instead, they'll look for [[Neanderthal]] or [[Neandertal]]. They both redirect to the 'creationist' [[Homo sapiens neanderthalensis]]. Thus, MiddleMan's 'scientific' version will only be seen by a) who reads this talk page or b) from the Hominid category. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

"''And yes, of course that picture of neanderthal men came from a website: I can't exactly go take a picture of a living neanderthal myself, now can I?''". You appear to be justifying using a presumably-copyright photograph on the basis that you are unable to take your own photograph of real Neanderthals. That is not justification for using copyright photographs. And my question also pertained to the map. If the images are copyright and used without permission, they will have to go, regardless of your inability to supply an alternative. Will you do the right thing or will I delete them? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

There are lots of pics without sources on this website, yet only one the ones that hits a sore spot among YECs is removed, besides the sysop who removed it didn't say anything about copyrighting, he stated "This is nothing like Neanderthals would have looked like. in reality they looks a LOT more like aps, with curved, bent hands, etc."

Interestingly, I addressed this (sadly widespread) myth in the article itself (it's also the reason why I said 100 year old books are bad sources), so if he would just have taken the time to actually read the article...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:Response in point form:
:* There being other such pictures doesn't justify these.
:* If you had brought others to my attention, I would have done the same to them. I'd invite you to now except that I gather that you are no longer around.
:* It was not because of the pictures themselves that I started questioning this; it was solely because of the copyright issue.
:* I don't know where CPWebmaster made that comment that you attribute to him; I haven't seen it, and it certainly wasn't in the edit comment for the deletion.
:As no evidence was forthcoming that there was permission to use the images, I have now deleted them from the article.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== transitional fossil? ==

<blockquote>"Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but their remains are examples of [[transitional fossil]]s along a subsidiary branch, an evolutionary dead end."{{fact}}</blockquote>

A transitional fossil to what? Extinction? Somehow this seems an incorrect usage. There is no linkage from one form to another. Perhaps the following wording should be employed?

<blockquote>"Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but formed along a subsidiary branch that ended in extinction."{{fact}}</blockquote>

[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You're quit right, I changed it accordingly.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Advice to evolutionists ==

I was going to write a piece here with the title above, but because this sort of issue has come up so often, I decided to create a sub-page of my user page to hold it instead. It relates particularly to this dispute, so I urge editors here to read my comments at [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Advice to evolutionists]]. I will, however, make some further comments on this page to some specific points. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Philip I read and understood your points in your article. The issue I think that has to be presented is that this website claims that it is Conservative in nature not exclusively YEC. Therefore to edit strictly in a YEC POV would be falsifying the claim of the website. Even Andy has stated that this website is not specifically YEC.
::No, Conservapedia does not have a specifically YEC agenda. But our rules do not allow the kind of speculation-as-fact claims that are found on Wikipedia and other sites concerning an old earth or evolution or any other predominantly liberal ideology. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:03, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:So to claim that it is would be misleading. My issue with this page is the incorrect naming style used. If you are going to use scientific terminology then you need to get it right. If what CPWebmaster is true then this article should be moved under Homo sapiens. If not then he needs to correct it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for reading it.
::I wasn't suggesting editing in a YEC POV. I was pointing out that despite the YEC point of view that will not allow articles to be edited in an evolutionary POV, evolutionary editors continue to edit in an evolutionary POV rather than a more neutral POV that should (hopefully) be acceptable to both sides.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::You know that timelines of the earth are geological based not evolutionary based. If we were to edit on a neutral POV then the edits that CPWebmaster did would have been reverted since they strictly removed scientific data to cause the article a more creationsit POV.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Advice to Young Earth Creationists==
You've got your YEC box in my article (Homo Neanderhalensis, without the sapiens), don't you prefer it's clear presentation of creationist objections over the usual chaotic torrent of out-of-context quotes, unsound "facts" and numerous AiG links that make up most YEC sections on this site?
You yourself linked to Dr. John Hartnett once, who actually has a Ph. D (I still think he's nutts though), don't you understand that that single link, has, to me (and other "evolutionists"), far more value than all the quotes and AiG links in the [[Dinosaur]] article combined?

Just look at the Dinosaur article, it's a complete mess composed of contradicting sections and contradictions within sections, out-of-context-quotes, and the kind of "scientific facts" that any college freshman can debunk on a spare afternoon.
And in the end the article reads like a debate and doesn't really tell the reader anything about actual dinosaurs.
That's what I meant by "go vandalize the Dinosaur article".

If you're going to add YEC stuff, then keep it separated from the rest of the article (don't make one sentence contradict the next one), don't use quotes (no scientist uses quotes), and only add points which have a reasonable chance of surviving the debunk attempts of a college freshman, you have to know what you're talking about before posting it, if necessary, do some research on the math or the science behind it.

Don't question every scientific theory down to the very laws of physics, and don't say every theory is just a theory (you trust science when you fly on an airplane, use GPS, watch tv, and you trust scientist's calculations regarding the highly explosive chemical processes that take place under the hood of your car, don't you?)

And if you're going to question a scientific theory then be consistent, meaning you can't use other science, related to that theory, somewhere else:

- if you question carbon half lives, you also question
nuclear physic, meaning you question nuclear power, and A-bombs as well, and even question highschool chemistry.

- if you question the value of the speed of light, you question relativity and thus you can't trust your GPS system either, you'd also question quantum mechanics.

Finally, try to link to non-creationist websites and accredited scientists (like John Hartnett, for example), and never, ever use the Bible as a reference: if your theories are correct you should be able to find evidence outside of the Bible.

Then, maybe YECs won't be ridiculed all the time...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:What I have seen too many times is evolutionary baseed information being removed because it isn't "factual" and at the same time the YEC sections getting bigger and bigger. As far as I know YEC isn't a "fact" either, but I rarely see any of that stuff being edited out.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::There are a number of articles with creationist views that I'm not happy with, but would have a fight on my hands if I tried altering them, so I'm not going to defend everything, but parts of your message still warrants a response.
::"''You yourself linked to Dr. John Hartnett once, who actually has a Ph. D''". As do lots of creationists. This sort of anti-creationist loaded language is part of the problem.
::Despite my comments above, I think the [[Dinosaur]] article is actually quite reasonable (apart from needing more information about the dinosaurs themselves). If you were still around, I'd invite you to point out ''specific'' problems, because all you've done so far is throw mud.
::"''(no scientist uses quotes)''". Incorrect.
::"''...don't say every theory is just a theory...''" I haven't seen anyone do that.
::Much of your comment on science ignores the difference between [[Physical science|operational science and origins science]].
::"''Finally, try to link to non-creationist websites and accredited scientists... ''". What's wrong with linking to creationist web-sites with accredited scientists?
::"''never, ever use the Bible as a reference: if your theories are correct you should be able to find evidence outside of the Bible''". We can't use the Bible as a reference for what Christians believe? And often the best evidence is documented eye-witness testimony, which is what the Bible is, so it is often the only available evidence; why overlook it just because bibliosceptics don't like it?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:34, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== There is no evidence to suggest that Neanderthals could not speak like modern humans. ==

This seems a bit of a lame quote. There's no evidence to suggest that T Rex could not speak like modern humans either, should we therefore conclude that they ''could'' talk? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing that came from a suggestion that I made [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Advice to evolutionists|here]], and if you read that, you might have a better understanding of why it's worded that way. But yes, it was only an off-the-cuff suggestion on my part, and it could be improved. Do you have a suggestion that does justice to what it's trying to say? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:35, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Still trying.... ==

Why cannot I access and view the previous versions of the articles? How big of a fit am I going to have to have? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:18, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't know, I'm not having a similar problem. What exactly are you doing and what exactly are you getting? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:21, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Check my user talk. I had requested of CPAdmin1 to have a chance to review the materials he deleted before the fact. He wasn't having a bit of it. The lack of cooperation around here should be gone now, due to the example of the past two days. Evidently not. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:*Never mind...I got it. I wanted to see this [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Homo_neanderthalensis]] since it got deleted and redirected without any notice or discussion. Since I don't know much of what I am doing with the technical wiki, I had to fumble around removing redirects and un-deleting pages, etc. There should be a nicer way to accommodate everyone. But then some people, they don't want to be nice. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:33, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::There ''is'' a nicer way. As long as the article is not actually deleted, but just has the content removed, you can look at any old version from the edit history; you don't have to remove redirects or anything to do that. If you need to know ''how'' to do that, I can explain further. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:37, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, what I found was deleted and blanked pages, which I had to restore once I removed all the re-directs, and still the discussion seems to have been lost. I know how to blank and protect pages, Philip. I am just peeved because some other Sysop took it upon himself to delete and merge without any discussion whatsoever. Maybe I am wrong in thinking such things shouldn't happen under cover, and unilaterally, but I don't think so. Hopefully whilst I am at the office, the whole process won't be repeated, and the other pages deleted! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see why you had to remove the redirects and restore them just to see what was on them, but moving on, what discussion seems to have been lost? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== How many redirects? ==

I've just got to ask: How many times has Neanderthal been maliciously redirected to, say, [[User:Aschlafly]]? I never vandalize, but if I was that type it would be so tempting. :-P - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 17:32, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-18T19:26:11Z

PostoStudanto: /* National Enquirer revisited */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
 
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2|Archive 2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3|Archive 3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4|Archive 4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5|Archive 5]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive6|Archive 6]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive7|Archive 7]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive8|Archive 8]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive9|Archive 9]]
 

----
== The following have been corrected at Wikipedia ==

Thank God! At least that's a few less instances of bias and slander Wikipeda will try to pass off as truth. On the other hand, I suppose it's only fair to now remove them from the list...

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.
*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...
*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.
*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.
*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".
*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.
*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

Evidently examples 5, 6, 7, and 10 have been corrected some time ago, but I suppose they should be kept for posterity's sake?

Also, for example 8 and 16... it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia has an anti-intellectual slant and no respect for experts (a 14-year-old dropout has as much weight on a subject, if not more, than an actual professional or researcher in the domain). But does that really constitute "[[bias]]" per se, according to Conservapedia's definition? I just wasn't quite clear on that...

Hopefully keeping up the pressure will force Wikipedia to correct the rest of these errors - or even better, convince people to come to Conservapedia instead.

[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:39, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

*We will wait and see how long they remain fixed.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:06, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll start at your beginning and if your claims of correction don't hold true for the first few, then I'm going to stop wasting time on your list:

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.

:: Deceit does not have the same meaning as lie. That redirect is improper, misleading, and illustrates the merit of the complaint.

*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...

:: The JBS reference in the Fred Schwarz has been removed, but the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons still has the JBS reference. Your statement to the contrary is false.

*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.

:: The association is not justified. It's plainly an improper attempt at guilt-by-association.

*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.

:: The Zach Johnson entry does finally admit that he credited [[Jesus Christ]], but the [[liberal]]s on [[Wikipedia]] insert a "citation needed" to try to discredit Johnson's quote. The effect remains similar to before.

*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".

:: The John Birch Society entry does continue to smear unrelated people.

*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.

::I didn't bother rechecking this, but why is Jimmy Wales given preferential treatment in an entry about Conservapedia? He has no connection with Conservapedia, and it's unclear he's even spent any time on this site.

*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

:: The rewording continues to obscure the timing of Operation Eagle Claw during unpopular Carter's difficult primary battle with [[Ted Kennedy]] for the [[Democratic]] nomination. The new explanation seems determined to confuse the political implications of the operation as the old explanation did.

:: I stopped at this point, and see no need to change the examples of bias on the above points. The changes often did not occur as stated, and where changes did occur they merely underscore the bias further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I apologize then... particularly for the JBS reference in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons article, I don't know how I missed that one. As for the "deceit" example, I thought deceit and lie might be essentially synonymous, hence Conservapedia not needing an article on "lie"... but you're right, claiming they are one and the same is misleading. Sorry, I genuinely thought these might constitute valid corrections.

:::[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:02, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== Planning to add a few new examples ==

It's about time to add a few new examples to the list here. Please make suggestions here. A point about the new attorney, apparently liberal, who has taken the helm is appropriate, and his callous attitude towards the smears and gossips (while editing his own entry). Another point about the anti-Christian entries is needed. An update about how the leadership of Wikipedia is trying to cash in on the traffic with their for-profit search engine may be appropriate. Other suggestions? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I was just about to point out link 14 above after noticing it as a major headline on a news site. The fact that US government computers have been caught editing Wikipedia articles on subjects relevant to their work (i.e. Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay) implies that they are using Wikipedia as a government propaganda tool. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

: And don't forget that the Dem HQ, the New York Times were also caught. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:36, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The New York Times example is excellent. Do you have a link to prove that? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The actual tool that is being used to find the anonymous edits by various companies and governments is http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ . It is probably more useful to link the tool, allowing people to do their own research on who did what rather than linking to a secondary source. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:13, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Here is an example of a NYT edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:02, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

SPierce, that IP traces to Norfolk, VA. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:19, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:: IP location traces are not always as accurate as going in the other direction. Useing wikiscanner is better. New York Times edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice&diff=prev&oldid=15725782] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=33031414], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85320018] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85322406] . ACLU: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=12530341]. Amnesty International: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40462106] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40461974]. Reuters: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=next&oldid=13990756]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 10:59, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Skip, I look at two of your examples and they consist of shockingly obscene edits to the entries. How do we know that IP addresses at the institutions like the NYT and ACLU were really responsible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:22, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::A WHOIS search checks out the IP addresses, but it doesn't check out the users of the IP address (there simply is no way to know who is physically at the keyboard). The NYTimes edits are exceedingly juvenile, as are the ACLU and Reuters edits (plus they don't benefit the respective organization -- they are just run of the mill vandalism). It's much more likely that someone had their kid in on visiting day and let them use their computer. The Amnesty International edit, however, is definitely someone from AI, or at least someone intimately involved with them. I checked some other edits they made, and almost all involved AI, whether on AI's main page or on other pages across the site. I highly doubt, however, that these edits were approved by AI, but there is no evidence to the contrary. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 11:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Please realize that the obscene edits are in no way limited to organizations with a liberal bend. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=115836000] from the Republican party of MN offices[http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=204.73.177.2]. Also realize that these edits in no way suggest a bias in Wikipedia any more than vandalism on Conservapedia suggests that it has a bias of some sort. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::So the Republican Party has been infiltrated by subversives; we already know that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:12, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Even I'm amazed that computers from the [[New York Times]] were used to insert crude vandalism in Wikipedia. Are we sure about this? Let's be sure before we post this on the main page and in the content page here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes. The NYT acknowledged this in their own article about this. Since we've put this on the front page, we should list it here as well. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:01, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

== this is probably too obvious to mention but ==

WP has an article for "evolution". We have one for "Theory of evolution." I think that says it all? [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:I agree :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 03:07, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:As do I. Good catch! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:38, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Double brackets needed on [[John Seigenthaler]] ==

We now have an article on [[John Seigenthaler]]. The mentions of his name in this list should link to it. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:15, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:21, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== GLBTs are the only group of people in which "self-identity" determines the content of their articles ==

Midge Potts is a man (no surgery or proven hormone therapy) who "self-identifies" as a woman. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states this about identity:

<blockquote>
Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves.
</blockquote>

This means that since Midge calls himself a woman, only female pronouns may be used in the article. The fact that he is still physically a man is irrelevant. When it comes to GLBTs, a person's personal opinion of their "self-identity" trumps facts on a site that claims to be encyclopedic.

And it is ''only'' GLBTs to whom this rule applies. No white person can "self-identify" as black and have their articles state that they are black. No nutcase like David Koresh or Charles Manson can "self-identify" as Jesus Christ and have their articles state that they actually are Jesus. Only GLBTs can have this done to their articles. Capriciousness trumps facts. Exactly how is that either encyclopedic or unbiased? It's not. If Midge Potts were to die today, a coroner (a scientist!) examining his body would not give a rip about his "self-identity." Midge would go down on paper as being a man. Period. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The patients rule the liberal insane asylum at Wikipedia. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
::::The arguments being made seem to bear that out. I've never seen such twisted logic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:43, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, this "self-identity" thing isn't even an official Wikipedia rule. It's a "non-binding guideline." Very, very weak. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:48, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Suicide ==

What rational person can believe that WP is "heavily promoting" suicide? In fact, the opening paragraphs of the main entry are rather like CP in that they define suicide and describe the views of suicide held by Christians and members of other religions. And how many times does the word suicide occur in CP? It would be interesting to match that figure per pages with that of WP. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:46, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Also, the Henry Friendly article has been changed. But in a biographical article is is scarcely "heavily promoting" suicide to mention that the subjevt took his/her own life. I ask you! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:50, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Double brackets needed ==

On [[John Birch Society]] and [[Jerry Costello]]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 10:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia has a redirect from "deceit" to lie. ==

Wikipedia has a redirect from "deceit" to lie. Also, the Wikipedia entry is actually "Deceit (album)" . Please do not put this in our encyclopedia again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:Now hold on a minute, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. Wikipedia ''did'' briefly redirect the word "deceit" to "Conservapedia." True enough, someone changed that back to "lie." But, seeing that a redirect to "Conservapedia" is of a piece with the other examples we have seen, one must ask: was the reversion a matter of policy, or was it a cover-up of an embarrassing edit by an overzealous editor?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:::We have vandals with an agenda too. Why should we not expect the same at Wikipedia. I don't think you have shown that the redirect from Deceit to conservapedia wasn't vandalism. More importantly, the Wikipedia entry is actually '''"Deceit (album)"''' . Please let's be precise and not engage in "feel goodism" in regards to Wikipedia. There is a ton of liberal bias at Wikipedia and we don't have to have poorly supported strawmen to show it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:33, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== I believe I just found some incriminating material in regards to liberal bias and Wikipedia ==

I think we need to put the more hard hitting material first in the article by reexamining the various examples we gave. With that in mind, I believe I just found some very incriminating material in regards to liberal bias and Wikipedia which I will start posting in a user workspace that I will create.

I also think we should removed some uncited material until it is ready to be cited.

Lastly, hopefully, the whole "deceit(album)" controversy can be resolved and we can move on.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

*I think you are paying too much attention to the emails you receive from known (but evidently not known to you) vandals, and too easily swayed by those who seek to discredit you, by counting on your predictable reactions. The material will stand, and I advise everyone to stop removing material unless invited to do so. I hope this warning is very clear as to its meaning, and that this line of posting is finished here. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:54, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:::TK, I received no email in regards to the material I deleted. I just know the material is not sufficiently cited or supported. Now some of the material I deleted may be subsequently supported via reputable citations. However, until they are I think they should be removed as a Conservapedia commandment states that everything must be true and verifiable. Do reputable news reporters have a habit of stating serious and unsupported statements and then a week or so later give the evidence? No they do not. And neither should we and the Consevapedia commandments reflects this. I think it is fair to say that I have championed true and verifiable policy at Conservapedia in the past through various efforts and I received valuable help from others in this regard so it would be a mistake to say I have been alone in this respect. Obviously, this is because I know the policy of true and verifiable is important. Yesterday, someone added a completely fictious large article at Conservapedia. It was completely uncited. Obviously, if we do not take the sourcing policy seriously a lot of bogus material will creep into Conservapedia. Now I realize that everyone make mistakes. For example, the greatest heroes of many conservatives - namely biblical heroes - are stated to have made several mistakes. However, I think it is important to be amenable to fixing our mistakes in regards to the consevapedia commandments and other matters. Lastly, I do think that I could have communicated privately at first given the high profile nature of the article in question and some of my pointed remarks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Music ==

"Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[80] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about '''music''', Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

I quite agree about the music. It should be deleted. I suggest the following articles be eliminated: Beethoven, Brahms, Vivaldi, Bach, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Muddy Waters, Chopin, Louie Armstrong, Gershwin, Liszt, The Rolling Stones, Haydn, and all the rest. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:11, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: Oh right. Beethoven, Moby and thousands of obscure and vulgar rap artists are all about the same in significance. Wiki-logic at work! Hey, this wasn't a waste in responding after all. We discovered a new term: [[Wikilogic]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:23, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: Exactly. They aren't the same, but where's the line? The Beatles did drugs, slept no doubt with many women, talked about "doing IT in the road" in a song, and so on, but I can't imagine any reasonable encyclopedia excluding them as unimportant can you? Where's the line? Tchaikovsky was in love with his nephew I think, should he be excluded? Should this be mentioned in a article? Where's the line? Who decides on where the line is? Thanks for responding. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:37, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sutrebla, without the Mobocracy here, the decisions are made by Administrators, applying that good old idea of ''common sense''! Like Aschlafly said, Moby is one one thing. Another thousand one-hit-wonders is another. Surely you can see that? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for being kind. Aschlafly seems to want to scare away people. Anyway, I can't say I know much about "Moby", so I'm not sure what you mean by "Mobocracy" or what Aschlafly means by "Wikilogic" for that matter. I guess a lot of one hit wonder bands would be a waste, but I still don't see where the line is drawn vis-a-vis vulgarity or relevance or whatever. I am dissatisfied with Wikipedia, and thought this might be an alternative that could actually work. Still, if the administrators decide where the line is, then almost anything I write could just be overridden, same as Wikipedia. I happen to think that Tchaikovsky being in love with his nephew (if I have that right) is pretty bad, but that doesn't mean the music is bad does it? Suppose Michael Jackson was in jail right now for pedophilia, would that mean he doesn't exist anymore? If a band had one record which was profane, would they be denied an entry here? My Dad used to say that "common sense" is not very common. Would the "common sense" of one administrator be the same as the "common sense" of another? Confused. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 15:14, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*If you think Aschlafly was being scary, or you worry about what common sense is, you perhaps worry about what the meaning of the word "is" is! Nothing is worth all that angst! In a family-friendly encyclopedia, how is some supposed attraction to his nephew relevant to an article about a famous composer? Does it add knowledge as to his compositions? No. That is what I mean by common sense. If we had an article about Nas, would it be family friendly to include his lyrics, and links to his profane website? No. Is it common sense to spend all this time discussing hypothetical scenarios? No! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*I appreciate your response. Where is the line? Thanks. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 15:38, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
** more Wikilogic which is actually just plain old logic that the sites rulers happen to disagree with. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and thus can afford the luxury of including a great many pop culture references be they good bad or indifferent. A fair comparison would be to look at X number of topics and compare the coverage or lack there of between this site and WP. ''Hint:'' this site loses. [[User:JackNoc|JackNoc]] 15:56, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*BTW, I don't actually worry about the meaning of the word "is" 8-) [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 16:05, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

:Sutrebla, a "line" is not necessary to justify different treatment. I realize that [[Mindless Equality]] is a characteristic of [[liberal style]], but you've taken it to absurd extreme. How about complaining to your local library because it does accept worthless book and let us know how they respond.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

:I must admit it's pretty tough to be labeled so quickly around here, just like Wikipedia. Family friendly may mean no profanity, but it certainly means you're gonna be called a liberal if you disagree with anyone! LOL. I guess I deserved the "Oh, right" after my initial entry, it was a bit sneering, but after that, I was also "worrying about what common sense is", don't know the meaning of the word "is" (ouch, now I'm Clinton!), angst ridden, unduly hypothetical, using Wikilogic (still don't get that one since I thought Conservapedia was based on Wiki technology), mindless, (double ouch), and worst of all, I am using characteristic liberal style. Well, I'm not a liberal, and AM dissatisfied with Wikipedia, and hoping to find something else. If you want to keep heaping on the labels, well, I guess conservapedia is not for me. As far as the music goes, my point was how are things determined to be unsuitable? If Wikipedia is biased by including so much music, Hollywood, etc., to what standard must music/musicians be held in order to make the cut on Conservapedia? Just saying "common sense" doesn't quite do it. And just so you know, I'm a Christian, and most definitely conservative. Feel free to use THOSE labels at your discretion. I would love to add some stuff about music, but expect it will be taken down if it includes rap, especially non-Christian rap. Thanks [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:52, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Sutrebla, we could fill a football stadium with [[liberal]]s claiming that they are [[conservative]]. Watch [[Hillary Clinton]] pretend she's a [[conservative]] too. [[Wikipedia]] will welcome your entries about rap "music". We are a serious encyclopedia and learning resource here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, now I'm a liberal claiming to be conservative. Another label, and I regret the last one I want to hear. How do I PROVE I'm conservative? Please review Matthew 7:1. And rap "music" in quotes? Nasty. What about Christian rap, I saw some on EWTN just the other day. A lot of people would put Arnold Schoenberg's music in quotes I think, but it is music nonetheless. Please do whatever you have to do to delete my account. You guys play rougher than Wikipedia. You will push a lot of sincere people away I fear. I wanted to upgrade your Roald Amundsen article too. Rats. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 13:16, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::: And now we see a classic example of [[Liberal style]], with liberals trying to claim to be victims after they caught lying. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 13:24, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:Just wanted to say goodbye. May God be with you. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 13:43, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== # 18 ==

The current complaint #18 significantly misrepresents the contents from the Wikipedia project page for the Countering systemic bias project.

The first incorrect assertion is that the meta page "complains" that Wikipedians tend to come from Christian countries. The page was actually commenting on a survey of the demographics of Wikipedians: Some articles, sections, or subjects related to other religions or cultures may naturally be neglected because fewer Wikipedians are part of those religions or cultures.

The second misquoted section is really warning that articles pulled from '''all''' old and/or non-neutral sources may need to be checked for bias. The policy is not against Judeo-Christian values, merely to check that imported material is not biased. Material from The Atheist's Encyclopedia would get the same treatment.

The third assertion of #18 refers to a section that really warns that large scale disasters in the developed world are naturally seen by the Wikipedian demographic as less significant than insanely large scale disasters in the developing world. The example given is the coverage Al-Qaeda bombings, which is so detailed that it includes a medium length article on a specific search and rescue dog involved in 9/11. That's more than for many major leaders in the third-world Darfur conflict, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

I request that #18 be removed. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:04, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

: I reread #18 (now #20) and updated the minor revision in the "misquoted" section in the footnote. Wikipedia changed "predominantly Christian" to "nominally Christian." Whoopee. The rest of your criticisms of #18 (now #20) have even less merit. The Wikipedia meta page does complain about Christian "bias" in older sources. Too bad that [[liberal]]s can't realize the difference between identity, perspective and bias. #18 (now #20) is correct but you have given me another point to add to [[liberal style]] here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Please don't attack me based on my word choice between perspective and bias; they both apply equally to the out-of-copyright sources that the meta article talks about. See [[bias]]. And how do you know I'm not conservative or moderate?
:: #18/#20 still distorts the intent and contents of the Wikipedia meta article, makes up accusations, and uses overly POV/biased word choice. For example, no one complained that Wikipedia is based on Christian and Jewish Encyclopedias; the Conservapedia writer literally made that up. Use of these texts is actually ''encouraged'' because they usually do a good job covering their area of expertise. The sources (including a public domain Encyclopedia Brittanica) just need to be checked for "ingrained biases, inaccuracies, and other problems reflecting the age and nature of the sources." I realize you want to score points against Wikipedia, but you only have to reread the article - the entire article - to realize that the #18/20 accusations are invalid.

:: As a side note, MediaWiki allows you to cite a single source in multiple places instead of using acronyms. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once Wikipedia:Footnotes] - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 19:27, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Admission of Liberal Bias ==

No complaints this time, I just thought I may have found a suitable addition to the list. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Liberal_bias Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales actually admits Wikipedia has a liberal bias] (original source [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html here]). According to Jimmy Wales, "the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average." ''Slightly?'' Try '''six times''' more liberal.

Add or reject as you see fit. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:06, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

== Suicide entry (#5) not cited on key claim and here is some material which may help the entry. Also, know someone in the press who might be interested ==

Currently the #5 entry for Examples of Bias in Wikipedia claims there are 21,544 entries at Wikipedia that mention suicide. However, there is no citation for this claim. The Conservapedia commandments state you must give your sources. Is it not cited because you can only run the stats from a Wikipedia account? If so, how do you run that stats at Wikipedia? We should at the very least have a footnote which tells the reader how to run this stat at Wikipedia. I don't think we should take the 21,544 on faith. To do so would wreak havoc at Conservapedia because anyone could claim anything. For example, does Wikipedia merely use the work suicide 21,544 times including the talk pages? Does Wikipedia use the word suicide 21,544 times in its articles but not necessarily in 21,544 entries. With that being said, I am going to temporarily take the 21,544 claim on faith merely for the sake of discussion here but I do believe that unless the entry is cited or at least some method is available to verify it that it should be removed as soon as possible.

With that being said, I believe I might have some useful information in relation to suicide and Wikipedia in relation to its claimed inordinate preoccupation with suicide. Conservapedia mentions that Wikipedia has about 20,000 articles that mention suicide. If Wikipedia has about 2,000,000 articles that means that 1% of its articles mention suicide if the 21,544 claim is true which is a lot. Currently, we do not bring that out and 1% is a high percentage. Again, can someone tell me how you got the 21,544 figure of the number of articles that mentions suicide and can we cite this in our article so people can see it for themselves?

Next, I have a theory on why Wikipedia may have so many references to suicide. Please take a look at this article: Heavy Metal Music And Adolescent Suicidality: An Empirical Investigation - Statistical Data Included at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_134_34/ai_55884913 Also, please see this article: American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, The Influence Of Music And Music Videos at: http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/the_influence_of_music_and_music_videos Wikipedia is known for having a lot of emphasis on teen oriented music so maybe this primarily explains the apparent high percentage of articles on suicide.

Also, suicide is associated with physician assisted suicide which is legal in some liberal areas like Oregon and the Netherlands (http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p040201b.html ). So this might also play a factor but I am guessing it is negligable.

My guess is that the teen music is the most likely explanation if the claim of 21,544 is true Lastly, can we look at enough of the articles which mention suicide to see in what context in which suicide was mentioned? Also, do we believe the above material or similar material would be appropriate to mention in the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" article for the entry dealing with suicide and do we want to develop this more. '''I ask this because I know someone in the conservative press who might be very interested in this claim if it is true. His organization reaches millions and it has an international reader base. We are currently working on a story together and he might be interested in this one too if I can verify the claim.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:43, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

: A search of Conservapedia shows that it has 0.87% of its articles mentioning suicide (144/16536). Those numbers are remarkably similar given the size of each collection. If this is a critique of one, it is likewise a critique of the other... unless Conservapedia is to remove instances of the word from its articles too (but then it would either be using euphemisms which reduces the impact of the word or avoiding history that is likely importance at showing the distasteful nature of it). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:54, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Rutm, Please tell me how you did the above stat. And does it count talk pages as well?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Type 'suicide' in the search box and hit search. As noted in the 'search results' page that comes up, this is searching only the main space - not talk pages. On the 'View' click '500'. Right now, that shows 143 pages - apparently one has been changed since my previous posting. If one is to click the rest of the name spaces, that gives 190 pages. The 16536 comes from the Statistics link on the side, listing only the ones that have content. Right now, that is 16,544. Divide 143 into 16544 and you get 0.008643... or 0.86% (slight change due to number of articles - its easier to change this number with a smaller article base). Compare this to the quoted number of 21,544 articles and the corresponding stats on Wikipedia of 2,009,073 pages and you get 0.0107... or 1.07%. Coparably similar numbers. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:09, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

: No, your comparison is meaningless. The percentage of entries about suicide should decrease as the overall number of entries increase, if there is no bias. Instead, that percentage increases at Wikipedia. Moreover, the content of those entries is very different on Wikipedia than here, further illustrating the bias. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, I am not saying there is not a systemic bias in regards to the Wikipedian population being inordinately preoccupied with suicide or even promoting suicide (inordinately preoccupied and promoting are two different things obviously). However, I will make 3 points. First, PROMOTES is a strong word and unfortunately at this point you do not show a single case of Wikipedia PROMOTING suicide. You did mention Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry but does that that sentence does not promote suicide. It is merely inappropriate to mention it so soon. Given that teenagers at Wikipedia (and there are a lot of them) may not be as socially astute this could easily be an explanation. In regards to Wikipedia's entry about Zerah Colburn ending with a claim that his distant nephew committed suicide this could merely be the type of rampant gossip and preoccupation with trivia regarding the rich and famous. Now I am I being picayune here? I can assure you that will not be like a unreasonable liberal who will nitpick to death and unreasonably ignore any future examples you give. I merely assert (and I believe reasonably) that you haven't yet provided a clear example of Wikipedia promoting suicide. Second, I do agree with RUTM that the percentages are similar although you might be right that Conservapedia's percentage may decline over time. However, while I think this may very well happen it is not a particularly strong argument at this point and promoting the strong claim that Wikipedia promotes suicide reasonably obligates you to provide reasonably clear evidence. Here are some suggestions. Give some strong examples of Wikipedia promoting suicide and/or wait until Conservapedia percentage of entries decreases in terms of the suicide percentage. I do think the important part is providing some clear examples of Wikipedia promoting suicide. In the absence of clear examples though in regards to Wikipedia promoting suicide I think you should wait until the Conservapedia percentage drops and then merely state that Wikipedia is inordinately preoccupied with the subject of suicide. I think it is better for a encyclopedia to make conservative claims and meet its evidential obligations rather than make claims that go beyond the evidence it provides. '''By the way, once the suicide matter is resolved I do believe we can easily leverage the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" article to provide us 25% to 33% more internet traffic by doing something very simple and I believe I am being conservative. It will also take about 15 minutes to do.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:22, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'm confident that with more research I could find more examples. However, the examples given are striking enough, and I see that Wikipedia changed them quickly in response to the criticism here. I've move on to other issues for now but please feel free to research further to improve our entry. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, one entry mentioning that a distant nephew committed suicide is a striking example of Wikipedia HEAVILY PROMOTING suicide? Mentioning that a man committed suicide in the beginning of the article is striking example of Wikipedia HEAVILY PROMOTING suicide? How do those entries heavily sell people on the idea of committing suicide? As far as saying you could find more examples that could be used as an argument to defend anything. I think you will agree that many times the evolutionists say with more time spent evidence will likely show up. It is really not a compelling argument. I certainly expect better from you than I could find more evidence if I tried. Please instead of merely moving on to other articles please let us delete this entry if you are not going to adequately support it. I certainly don't expect you to drop everything and adequately support this entry. However, if you are not willing to support the entry then simply erase it. If you find time later to support it you can always put it back. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:13, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Andy, thank you for removing the word heavily in regards to "heavily promotes". I really am not trying to be difficult and given that a Conservapedia editor whom I respect is agreeing with me on this issue via private letter I don't believe I am acting out of line. With that being said PROMOTE is still a strong word. I realize it would be a lot of work to dig through the garbage dump of Wikipedia in order to find sufficient examples to demonstrate that there are indeed examples of Wikipedia PROMOTING suicide since promote is a strong word. And who really knows if there are any examples? I certainly don't but I would not be surprised if there were. However, I think your time could be better spent than digging through the garbage dump of Wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest you wait until Conservapedia gets larger and revisit the issue. You can then compare statistics and then reasonably make the claim that Wikipedia is inordinately preoccupied with the issue of suicide if their percentage of mentioning the word is much higher than ours. Fair enough? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:32, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
::::As per your suggestion I did a little digging at Wikipedia in regards to this matter and found some horrendous stuff. Andy, I put the following addition to the entry: (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more horrendous entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). I have no problem with the entry now with my reasonable addition and I think it will put more pressure on Wikipedia to change. And we have caused some change to Wikipedia. I will also work on expanding the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]] article I just created. I think this changes the dynamic. Before it appeared that we had a baseless claim. Now it appears as if Conservapedia is doing the right thing and doing it in a responsible manner.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:40, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
::Here is a better change to the entry as per some feedback: (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]])[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:47, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Andy I made a recent change not as a compromise with you but as a compromise with TK as I fully expect you to agree with the change I made. I made the change so it does not appear as if Conservapedia is making a baseless claim and it rightly puts more pressure on Wikipedia. And I have noticed that in one case of our criticism of Wikipedian on another issue it appears our pressure on Wikipedia has caused change. It also strongly affirms the sanctity of life. Here is my suggested changed: "[[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28math_prodigy%29&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide, citing an unpublished PhD thesis at an obscure university."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

*Conservative, why are you watering down Andy's language? Why are you seeking to curry favor with WP editors? Why do you continue to revert the Owners own edits? Why can't you use the email like other Sysops when you have doubts, or wish to make changes? What is your compulsion with altering ever post Andy makes to this section? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:24, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia does NOT describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." ==

Here is what our [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] article states: "Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, describes deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable."

With the above being stated it is clear that Wikipedia does '''NOT''' describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." like our article claims. The Wikipedia article in question is for an entry called '''"deceit(album)"''' that is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29 Here is what the article on "deceit (album)" actually states: "The '''Trouser Press Record Guide''' called the album "austere, brilliant and indescribable." So Wikipedia clearly said Trouser Press called the album in question "austere, brilliant, and indescribable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29] Wikipedia is different from Trouser Press. Trouser Press described the album as "austere, brilliant,, and indescribable." Wikipedia did not. Why do we have to have an unclear statement in our encyclopedia? Would Britannica (which I don't even consider to be a great encyclopedia) keep something like this in their encyclopedia that is unclear and not true. I don't think so. Why do people have to go to Wikipedia to see that Trouser Press describes the album this way?

It is my hope given that I showed conclusive proof that our entry is wrong and since the conservapedia commandments state that everything you post in a article must be verifiable and true that this sentence would be removed. Clearly, there is no reason to keep it as is. The statement is both unclear and untrue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I clarified my previous post. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::Uh, deception is the act of deceiving, and a search for deceit at wikipedia now redirects to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit deception], an article which has been around since 2002. This article does give a definition of what deceit is and gives examples of deceit in various circumstances. It seems that all along there has been a page covering deceit, and it was simply a mistake of an editor in redirecting the exact word to the wrong page. Furthermore, WP only says that deceit is an album in the same way someone could say that Evolution is a 2002 movie, and it is impossible for anyone looking for information on deceit to come across it, and even if they did there is now a link to the correct article at the top of the page. Hopefully this entry can be corrected [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:25, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Um, you describe a change in Wikipedia's redirect ''in reaction to the criticism raised here''. Before we raised the point, Wikipedia redirected "deceit" to a different term having a different meaning. Credit us for the change at Wikipedia, if you're going to be fair. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:25, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Still a couple of issues with the entry:

* The bit on deceit (album) doesn't demonstrate an example of bias, given that it is pretty much impossible for someone searching for the other definition of deceit to stumble across it (the only backlinks are from project or music related pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Deceit_%28album%29] and a search for deceit is a redirect). This entry is on par with saying WP has an article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28movie%29 Evolution (film)] which describes it as "reminiscent of Reitman's Ghostbusters" or an article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory_%28album%29 Conspiracy Theory (album)], which states it has sold 20,000 copies to date. Neither of these would have any bearing on critism of the Evolution or Conspiracy Theory articles on WP just the same as the article on the album deceit has no bearing on wikipedia's choice to redirect the word to a separate article
* To say wikipedia does not have an entry on the exact word "deceit" is the same as criticising conservapedia for not having an entry on [[deception]] (note the redirect to deceit). The two words are interchangable and have pretty much the same meaning (deception is the act of deceit)
* The redirect was changed 7 times in two days, however three of these were acts of vandalism and three more were reversions of this vandalism. Only one actually served to redirect the page to the correct site. Also, saying that it was done by a WP in response to CP's criticisms can give the image of lower standards on this site, because as clearly stated in #1 anyone can edit wikipedia, and CP editors could (if they wanted to) have changed the redirect to the proper word
* The first line of the WP entry states "Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not necessarily true". The first line of the CP entry states "Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another." Both of these provide a clear definition, it's just a question of whether one is biased or not
* Everyone is welcome to add to WP, if you don't feel that the entry on deceit contains enough examples then try adding some, just remember quality over quantity and that an encyclopedia article does not need every single case of deceit to explain it (it may contain a few examples to clarify the definition, and if necessary a historic recount of deception. The proper entry would be "List of Acts of Deceit")
[[User:EQ|EQ]] 00:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia encourages silly entries on obscure and [[liberal]] albums to build traffic. Yes, this does reflect its bias. Wikipedia encourages edits by anonymous IP addresses that lead to pervasive [[liberal]] vandalism. Yes, this does reflect bias. Wikipedia changed its redirect for [[deceit]] only after we complained here. Case closed.

: The excuses made for Wikipedia are getting tiresome, but have led to an addition of another point in [[liberal style]]: [[liberals]] don't believe in accountability. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:37, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:: With all due respect your post failed to address many of my points. In short:
::* A new entry should be created on "silly entries on obscure and liberal albums" and the deceit (album) moved to there, at the moment it does nothing to contribute where it is
::* WP does not have an entry on the deceit just as CP does not have an entry on deception. The two words are interchangable and mean pretty much the same thing
::* The article does have a clear definition, it should be more a question of whether this definition is biased or not
::* The article does not have many example as it is not a "List of acts of deception". Examples are used only to clarify the point, quality over quantity
:: Please do not mistake this for making excuses on WP's behalf, I am merely trying to clarify this entry on the list and prevent any accusations of bias again CP [[User:EQ|EQ]] 00:44, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:::*''WP entry states "Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not necessarily true".
:::*''CP entry states "Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another."
::::This is exactly the point. WP fails to highlight the moral aspects of deceit (or deception if you wish), or make a judgement worthy of condemnation. WP's entry on Murder for example says, "Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the '''elements of malice aforethought''''" CP's entry on deceit uses '''"deliberate."''' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: Rob is exactly right. Wikipedia conceals the intentional wrongdoing and immoral conduct at the center of [[deceit]]. Note also that Wikipedia changed its redirect for the term deceit in response to the criticism here in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia needs to change further its entry for deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::Is there some alternate wording (which you would allow me to insert to Wikipedia as GFDL) which might solve this problem? One major semantic problem I see with changing the current wording is that it is possible to deceive by accident without moral slight - the Wikipedia entry's alleged lack of morality is partly based on this. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 17:33, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:I agree that Wikipedia's definition of deception stinks. "not necessarily true"? Show me a dictionary or encyclopedia that states the "not necessarily true" idea associated with Wikipedia's lousy definition of deception. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

=="philanthropist"==
[[Image:Elizabethannduke.JPG|thumb|300px|right|A Wikipedia "philanthropist." [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/dt/duke_ea.htm]]]
Wikipedia calls terrorists "philanthropists." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Ann_Duke&diff=prev&oldid=83051994] This has been in there since the article was created in May 2006. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Ann_Duke&oldid=55173134]

:Uhm... Whats the point? She might have been an philanthropists allso. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:00, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
::Wouldn't "alleged philanthropist" be appropriate; after all, just cause the FBI calls someone a spy or terrorist doesn't mean they're a spy or terrorist. We all know how incompetent FBI field investigators are, and I know firsthand how you cannot cite the FBI verbatim in Wikipedia, even when the FBI declares it has verifiable facts. Wikipedia still requires "alleged to's" and "supposedly's". [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:15, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Im still not quite sure what you are after, is the problem that she is called allso an philanthropist or that she isn't called a terrorist, alltho the article lists half a page her crimes? If thats the case, I can't see whats the obsession for naming people terrorists, she might be just that, but everyone can see that by just looking what she is accused from. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:35, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: There is no support for the far-fetched claim that she is a "philanthropist". Without support for such an incredible claim, why is it there??? Well, obviously, there are political reasons for sugar-coating violent liberal extremism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
While the claim of her being an philanthropist could certainly use an citation, im not so sure if the reason for it being there is an communist conspiracy of first making her look good and then spending rest of the article listing her crimes, and uhm... Liberal extremism??? Mayby you are bit jumping to conclusions here... [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:53, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::The "May 19" group (so named for it being Mao's and Malcolm Little's birthday), advocated the violent overthrow of the United States. While she '''is''' a terrorist, she's a low key and minor one. More concerned with how to stay out of jail than with coming to power, she is by no means a philanthropist. [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 18:03, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:This is what appears to be the case: Duke cited somewhere her occupation as "philanthropist;" Duke was arrested & indicted on several conspiracy charges connected with terrorist attacks, one including a terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol building; Duke jumped bail; FBI issued a poster with all information gathered on her previous occupations, and cited her as "philanthropist" which as an "occupation" could only be traced back to herself as the source. Why Wikipedia would refer to her as a "philanthropist" is a mystery, but the theory Andy expressed carries some weight, given that [[Harry Dexter White]], a dead person who never stood trial, is referred to in both FBI reports and NSA documents as "KGB Agent Harry Dexter White;" nonetheless, I had much trouble even presenting just that evidence.
:John Wilkes Booth never stood trial; Lee Harvey Oswald never stood trial. Both are dead, and both have been determined to be guilty of the crime of murder by various U.S. Government Commissions. Wikipedia does not refer to Booth or Oswald as the "alleged assassin," yet with a mass of evidence of complicity in all sorts of criminal activity on the part of hundreds of radical/liberal/communist/leftwing/subversive/activists, Wikipedia adamantly disregards the FBI as a credible source for factual information. And when the FBI declares in its files it has known facts, WP Admins ''still'' require "alleged to's". The argument here is, without trial & conviction, you cannot declare someone as guilty. Really? Look at Wikipedia's entry on [[Alger Hiss]], even with trial and conviction, he's still not guilty. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:22, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:P.S. we got an entry on [[M19CO]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:22, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== liberals vs liberalism and creationist vs creationism - dictionaries verses encyclopedias ==

I do think that an encyclopedia should mention movements or systems of thought like liberalism, creationism, capitalism, and conservatism but encylopedias are not dictionaries and need not have entries on liberal or creationist or capitalist. So I removed the fact that Wikipedia does not have an entry on liberal which is an insignificant point and placed all the emphasis on the failings of Wikipedia's [[liberalism]] article. This way we go straight and forcibly to main issue and do not appear picayune to our readers. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Al Gore and Dick Cheney ==

Regarding the Al Gore and Dick Cheney entry, I'm not sure that this is a problem. While Wikipedia does not mention it in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore Al Gore] article, it is mentioned prominently in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_III Al Gore III article] (about the former vice-president's son), where it has two supporting references. I would also like to note that context is important for the "criticism" of Dick Cheney: I don't think the word "prominently" is quite accurate when it is mentioned in ''only one sentence in the 88 kB article'', and noted to have affected his views on same-sex marriage a sentence later. For reference, please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney the Wikipedia Dick Cheney article] and [http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/cheney.samesex/ the article cited for verifiability]. It seems to me that there isn't any particular correction to Wikipedia needed or particular bias displayed in this example, is there? I'd like to confirm that this is still a problem, because it would be nice to fix any potential problems in Wikipedia. :) [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 13:49, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

: We're not fooled by the [[placement bias]] that is pervasive on [[Wikipedia]]. The Wikipedia Al Gore entry is going to be visited far often, and perhaps 100 times more often, than the entry on Al Gore III. It's placement bias to bury the embarrassment in the obscure entry, and hide it from the main entry, when the Dick Cheney family matter is placed prominently in the very first substantive section in his entry. Maybe placement bias can fool users of Wikipedia. It doesn't fool us here. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I think it is a leap to connect his espoused views (those of a traditional conservative/states rightist), to any "issues" of sexuality. This is only done in furtherance of [[deceit]] IMO. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:57, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:::TK, I am basing the idea of his view being partly based on that on the CNN article that Wikipedia references, which (the CNN article) quotes Cheney as mentioning that "[he and his wife] have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that [their] family is very familiar with" when speaking about same-sex marriage. [http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/cheney.samesex/]. I'm not trying to deceive, I'm just repeating what I see from a reliable source. :)
:::Aschlafly, I don't think that there's a specific bias in placing Al Gore III's information on a page of its own, given that he is a separate person. It is justifiable on editorial grounds without any particular bias - Wikipedia and Conservapedia each value that articles remain on topic, and that wider topics are separated into multiple, linked articles. I can imagine a conservative editor separating the two, in the interests of succinctness in the Al Gore article, which could use some (neutral) editorial paring regardless. That being said, placement bias is possible, though I find it unlikely that liberals would try to smear Cheney by mentioning a fact that he acknowledges, when many liberals don't have a problem with homosexuality in the first place. ;) (for the record, I'm straight)
:::I'll stop arguing now - I don't want to be combative here, I merely want Wikipedia to be dealt with fairly, and arguing ad infinitum won't help. There's a Wikipedia guideline called "Assume good faith" that I wish were used for criticisms of Wikipedia here. I'll tell you if I can find reasonable justification for the resolution of other examples on this list. In such a good faith, [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 15:10, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

::Nihiltres, I'm not going to waste a lot of time debating this with you. Of course [[liberals]] use the sexuality of Cheney's daughter against him. [[John Edwards]] brought it up during his debate with Cheney. Do you think John Edwards did that to help Cheney??? Admit the obvious, or don't waste our time. Meanwhile, of course [[liberals]] want to downplay the crimes by Gore's kid. Admit that, or likewise don't waste our time. Wikipedia's very different treatment of those analogous issues obviously favors the [[liberal]] relative to the [[conservative]]. If you don't admit that, then debating this with you is futile. I'll move on. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:21, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I notice there's not a lot of discussion about [[Chelsea Clinton]], the progeny of the two most brilliant people to ever walk the planet who flunked her drivers test, walked out of college to start working at $100, 000 per year, and now has the independent, objective [[George Step-on-all-of-us]] pitching her boyfriends book. [http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070831.asp#3] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:41, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:::P.S. Coming soon to a theater near you: the truth about the [[Dick Cheney]]-[[Halliburton]]-[[Brown and Root]]-[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]-[[Lyndon Johnson]]-[[Bechtel Corporation]]-[[John F. Kennedy]]'s [[CIA]] Director [[John McCone]]- and [[KGB]] Agent-[[I.F. Stone]] connection. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:48, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

*Nihiltres, merely repeating gossipy junk, no matter the source, isn't any excuse. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia has been called by some the National Enquirer of the Internet? ==

Wikipedia has been called some the National Enquirer of the internet? Who is some? Please cite your sources! Please do not claim something without giving a source! It is better to not make a claim then make a unsourced claim! Who disagrees with me regarding the futility and undesirability of unsourced claims? I looked thoughout the article and could find no source for this claim. I could also find no source for this claim in the Wikipedia article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:28, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:Google says that it used by many people. See [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=%22National+Enquirer%22+Wikipedia] which gives many different commentators making the comparison. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 21:39, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

::CelebRookwood, you didn't give me a single citation showing that a reputable commentator called Wikipedia the National Enquirer of the internet but said here is Google go and find it. I don't appreciate your "Go fish" post. This article via its unsourced claims is making us look bad and Wikipedia look bad. There is simply no need for us to look bad via the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia article. It should be easy to make Wikipedia look bad without making us look bad if we only followed the Conservapedia commandments. The Conservapedia commandments state you must give your sources and everything must be true and verifiable. If it wasn't so irritating the irony of it would make me laugh about it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:45, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:::It didn't take me long to find an example: [http://conservativeeccentric.blogspot.com/2007/05/wussification-of-wikipedia.html]. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

*It is apparent some editors are more interested in removing anything and everything that even hints at denigrating Wikipedia. Under the guise of "protecting" CP's integrity, they seek to "soften" the points being made for fear of what? Taking a conservative POV, and calling a spade a spade? That reference to Wikipedia has been around since WP started, in blogs, newspaper and television, politicians and web masters. Headlines, for comparative lists, which is what "Examples" is, do not need sources. At least not in scholarly circles, for lists are not scholarly articles. At least this list is properly sourced, and comparisons provided. These constant nit-picks, liberal-like parsing of words (worthy of Bill Clinton!) and plaintive edit notes have become an embarrassment to read. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:00, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

::Andy, that doesn't compare Wikipedia to the National Enquirer in any way close to calling it the "National Enquirer of the Internet," nor is he a reputable commentator. He does say that it has too much gossip, but that's nothing close to your insult. In fact, out of the top 30 searches on Google Web, the only pages that talked about gossip on Wikipedia were ridiculing Conservapedia for including the accusation. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 22:05, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Andy, I sent you a private email regarding the anonymous Blogger.com essay. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:19, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Why it's so biased ==

The reason Wikipedia has poor quality is that it is the realization of an egalitarian ideal. But the writing of trustworthy, comprehensive articles on important matters of politics, history and science cannot be done by whatever random team of volunteers happens to show up.

Even the lofty ideals of the United Nations require men of good faith to carry out, and giving dictators the same "equal" vote as democracies means that the UN's dedication to human rights will always be vetoed by countries which have no respect for human rights. (Recall that the U.S. was voted off the human rights commission.)

The egalitarian ideal of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit any article, any time. This means that kids with too much time on their hands have equal say with college professors, historians and scientists who have devoted their professional lives to a subject. Responsible, authoritative, knowledgeable people are staying away from Wikipedia in droves, and will continue to do so as long as they have to spend more time defending their entries than writing them.

Wikipedia has no ethics, no dedication to anything - other than "openness", and as [[Allen Bloom]] proved, if you are open to anything you eventually wind up "closed" to all that is good and true. Wikipedia is doomed and will die an ugly death. We better get ready to fill the gap and take its place. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:08, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
:Does it really matter why it's so biased - the fact is, we think it's biased - any attempt to explain why is excessive - wouldn't all of this time spent here be so much more well-spent if it was used in the namespace.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:20, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Some editors are making unsourced claims and then we are trying to find sources which is backwards. ==

I do think that some editors are sometimes zealouslessly making claims and then we try to find sources to back them up as the "National Enquirer" claim shows. Clearly this is getting the cart before the horse. We should first do our homework and then make claims based on our research. If we did this we would not be using anonymous Blooger.com pieces. The conservapedia commandments say we must use reputable sources. Given that Blogger.com is free for anyone to use and you can create an article in 30 minutes this is not the source we should rely on regarding "some call Wikipedia the National Enquirer of the internet".

We should remove unsourced claims now and not wait untill sources can be found. If a unsourced claim is untrue there will be no sources for it. For example, to make a simple illustration if we say in the article that Fred Thompson was one of the founders of Wikipedia I could spend eternity looking for a source to confirm this unsourced claim but I will not find it. I will not find a source for that because Fred Thompson was never a founder of Wikipedia. Is my point clear here? That is why waiting until we get sources is so detrimental to the article. The article is fairly well sourced and there is only a small percentage that is unsourced and therefore suspect and/or errant. However, with that being said, I think it will damage our reputation needlessly if unsourced material that is errant is exposed. Why take unnecessary risk? It is much more prudent to rely on researched material rather than unsourced material. Sourcing is the beginning of other editors doing fact checking and is a very fundamental aspect of creating an accurate article. Solomon said a dead fly makes the perfume stink. This is exactly my point. Why let the unsourced statements that may later very well prove errant give a bad reputation for the rest of the article. I realize that because some things in a article are errant that does not necessarily mean that all the things are errant but nevertheless it is not a good strategy to purposefully leave unsourced claims in a important article. We can always put unsourced material back in the article after it has been sourced.

For example, entry #7 states that "the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a baseless newspaper claim from over 40 years ago that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS." Now do I trust the New York Times (NYT) reporters? No I do not. On the other hand, I think we should cite a article or articles that challenge that NYT newspaper claim if possible. If we can't find a source, then if possible we should at least cite portions of the article and assert why the article was baseless in regards to the claim regarding the leaders being members of the John Birch society. Now I am no fan of guilt by association. However, if Wikipedia states that Hitler was a member of the Nazi party we should not insist that is a baseless claim and insist that Hitler was not a member of the Nazi party and that Wikipedia is merely playing guilt by association since the Nazi party was depraved. I am not advocating guilt by association I am merely advocating if we say a claim is baseless that the some of the leaders were John Birch members then we should have the baselessness be true and verifiable. And again, I am not advocating guilt by association. I am merely advocating Conservapedia be true and verifiable. And if we cannot have a reasonably sourced claim then we should not make it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:11, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

*First, sorry for shortening your screaming headline. They are just do darn long!

Second, notice your name is not in this box: {{User CPLeader|[[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]}} 
 
We have heard what you think. Repeating it again, for the one hundredth time will not make anyone notice you more, or agree with you more or less. Please sit down now. Thank you. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:41, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

== National Enquirer revisited ==

Okay, there still isn't a source that says that Wikipedia is "The National Enquirer of the Internet." I took a look on Google and didn't see that quote applied to Wikipedia, reputable source or otherwise. Big-A, are you still going to defend use of that phrase on this article? It doesn't help Conservapedia's reputation to have an uncited claim on this article. Thank you, [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:00, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:The phrase has to come from somewhere, invented by someone. If Wikipedia editors behave as though they're writing articles for the ''National Enquirer'' and the other supermarket tabliods, then yes someone is going to call that site "the ''National Enquirer'' of the internet". If we see the similarites, then we're going to call it exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. I've added another citation for the comparison of Wikipedia to the National Enquirer, as examples can be easily found on the internet. In addition, many editors here feel likewise, so there is no disputing the truth of the statement about some making the comparison.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:31, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::: But no one ever said that it was "The National Enquirer of the Internet." They're just agreeing on something everyone should already know: Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. By the way, check the sources for your six-times-as-liberal example. Apparently the conservative quotient on Wikipedia is infinite. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 15:26, 18 September 2007 (EDT)