Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Genius bias

2008-02-08T18:42:51Z

RWest:

I'm confused by "more qualified." What exactly does this mean? {{unsigned|Americanscientist}}

: "More qualified" is a clear term. Do you have access to a dictionary? A scientist with 2 PhD's like [[Richard Sternberg]] is "more qualified" than one without any PhD's, like most evolution promoters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:25, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:: And a scientist with one PhD relevant to the subject is "more qualified" than one with two unrelated ones. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:44, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::: True, but what does that have to do with this discussion? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:55, 26 January 2008 (EST)

You're just replacing their genius bias with your own. Richard Dawkins has been a leader in the field of biology for over 30 years, since ''The Selfish Gene'' was published I can't find more than a couple publications by Jonathan Wells. You're trying to replace someone with decades of respected scholarship who happens to believe differently from you with someone with practically no academic notoriety who happens to agree with you. I don't know why you think that fighting bias with blatant bias is going to solve anything. I think liberal bias is bad enough, but you can't fight fire with flamethrowers. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 13:42, 8 February 2008 (EST)

== New bias? ==
Mr. Schlafly, Is this a term that you coined? Never heard of it before and google search does not come out with any thing significant. Can we also please coin new terms and introduce them via the encyclopedia?
--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 12:49, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:See [[Conservapedia terms]] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:26, 6 January 2008 (EST)
::It's still a recently coined phrase coined by someone at Conservapedia. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 13:42, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Bill Kristol

2008-02-08T18:29:01Z

RWest:

[[Image:675987.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''William Kristol''' (born December 23, 1952, in New York City) is the son of [[Irving Kristol]] and [[Gertrude Himmelfarb]]. He is a [[neoconservatism|neoconservative]] commentator and author, co-founder and editor of ''The [[Weekly Standard]]'', and chairman of the [[Project For New American Century]]. He also appears regularly on [[Fox News]] as a political analyst. William Kristol is married to Susan Scheinberg and has 3 children. He is currently a visiting professor at [[Harvard University]].

==Education==
William Kristol received his B.A. from Harvard College in 1973 and his Ph.D. in government from Harvard in 1979. Then for several years he served as a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

==Writings==
On December 28, 2007, Kristol was hired by ''[[New York Times|The New York Times]]'' as a weekly columnist, to begin on January 7, 2008.

==Books==
*''The War Over Iraq: America's Mission and Saddam's Tyranny'' (co-author)

==References==
http://www.weeklystandard.com/aboutus/bio_kristol.asp

[[Category:Journalists]]
[[Category:authors]]
[[category:political scientists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kristol, William}}

Hollywood values

2008-02-08T16:18:46Z

RWest:

The phrase '''Hollywood values''' refers to the perception of a lack of prescriptive [[Conservative]] [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture, which are characterized by rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, [[disease]] and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has dimished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

Hollywood values can include a ''disrespect'' for:

* [[marriage]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]

[[Political correctness]], at least publicly, is a central part of Hollywood values.

Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref>
*Heath Ledger, 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
* [[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
* River Phoenix, 23, a huge star until he died from an overdose cocaine and heroin.
* Brad Renfro, 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking.
* [[Kurt Cobain]], 27, "turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide.
* John Belushi, 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin.
* Sid Vicious, 21, overdosed on heroin obtained from his mother.
* [[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
* [[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, drank wine, took sleeping pills, and asphyxiated on his own vomit.
* [[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills
* Janis Joplin, 27, heroin overdose
* Lenny Bruce, 40, heroin overdose
* Chris Farley, 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
* Brian Epstein, 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
* [[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
* [[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia
* John Bonham,32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
* Margaux Hemingway, 42, suicide

Hollywood values often include stealing and committing other crimes. Here are some examples:

* Winona Ryder was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/</ref>
* [[Mel Gibson]] hurled [[Anti-Semitism|Antisemitic]] abuse at police officers after being arrested for drink-driving on a notoriously dangerous road.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:entertainment]]

Talk:Homosexual Agenda

2007-11-13T17:32:50Z

RWest:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

Scalia mentioned that in a dissenting opinion, which isn't binding law. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 00:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== WOV's got a point ==

Not only that, but this entire article is biased tripe. It presents the "homosexual agenda" from a one-sided perspective, and is filled with hate commentary. '''I recommend the entire thing for deletion.'''

Scalia's remark is regretful and a blemish on the pages of the U.S. Reporter, up there with Scott v. Sanford. But let's not expand it still further.

I have cleaned up biased and vitriolic language as best as I can, but this entry deserves deletion.

Seconded. If this is a homosexual agenda, then what homosexual wrote it? This is nothing but political game-playing: Identify a group as ''The Enemy'' and then brand them haters and abusers of family, children, and country. It makes dehumanising them so much easier. - Suricou

: I didn't see anything "hateful" in it. The Scalia reference was not intended to be about what is binding law, obviously. There was nothing binding about his phrase. I'll note that it was in dissent.

: The edits to this article were completely inappropriate, turning it into a liberal puff piece. Wikipedia exists for that. Actually, your edits made this even more liberal than Wikipedia's article on the same topic!

: The hour is very late and I need to lock this page to guard against vandalism or conversion to a liberal message. I can unlock tomorrow. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Presenting both points doesn't make it a liberal puff piece! It presented only one perspective (Focus on the Family), and referred to the Shepard incident as OVERBLOWN. That's awful!! I consider my entry a moderate tack, but if you can think of an acceptable compromise that preserves an unbiased perspective, be my guest. It shocks me to see you go against your own commandments, though, about not including bias, and not importing a political perspective. I have tried to, and continue to try to, do the same.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Instead of the http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm cite you may want to use this one [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm] This cite goes straight (NPI) to a section of the book ''After the Ball''. -)[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks. Will do tomorrow. Goodnight, Cracker!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I would definitely change the "promote homosexuality in schools" to "promote acceptance of homosexuality in schools". Definitely sounds like they're trying to make me gay. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with the comments of [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] and [[User:Splark|Splark]]. The idea that one's ideological opponents have a specific "agenda" is an all-too common one, but such agendas are more often touted by those who oppose than by those who support a group. That a Supreme Court Justice referred to it, or that it's in some leaflet somewhere, isn't substantive evidence that it exists.. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't those five points of the "homosexual agenda" linked to more of a strategy than an "agenda"? And, aren't they the standard strategy for all interest groups? 1. Talk about your issue. 2. Show your group is harmed unless you get what you want. 3. Provide facts so people can justify agreeing with you. 4. Portray yourself and your point of view as right and moral. 5. Portray your opponents and their point of view as wrong and immoral. 6. Get corporate or other financial support. Every group and lobbying organization does that, and I don't know that singling out gays and the gay rights movement as doing that is really informative.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 11:23, 15 March 2007 (ED

I will go on the record and say that yes, there is a homosexual agenda. As a homosexual myself, I'm pretty much in the middle of it. All we want is to be treated the same as any other tax-paying American. If my partner is injured, I would like to be able to have the same visitation and decision-making power as a husband/wife would. I would like to be able to transfer property when I die without having to jump through a million legal hoops. Many people claim that we want "special" rights. We really don't. We just want to be treated the same as everyone else.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:01, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

I think this page is extremely biased. It presents only one side of the issue and is locked to prevent the other side from responding. Proof of a bias of another kind here.
-Gasmonkey

== Eliminate this Hate ==

The aforementioned article makes me shake with fear as I think that people will actually be exposed to this. Present both sides of the issue fairly. I agree with Gasmonkey that this entire article should be deleted. Moreover, this entire web site should be deleted. It claims to be an informative, "Christian" site that in fact promotes hate and spews false information across our nation.

:Teaching God's word that homosexuals are sinful and militant is not hate speech, but free speech. God's teachings of homosexuality indicate that throughout history, homosexuals have continuously been savage aggressors -- with an agenda. The story of Sodom is particularly informative. It described the homosexual agenda of the ancient city of sodom in 1898 B.C. as forcible homosexual assault and enslavement by the homosexual inhabitants of the city to any men who visited the city. If you believe the bible is hate, then you can head over to Wikipedia and read the alternate viewpoint there. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 02:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::"The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 326 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals--He just thinks they need more supervision"--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 02:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but you are flat wrong. There are over 30 admonishments against homosexuality in the Bible. God specifically states he hates homosexuals and has given them up as servants of the devil. There are 132 passages in the bible where specifcally states he HATES either a person or group of people. God does not love everyone, and he says as much in his word. I know you have heard this soul destroying lie from many people claiming to teach God's word. It simply is not true. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 12:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Exactly ''where'' does God say that he hates homosexuals? He refers to it as 'abomination' in Leviticus...but then again, the Bible also uses the same term to refer to the eating of shellfish.--[[User:M|M]] 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2: Leveticus 19:17-18. Whether God hates people or not, He has commanded us to not. You mentioned "over 30 admonishments against homosexuality". Passages, please. [[User:Ilikepie|Ilikepie]] 18:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, can I just point out, (as a happily married, middle aged heterosexual), there is nothing in the Bible which proscribes female homosexuality. Aren't lesbians homosexuals too? KT

:Some would reply with Romans 1, but not me. (BTW, you can sign with the sig button next to the SLASHED W above or simply four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 21:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You are a piece of work. I am sorry you are so angry about the world you live in. But you certainly make one thing easy: if there is an afterlife and you are the type of person who is going to be occupying heaven, I'd much rather burn in eternal hell with my incredibly wonderful gay friends.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 13:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What would you know Jack? With one up the transom and another one in the gob, it's hard to hear you. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:14, 21 March 2007 (PST).

::::You know, that's funny...I'm bi, and I've never been involved in intercourse with more than one person. Fancy that. --[[User:M|M]] 09:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Everything you post must be true and verifiable ==

This entry violates the first (and perhaps most important) Conservapedia commandment. There is no homosexual "agenda" -- no "they" who "wrote a book", no 10-point plan. It's the same kind of paranoid nonsense that's in the articles here on Joseph McCarthy and Alger Hiss (WP has far more accurate articles on both subjects, with the one on Hiss very clearly identifying areas of controversy), with conspiracy-theorist types quoting and sourcing one another. I propose this entire article for immediate deletion. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 10:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. The "Homosexual agenda" is no more factual than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Delete, or recreate as an article about the popular (?) but false belief in this "agenda." [[User:Pkoad|Pkoad]] 00:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It refers to the [[gay rights]] activism, which may be a [[grassroots]] movement but which has multiple goals which are easily identified. The Liberal POV that such goals are non-existent is a kind of denialism.

:It will be good for the article to discuss this denial, in conjunction with [[gay rights]] critics who oppose the points which the denialists says no one advances. (Not worded right, but I think you get the gist.) See you all tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::There's no more gay agenda other than there was a "black agenda" before ''Brown'' came down. The gay agenda is equal treatment. Oh no, quick, ma, shut the doors! Equality's a-comin'!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]

:::I'd say "keep it" so the world can really see how these strange nutkins think. But in the interest of humanity, decency, and honesty, it is a pack of paranoid, politico-religious agenda lies. Really, really strange nutjob lies. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Opposing Christian Agenda ==

I can't work out what the point of the "Opposing Christian Agenda" section is. The sentences don't make sense, and the referenced page does not mention homosexuality or gay. I propose the section be deleted by someone with the privilege to edit the article. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Improvements ==

Shouldn't ''Gayness'' in part 1. of the agenda be ''Gaiety''?
The term ''[[homosexual protectors]]'' in part three surely merits its own article. Is this the same as ''[[Homosexualist]]s''? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:11, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any attempt to trivialize or confuse the issue will be frowned upon here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We should delete the cite at the bottom saying that homosexuality caused Nazism. That's a truly disturbing allegation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Especially considering that the Nazis actually murdered thousands of homosexuals during World War II.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

'''
I believe langauge needs to be corrected in the the first bullet of the list of homosexual goals. It currently states "Censoring sections of the bible condemning homosexuality." The source cited is an article about an offensive tee shirt being censored not the bible its self. There needs to be eaither a new source about Homosexuals attempting to change the bible or the wording must be changed to "preventing materials that denounce homosexuality from being displayed publicly."

Reference number "8" rrefers back to the Conservapedia site. In order to maintain integrity it must refer to an ouside source if one is not provided the reference and quote should be deleted. Currently it is a logical fallacy and is not up to encyclopedic standards. Someone not dyslexic (i.e. somone who isn't me.) should get on that.

== Very Informative ==
'''

Excellent portrayal of the truth. This is a nice breather from the left-wing saturated wikipedia.com. If you agree with the article, you should check out the highly accurate article on homophobia. Everyone knows that the creation of homophobia is a foundation of the gay agenda.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia

Wikipedia is subject to open edits that don't reqier an account. Are you suggesting that the monitors of wikipedia aka "everyone who can type" has a liberal bias?

== Is this real? ==

This article seems like a parody. I can't believe that... oh yeah, I'm at conservapedia. I can believe anything. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

As well as the mysterious reference to a "leading book in the homosexual movement", it refers to a book claiming that the Nazi Party supported homosexuality. Clearly this has to be satirical. Either that, or someone has a serious case of paranoia - all the sources, as well as being of dubious credabililty, point towards independent events but the whole point of the page is to talk about a shadowy conspiricy - a 'Secret Society' of homosexuals trying to gayify the world. I suggest deleting the whole page - and if it reappears in a similar form, delete and protect. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

== Agendas ==
So since there are so many references on this wiki to the "homosexual agenda" can we also cite the "Conservative Agenda" or "Republican Agenda" or "Christian Agenda"? {{unsigned|prof0705}}
:I don't see why not, as long as they sourced and reasonably recognizable as phrases in common use. In fact, here, I would expect an article on [[conservative agenda]] to be very good. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

This article violates the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion).
#It claims to quote Focus on the Family for the definition of The Homosexual Agenda without giving a specific reference, and FotF is only claimed to be quoting "a leading book in the homosexual movement" without even bothering to name the book or its author.
#The two bulleted points in "The Goals" (about 8-year-old boys and 12-to-14 year olds) are stating as fact the opinion of Craig Osten, a vice president at the Alliance Defense Fund.
#Several of the other references to that section are either citing journalist's or lawyer's opinions, not facts or any quote from the people who are alleged to hold the agenda under discussion.

I am prohibited from editing the page but I suggest that the Agenda is moved to the top, and the original source for it cited, rather than a vague second-hand reference. The judge's quote should then be indented as a block quote so it is more clearly identifiable as quoting the judge. The Goals and Opposing Christian Agenda should be cleaned up and cite proper sources not opinions, or be more clearly marked as only opinions of people who oppose the Homosexual Agenda. If Conservapedia could handle it, even a quote from someone who supports it would be good. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 06:06, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:[[Conservapedia:Commandments]] (number 2: cite sources and 5: personal opinion) is superceded by [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks]]:
::''Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.''
:Note: ''Their <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop|sysops]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed'', which means if a sysop has decided it is so it is so. If you continue to argue you may get blocked.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 07:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

What about Hot man on man/woman on woman action? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuals were pretty in favor of that.

== Is this really as big as people make it out to be? ==
While I personally do not like anyone being too open about their personal lives, especially concerning anything to do with sex, still when I hear about a "Homosexual Agenda" I can only think of another fear that other people once tried to infect people with: it was called "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." I think some of you may understand my point... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Please remove the reference to Scott Lively's propaganda book==
This is propaganda. It seems you don't allow neutrality here. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 21:51, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Hey, now... ==
I'm LGBT and I'm certainly not aware of any sort of "agenda" being discussed. Perhaps this is just a typical case of right-wing paranoia? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:07, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==What the hell?==

The “homosexuality agenda" was created by Focus on the Family, which you say later in the article, ACTIVELY OPPOSES homosexuality. You wouldn’t let me post Jon Stewart quotes on the Bush page, so why is this kind of crap aloud here? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

This is exactly the sort of thing that inspires violence against homosexuals. Be more neutral.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 12:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck pal, I've been saying that for months. And watch your language, they'll ban you for that here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 12:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

== Anti gay ==

This artical is disgustinly homophobic. Homophobia is a deasies, and you need to stop spreading these horrible mind-boggling lies. The gay Agenda was created by focus on the familiy as a way to spread propaganda, and you are helping them achive [[New World Order|there goals]] CarlB 15:26, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==Politics and science==

Dr. Ronald Bayer, writing in Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis said the APA decision was a political one, not a scientific one: "The result [of the APA removal of homosexuality from the DSM] was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf]
==Liberal Deceit==
I suggest we change the category from Deceit to Liberal Deceit because liberals universally support the gay agenda. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
*Good idea! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:08, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

==Sources?==

Are there any sources besides those accusing the gay agenda? There's no evidence of any organized "agenda", and all of the goals and such are provided by those opposing it. Best case, this is an article about a pundit talking point, and worst case it's a conspiracy theory masked as an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't it at least mention that there has never been any evidence of even a mildly organized or centralized gay agenda? The fact that it's permanently locked further undermines CP credibility. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 12:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)

School

2007-10-22T20:47:56Z

RWest:

A '''school''' is an educational institution. Schools can be either publicly- or privately-owned, funded by public or private sources or a combination of both, and may have a secular or a religious mandate.

The increasingly popular alternative to school is [[homeschooling]].<ref>[http://nces.ed.gov/nhes/homeschool/ 1.1 Million Homeschooled Students in the United States in 2003], Nation Institute for Education Statistics</ref>

== Types of schools ==

Terms used to describe schools vary from place to place. Some of the following descriptions overlap with each other.

=== State school ===

A '''state school''' is one that is owned and funded by the state.

In the United States, government-controlled schools are supported by taxpayers, often in the form of a school tax on property. Prior to the 20th century, school attendance was only part-time, consuming only about half or less of the year.

In some states of [[Australia]], although the curriculum is secular, religious education by volunteers associated with the Council for Christian Education is permitted. This takes place in class time, but parents can choose that their children not attend this class.

In [[Norway]] there are virtually no schools other than government schools.<ref>[http://www.rhpeo.org/ijhp-articles/1998/15/1.htm Case Studies On Health Promotion Initiatives From The Nordic Countries]</ref>

=== Private school ===

A '''private school''' is one that is owned by some body other than the state. Private schools are generally funded by fees levied on the parents of the students, which usually means that the parents are paying twice, once in direct fees, and once in taxes for state schools.

In Australia, the Federal government provides some funding to private schools, although the parents of the students provide most of the income of the school.

Some private schools aspire to very high standards, some specialize in certain modes and topics of instruction (such as a military school), and yet others provide a place for children who need curricula not available in the state systems.

=== Public school ===

In America, a '''public school''' is a ''state school''. In some Commonwealth countries, a '''public school''' is a church-run (i.e. run by a church denomination) school that is open to the general public.

In America, the curriculum in public schools is dictated by state governments and increasingly by the federal government under the "No Child Left Behind" legislation. Federal courts generally prohibit any type of prayer led by school officials, and even forbid the display and teaching of the [[Ten Commandments]].

Compulsory 5-days a week, nearly 8-hours a day attendance at public school only began nationwide in the [[United States]] during the 20th century. Compulsory schooling laws were not universal throughout the [[United States]] until 1917, and even then the school year was often less than a half year.<ref>http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kellmeyer/050428</ref> There have been few, if any, long-term studies on the effects of the modern approach of full-time attendance at school from age 6 and younger to age 21 and older.

=== Faith school ===

A '''faith school''' in the [[United Kingdom]] is partially controlled by religious groups and have a predominance of pupils from that religious group. The government funds or partially funds faith schools.

=== Parent-controlled schools ===

'''Parent-controlled schools''' (in Australia) are private schools usually owned by churches, but with control being in the hands of a parent-appointed board.

=== Church schools ===

'''Church schools''' (in Australia) are the older denominationally-owned and run public schools which generally provide a secular education.

=== Christian schools, Muslim schools, etc. ===

What are known as ''Faith schools'' in the United Kingdom are known as '''Christian schools''', '''Catholic schools''', or similar in Australia.

== Alternatives ==

For most parents, [[homeschooling]] is the primary alternative education to schools. Increasing numbers of parents choose homeschooling due to a declining quality and culture in traditional schools and their hostility to religion and morality.<ref>Mankins, Dave, [http://park.org/Guests/Educate/HTALK/faq.htm Home Education Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)]</ref>

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

==See also==
*[[Homeschooling]]

[[Category:Education]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-11T19:08:11Z

RWest:

{{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)

==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)

== 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)

== 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)

Media Matters for America

2007-10-11T18:56:05Z

RWest:

'''Media Matters for America''' is an organization with members in major media outlets which aims to highlight what it considers conservative misinformation in mass media organizations. Primarily, they target prominent conservative public figures, although Democrats and nonpersonalities are frequently criticized as well. They were instrumental in lobbying for the firing of [[Don Imus]] <ref>[http://www.aim.org/special_report/5390_0_8_0_C/ How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus], Cliff Kincaid, April 17, 2007. </ref>, whom they considered a moderate who endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004.<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/17/video-tammy-bruce-exposes-far-left-outlets-hit-list-on-everyone-to-their-right/ Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right,] ''FOX News'', April 17, 2007.</ref>

Media Matters since 2004 has monitored conservative media and attacked high-profile conservatives with provocative language and out-of-context [[quote mining]]. It is headed by [[David Brock]], a former conservative who claims he made up stories about such people as [[Anita Hill]], who charged Supreme Court Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] with sexual harassment during Thomas’s confirmation hearings. Brock developed a relationship in the 1990s with then-First Lady [[Hillary Clinton]]'s press aide, [[Neel Lattimore]], and came out of the closet, announcing he was a [[homosexual]] and joining the [[liberal]] cause. Brock later hired Lattimore at Media Matters as director of "special projects."

Brock is a self-proclaimed fabricator of lies who strong-armed sources that didn’t agree with him. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20711 Media Matters: Defaming Journalists, Getting Sued], by Catherine Moy, ''Human Events'', 05/15/2007. </ref> While writing ''Blinded by the Right'' <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_23_119/ai_94639741/pg_1 Slime-master: inside the `vast right-wing conspiracy' - Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative] - Book Review, Christian Century, Nov 6, 2002 by Gary Dorrien.</ref>, Brock was hospitalized in a mental facility where he spent time in a "quiet room" and "had delusions, he thought people were trying to kill him," according to the Drudge Report. <ref>Moy, ''Human Events''. </ref>

Brock outlined his lies and conversion to liberalism in his 2002 book, ''Blinded By The Right.'' He launched Media Matters in 2004 after conferring with [[Hillary Clinton]].

“David Brock has invented a new form of political organization: a tax-exempt group that is subsidized by taxpayers while Brock gets to spew his hate/smears,” said Anthony “Andy” Martin, a journalist suing Brock & Media Matters for defamation.

[[Jamison Foser]] is described on the Media Matters website as having "served as Research Director at the [[Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee]] (DCCC) for the 2002 cycle" and is one of several staffers with connections to the faction of Democratic Party linked to the Clintons.

Glenn Thrush of ''Newsday'' has reported very close ties between Brock and the [[Hillary Clinton]] campaign, noting that Hillary "advised Brock" on creating his organization. He added, "For her part, Clinton's extended family of contributors, consultants and friends has played a pivotal role in helping Media Matters grow from a $3.5 million start-up in 2004 to its current $8.5 million budget." <ref>[http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5541_0_4_0_C/ AIM Report: Hillary's Hit Man Strikes Again], Accuracy in Media, June 19, 2007.</ref> While speaking at a [[Daily Kos]] event; Hillary bragged about her role in "institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."<ref>"[http://newsbusters.org/node/16046/print Hillary Clinton Told YearlyKos Convention She Helped Start Media Matters]" News Busters, October 1st, 2007</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.mediamatters.org Media Matters For America Website ]
*Media Matters for America [http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=justgive&npoId=100304160 Financial Data] Retrieved from Guidstar, the registered trademark and operating name of Philanthropic Research, Inc.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/06/AR2005080600848_pf.html Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks], By Thomas B. Edsall, ''Washington Post'', August 7, 2005.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15409&p=1 The Shadow Party: Part II Continued ], By David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', October 7, 2004.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19564 David Brock: Media Liar], By Jacob Laksin, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', September 21, 2005.
*[http://www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/bparks061507.htm Misleading Matters], by Bob Parks, ''TheRealityCheck.org'', retrieved 15/06/07.

[[category:liberal activists]]

Media Matters for America

2007-10-11T18:55:14Z

RWest:

'''Media Matters for America''' is an organization with members in major media outlets which aims to highlight what it considers conservative misinformation in mass media organizations. Primarily, they target prominent conservative public figures, although Democrats and nonpersonalities are frequently criticized as well. They were instrumental in lobbying for the firing of [[Don Imus]] <ref>[http://www.aim.org/special_report/5390_0_8_0_C/ How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus], Cliff Kincaid, April 17, 2007. </ref>, whom they considered a moderate who endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004.<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/17/video-tammy-bruce-exposes-far-left-outlets-hit-list-on-everyone-to-their-right/ Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right,] ''FOX News'', April 17, 2007.</ref>

Media Matters since 2004 has monitored conservative media and attacked high-profile conservatives with provocative language and out-of-context [[quote mining]]. It is headed by [[David Brock]], a former conservative who claims he made up stories about such people as [[Anita Hill]], who charged Supreme Court Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] with sexual harassment during Thomas’s confirmation hearings. Brock developed a relationship in the 1990s with then-First Lady [[Hillary Clinton]]'s press aide, [[Neel Lattimore]], and came out of the closet, announcing he was a [[homosexual]] and joining the [[liberal]] cause. Brock later hired Lattimore at Media Matters as director of "special projects."

Brock is a self-proclaimed fabricator of lies who strong-armed sources that didn’t agree with him. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20711 Media Matters: Defaming Journalists, Getting Sued], by Catherine Moy, ''Human Events'', 05/15/2007. </ref> While writing ''Blinded by the Right'' <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_23_119/ai_94639741/pg_1 Slime-master: inside the `vast right-wing conspiracy' - Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative] - Book Review, Christian Century, Nov 6, 2002 by Gary Dorrien.</ref>, Brock was hospitalized in a mental facility where he spent time in a "quiet room" and "had delusions, he thought people were trying to kill him," according to the Drudge Report. <ref>Moy, ''Human Events''. </ref>

Brock outlined his lies and conversion to liberalism in his 2002 book, ''Blinded By The Right.'' He launched Media Matters in 2004 after conferring with [[Hillary Clinton]].

“David Brock has invented a new form of political organization: a tax-exempt group that is subsidized by taxpayers while Brock gets to spew his hate/smears,” said Anthony “Andy” Martin, a journalist suing Brock & Media Matters for defamation.

[[Jamison Foser]] is described on the Media Matters website as having "served as Research Director at the [[Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee]] (DCCC) for the 2002 cycle" and is one of several staffers with connections to the faction of Democratic Party linked to the Clintons.

Glenn Thrush of ''Newsday'' has reported very close ties between Brock and the [[Hillary Clinton]] campaign, noting that Hillary "advised Brock" on creating his organization. He added, "For her part, Clinton's extended family of contributors, consultants and friends has played a pivotal role in helping Media Matters grow from a $3.5 million start-up in 2004 to its current $8.5 million budget." <ref>[http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5541_0_4_0_C/ AIM Report: Hillary's Hit Man Strikes Again], Accuracy in Media, June 19, 2007.</ref> While speaking at a [[Daily Kos]] event; Hillary bragged about her role in "institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."<ref>"[http://newsbusters.org/node/16046/print Hillary Clinton Told YearlyKos Convention She Helped Start Media Matters]" News Busters, October 1st, 2007</ref>

For 2005 Media Matters of America showed assets of $6,344,165 and income of $8,489,663. The group has received money from extreme liberals like [[George Soros]], who help fund the group's smear campaign.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.mediamatters.org Media Matters For America Website ]
*Media Matters for America [http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=justgive&npoId=100304160 Financial Data] Retrieved from Guidstar, the registered trademark and operating name of Philanthropic Research, Inc.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/06/AR2005080600848_pf.html Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks], By Thomas B. Edsall, ''Washington Post'', August 7, 2005.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15409&p=1 The Shadow Party: Part II Continued ], By David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', October 7, 2004.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19564 David Brock: Media Liar], By Jacob Laksin, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', September 21, 2005.
*[http://www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/bparks061507.htm Misleading Matters], by Bob Parks, ''TheRealityCheck.org'', retrieved 15/06/07.

[[category:liberal activists]]

Media Matters for America

2007-10-11T18:52:25Z

RWest:

'''Media Matters for America''' is an organization with members in major media outlets which aims to highlight what it considers conservative misinformation in mass media organizations. Primarily, they target prominent conservative public figures, although Democrats and nonpersonalities are frequently criticized as well. They were instrumental in lobbying for the firing of [[Don Imus]] <ref>[http://www.aim.org/special_report/5390_0_8_0_C/ How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus], Cliff Kincaid, April 17, 2007. </ref>, whom they considered a moderate who endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004.<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/17/video-tammy-bruce-exposes-far-left-outlets-hit-list-on-everyone-to-their-right/ Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right,] ''FOX News'', April 17, 2007.</ref>

Media Matters since 2004 has monitored conservative media and attacked high-profile conservatives with provocative language and out-of-context [[quote mining]]. It is headed by [[David Brock]], a former conservative who claims he made up stories about such people as [[Anita Hill]], who charged Supreme Court Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] with sexual harassment during Thomas’s confirmation hearings. Brock developed a relationship in the 1990s with then-First Lady [[Hillary Clinton]]'s press aide, [[Neel Lattimore]], and came out of the closet, announcing he was a [[homosexual]] and joining the [[liberal]] cause. Brock later hired Lattimore at Media Matters as director of "special projects."

Brock is a self-proclaimed fabricator of lies who strong-armed sources that didn’t agree with him. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20711 Media Matters: Defaming Journalists, Getting Sued], by Catherine Moy, ''Human Events'', 05/15/2007. </ref> While writing ''Blinded by the Right'' <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_23_119/ai_94639741/pg_1 Slime-master: inside the `vast right-wing conspiracy' - Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative] - Book Review, Christian Century, Nov 6, 2002 by Gary Dorrien.</ref>, Brock was hospitalized in a mental facility where he spent time in a "quiet room" and "had delusions, he thought people were trying to kill him," according to the Drudge Report. <ref>Moy, ''Human Events''. </ref>

Brock outlined his lies and conversion to liberalism in his 2002 book, ''Blinded By The Right.'' He launched Media Matters in 2004 after conferring with [[Hillary Clinton]].

“David Brock has invented a new form of political organization: a tax-exempt group that is subsidized by taxpayers while Brock gets to spew his hate/smears,” said Anthony “Andy” Martin, a journalist suing Brock & Media Matters for defamation.

[[Jamison Foser]] is described on the Media Matters website as having "served as Research Director at the [[Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee]] (DCCC) for the 2002 cycle" and is one of several staffers with connections to the faction of Democratic Party linked to the Clintons.

Glenn Thrush of ''Newsday'' has reported very close ties between Brock and the [[Hillary Clinton machine]], even noting that Hillary "advised Brock" on creating his organization. He added, "For her part, Clinton's extended family of contributors, consultants and friends has played a pivotal role in helping Media Matters grow from a $3.5 million start-up in 2004 to its current $8.5 million budget." <ref>[http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5541_0_4_0_C/ AIM Report: Hillary's Hit Man Strikes Again], Accuracy in Media, June 19, 2007.</ref> While speaking at a [[Daily Kos]] event; Hillary bragged about her role in "institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."<ref>"[http://newsbusters.org/node/16046/print Hillary Clinton Told YearlyKos Convention She Helped Start Media Matters]" News Busters, October 1st, 2007</ref>

For 2005 Media Matters of America showed assets of $6,344,165 and income of $8,489,663. The group has received money from extreme liberals like [[George Soros]], who help fund the group's smear campaign.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.mediamatters.org Media Matters For America Website ]
*Media Matters for America [http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=justgive&npoId=100304160 Financial Data] Retrieved from Guidstar, the registered trademark and operating name of Philanthropic Research, Inc.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/06/AR2005080600848_pf.html Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks], By Thomas B. Edsall, ''Washington Post'', August 7, 2005.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15409&p=1 The Shadow Party: Part II Continued ], By David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', October 7, 2004.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19564 David Brock: Media Liar], By Jacob Laksin, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', September 21, 2005.
*[http://www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/bparks061507.htm Misleading Matters], by Bob Parks, ''TheRealityCheck.org'', retrieved 15/06/07.

[[category:liberal activists]]

Debate:Is Conservapedia neutral or onesided?

2007-10-05T14:27:22Z

RWest:

{{debate}}
== Conservapedia is neutral ==

== Conservapedia is one-sided ==
Conservapedia is necessarily one-sided. That side is the early 21st century American socially and politically conservative, predominately White and Christian side. The tone is unyielding toward these values, which is why Conservapedia repels users from other perspectives. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 10:27, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Politically correct

2007-08-22T20:33:22Z

RWest:

'''Politically correct language''' consists of linguistic restrictions imposed by authorities or pressure groups. The most common motive is enforce the worldview or sensibilities of these groups while preventing expression of any competing ideas or attitudes. The Nazis and Communists were the first to do this in modern times in the West, but the Japanese had their "[[thought police]]" too. George Orwell's ''1984'' famously incorporated the notion of limiting thought through langauge (see [[Newspeak]]).

In the U.S., some radicals advanced the notion that certain words communicated stereotypes which unjustifiably demeaned or excluded certain kinds of people. In the 1960s, feminists began to demand that the neutral pronouns ''he'', ''him'' and ''his'' be replaced with expressions like "he or she", "him or her", "them", etc. This was part of their campaign to redefine the social roles traditionally associated with masculinity and femininity.

Other groups jumped on the political correctness bandwagon, with handicapped people dodging the kindly meant slogan, "Hire the handicapped", and insisting that their condition was not abnormal. Rather, they were to be called, "differently abled".

'''Political correctness''' or '''P.C.''' eventually came to refer to the alteration of ones choice of words in order to avoid either offending a group of people or reinforcing a stereotype considered to be disadvantageous to the group. More specifically, groups which (or whose putative "leaders" or other activists) claim some status as systemically oppressed or discriminated against will periodically attempt to change the terms by which they are referred to and demand that society as a whole change its usage of words as well. Although traditionally associated with the liberals and the political left, Political Correctness has been challenged by libertarian comedian Bill Mahr, by left wing comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and by some noted liberals such as Nat Hentoff, Richard Lamm, and the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

==Examples==

An example of political correctness is the changing terminology used to described handicapped people. In the past the term "crippled" was perfectly acceptable and not considered offensive. At some point, somebody decided "crippled" was degrading and the preferred term changed to "handicapped". This, too, was eventually deemed offensive and "disabled" became the preferred term. Today, "disabled" is now considered degrading and "differently abled" and "physically challenged" are now the politically correct terms. The same can be said for the changing uses of terms for Black Americans: "Negro" and "colored", once perfectly acceptable terms, were declared degrading and offensive by some activists during the 1970s and "Afro-American" and "Black" came into use, which in turn gave way to "[[African Americans|African-American]]", and in broader usage, "people of color".

The distinction for example between "colored people" (1950s-60s usage) and "people of color" (today) is an important one which illustrates the basis of political correctness.

The question of politically correct language has spilled over from the use of racially descriptive words and affected the use of traditional language. In 1999, an aide to the mayor of Washington DC described a budget decision as "niggardly" (a word unrelated to the racial slur meaning "stingy"). The aide immediately came under criticism and was forced to resigned even though he had not said anything racially charged, though his name was cleared within a matter of days and was offered to return to his previous position. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm</ref>

As well as language, political correctness discourages the use of racial or stereotypes in fiction out of concern that these stereotypes may become self-perpetuating. For example, frequently seeing the image black gang-members decked out in gold chains, carrying guns and listening to rap may pressure young black people into seeing this lifestyle as the most 'acceptable' choice for their racial group. The common image of women-only occupations (nurses, secretaries, care workers, etc) and of men-only occupations (IT workers, military, machinery operators, etc) can discourage individuals of either gender from considering those occupations traditionally belonging to the other. Additionally films like "The Siege" and "True Lies" have been criticized by pro-Islamic groups as having Muslims portrayed as terrorists, despite the fact that most current terrorists are in fact Muslims. Thus political correctness becomes the consideration of all public statements and media for their unintentional social impact.

==Differing Opinions==

Demands for politically correct language usage are rooted in the notion widely promoted among left-wing academics and sociologists that Western culture promotes systemic oppression against some groups by marginalizing them and excluding them from the "norm"; the groups thus supposedly systemically marginalized are referred to as "the Other" by these left-wing academics.{{fact}} The implication is that these groups are systemically excluded from the mainstream. "Colored people" is therefore deemed offensive because the order of words puts "colored" first, emphasizing their difference from the mainstream, while "people of color" is acceptable because putting the term "people" first emphasizes that they are people and thus does not emphasize their difference from the "norm".

Some people allege that instead of encouraging supposedly marginalized groups to integrate with and assimilate into the mainstream of Western culture, political correctness ironically encourages them to emphasize and indeed to wallow in their marginalization from society, and to make a public display of such. This is known as [[identity politics]]. According to this view, gays and lesbians are therefore encouraged to label themselves as "queer" and make public displays of "queerness" calculated to disturb the sensibilities of mainstream people, rather than integrate into the mainstream themselves;{{fact}} Black Americans are encouraged to adopt [[Afrocentrism]] and convert to [[Islam]] or to conform to stereotypical black behavior, etc.{{fact}}

==The Language Police==
Conservative scholar [[Robert Bork]] has charged that the educational system is a battleground where the future of America is being undermined and ill-served. He has counseled against the troubles which will ensue as a result of anti-religious policies in the schools, permissive attitudes toward homosexuality and abortion, as well as welfare policies that have destroyed families since [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]'s War on Poverty. <ref> Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. by Robert Bork published by Harper Collins (c) 1997</ref>

In her book "[[The Language Police]]", [[Diane Ravitch]] documents just how easy it is to get a word, phrase or idea banned from modern textbooks and references. Textbook producers are beholden to small non-elected educational boards in a few key states such as New York or California. Few citizens know anything about these boards or who holds the seats of power on these boards. It's not a difficult for an interest group to mobilize a campaign to bombard the educational board. Meanwhile, the public is not even aware that their words or values are under attack.

Then, once a big state makes a textbook purchase, it's very difficult for a small state or any municipality to make any changes. Thus, profound changes can be inserted into textbooks and reference books by putting pressure on a handful of educational administrators. The work of textbook selection committee's is done privately, to avoid politicizing textbooks, but the reverse has happened. It's easier to pressure a lawmaker who is not beholden to community standards, but instead is enamored with political correctness. <ref>The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Children Learn by [[Diane Ravitch]] (c) 2003 published by Knopf</ref> Ravitch has documented "''bias guidelines''" for major publishers of texts and tests. These "guidelines" consist of advice to writers and editors about words and topics that must be avoided.<ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003695</ref>

==Totalitarianism and Political Correctness==

The comprehensive and detailed control of all ideas, beliefs, and statements is one of the most problematic features of [[totalitarian]] regimes.[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3816(196002)22%3A1%3C68%3ATIAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W] This could be viewed as an argument for or against the politically correct use of language, depending on one's perspective.

==Notes==

<references/>

==See also==
* [[Postmodernism]] 
==External Links==
*[http://www.capc.co.uk The Campaign Against Political Correctness]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=8olE_futZogC&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=communist+%22socially+correct%22&source=web&ots=DYD85Lsf1G&sig=pkoUxDOLFJZsme40QO13zakFZw4 The Chinese Have A Word For It]

[[Category:Politics]]

Politically correct

2007-08-22T20:24:30Z

RWest:

'''Politically correct language''' consists of linguistic restrictions imposed by authorities or pressure groups. The most common motive is enforce the worldview or sensibilities of these groups while preventing expression of any competing ideas or attitudes. The Nazis and Communists were the first to do this in modern times in the West, but the Japanese had their "[[thought police]]" too. George Orwell's ''1984'' famously incorporated the notion of limiting thought through langauge (see [[Newspeak]]).

In the U.S., some radicals advanced the notion that certain words communicated stereotypes which unjustifiably demeaned or excluded certain kinds of people. In the 1960s, feminists began to demand that the neutral pronouns ''he'', ''him'' and ''his'' be replaced with expressions like "he or she", "him or her", "them", etc. This was part of their campaign to redefine the social roles traditionally associated with masculinity and femininity.

Other groups jumped on the political correctness bandwagon, with handicapped people dodging the kindly meant slogan, "Hire the handicapped", and insisting that their condition was not abnormal. Rather, they were to be called, "differently abled".

'''Political correctness''' or '''P.C.''' eventually came to refer to the alteration of ones choice of words in order to avoid either offending a group of people or reinforcing a stereotype considered to be disadvantageous to the group. More specifically, groups which (or whose putative "leaders" or other activists) claim some status as systemically oppressed or discriminated against will periodically attempt to change the terms by which they are referred to and demand that society as a whole change its usage of words as well. Although traditionally associated with the liberals and the political left, Political Correctness has been challenged by libertarian comedian Bill Mahr, by left wing comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and by some noted liberals such as Nat Hentoff, Richard Lamm, and the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

==Examples==

An example of political correctness is the changing terminology used to described handicapped people. In the past the term "crippled" was perfectly acceptable and not considered offensive. At some point, somebody decided "crippled" was degrading and the preferred term changed to "handicapped". This, too, was eventually deemed offensive and "disabled" became the preferred term. Today, "disabled" is now considered degrading and "differently abled" and "physically challenged" are now the politically correct terms. The same can be said for the changing uses of terms for Black Americans: "Negro" and "colored", once perfectly acceptable terms, were declared degrading and offensive by some activists during the 1970s and "Afro-American" and "Black" came into use, which in turn gave way to "[[African Americans|African-American]]", and in broader usage, "people of color".

The distinction for example between "colored people" (1950s-60s usage) and "people of color" (today) is an important one which illustrates the basis of political correctness.

The question of politically correct language has spilled over from the use of racially descriptive words and affected the use of traditional language. In 1999, an aide to the mayor of Washington DC described a budget decision as "niggardly" (a word unrelated to the racial slur meaning "stingy"). The aide immediately came under criticism and was forced to resigned even though he had not said anything racially charged, though he was exonerated and reinstated very quickly.

As well as language, political correctness discourages the use of racial or stereotypes in fiction out of concern that these stereotypes may become self-perpetuating. For example, frequently seeing the image black gang-members decked out in gold chains, carrying guns and listening to rap may pressure young black people into seeing this lifestyle as the most 'acceptable' choice for their racial group. The common image of women-only occupations (nurses, secretaries, care workers, etc) and of men-only occupations (IT workers, military, machinery operators, etc) can discourage individuals of either gender from considering those occupations traditionally belonging to the other. Additionally films like "The Siege" and "True Lies" have been criticized by pro-Islamic groups as having Muslims portrayed as terrorists, despite the fact that most current terrorists are in fact Muslims. Thus political correctness becomes the consideration of all public statements and media for their unintentional social impact.

==Differing Opinions==

Demands for politically correct language usage are rooted in the notion widely promoted among left-wing academics and sociologists that Western culture promotes systemic oppression against some groups by marginalizing them and excluding them from the "norm"; the groups thus supposedly systemically marginalized are referred to as "the Other" by these left-wing academics.{{fact}} The implication is that these groups are systemically excluded from the mainstream. "Colored people" is therefore deemed offensive because the order of words puts "colored" first, emphasizing their difference from the mainstream, while "people of color" is acceptable because putting the term "people" first emphasizes that they are people and thus does not emphasize their difference from the "norm".

Some people allege that instead of encouraging supposedly marginalized groups to integrate with and assimilate into the mainstream of Western culture, political correctness ironically encourages them to emphasize and indeed to wallow in their marginalization from society, and to make a public display of such. This is known as [[identity politics]]. According to this view, gays and lesbians are therefore encouraged to label themselves as "queer" and make public displays of "queerness" calculated to disturb the sensibilities of mainstream people, rather than integrate into the mainstream themselves;{{fact}} Black Americans are encouraged to adopt [[Afrocentrism]] and convert to [[Islam]] or to conform to stereotypical black behavior, etc.{{fact}}

==The Language Police==
Conservative scholar [[Robert Bork]] has charged that the educational system is a battleground where the future of America is being undermined and ill-served. He has counseled against the troubles which will ensue as a result of anti-religious policies in the schools, permissive attitudes toward homosexuality and abortion, as well as welfare policies that have destroyed families since [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]'s War on Poverty. <ref> Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. by Robert Bork published by Harper Collins (c) 1997</ref>

In her book "[[The Language Police]]", [[Diane Ravitch]] documents just how easy it is to get a word, phrase or idea banned from modern textbooks and references. Textbook producers are beholden to small non-elected educational boards in a few key states such as New York or California. Few citizens know anything about these boards or who holds the seats of power on these boards. It's not a difficult for an interest group to mobilize a campaign to bombard the educational board. Meanwhile, the public is not even aware that their words or values are under attack.

Then, once a big state makes a textbook purchase, it's very difficult for a small state or any municipality to make any changes. Thus, profound changes can be inserted into textbooks and reference books by putting pressure on a handful of educational administrators. The work of textbook selection committee's is done privately, to avoid politicizing textbooks, but the reverse has happened. It's easier to pressure a lawmaker who is not beholden to community standards, but instead is enamored with political correctness. <ref>The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Children Learn by [[Diane Ravitch]] (c) 2003 published by Knopf</ref> Ravitch has documented "''bias guidelines''" for major publishers of texts and tests. These "guidelines" consist of advice to writers and editors about words and topics that must be avoided.<ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003695</ref>

==Totalitarianism and Political Correctness==

The comprehensive and detailed control of all ideas, beliefs, and statements is one of the most problematic features of [[totalitarian]] regimes.[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3816(196002)22%3A1%3C68%3ATIAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W] This could be viewed as an argument for or against the politically correct use of language, depending on one's perspective.

==Notes==

<references/>

==See also==
* [[Postmodernism]] 
==External Links==
*[http://www.capc.co.uk The Campaign Against Political Correctness]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=8olE_futZogC&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=communist+%22socially+correct%22&source=web&ots=DYD85Lsf1G&sig=pkoUxDOLFJZsme40QO13zakFZw4 The Chinese Have A Word For It]

[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:NewsBusters

2007-08-17T15:21:54Z

RWest:

There's more quote than content in this article. Can whoever cites it five times a day on the main page update this article? I don't know much about the site, and honestly it doesn't look that relevant. It's not very productive to get outraged at every minute non-conservative viewpoint expressed in the general media. It's worse than the outrage-itis that has typified liberals and Democrats throught the Bush administration. --[[User:RWest|RWest]] 15:34 15 August 2007
:What do you mean "it doesn't look that relevant"? This is a conservative site and NewsBusters is constantly reporting liberal bias, hypocrisy, etc. NewsBusters seems totally relevant to me. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:05, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
::It is conservative, which makes it somewhat relevant, but not every conservative site is productive or encyclopedia-worthy. At least half of the articles show liberal bias in editorials and openly liberal blogs which have no obligation to neutrality. Many of the stories don't even relate to politics, but to global warming which some conservatives have claimed as a political issue. I just think its a shame that Conservapedia cites so many bloggers and pundits for its news stories. But that's neither here nor there, I just want someone to fix this article. I would if I knew more about the website or thought it was more useful. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 11:21 17 August 2007

Jenna Bush

2007-08-16T19:30:02Z

RWest:

'''Jenna Bush''' is the daughter of President [[George W. Bush]].

{{DEFAULTSORT: Bush, Jenna}}
[[category:biographies]]

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2007-08-16T18:19:08Z

RWest:

[[Image:56eugyjnm.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[White House]], the official home and workplace of the [[President of the United States]] of America.]] The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially begins on January 14, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and (as of March 16, 2007) ends on March 4, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle has seen a major shift to the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref>

==First election without incumbents since 1928==
The President of the United States often runs for reelection. If not, the Vice-President of the United States runs after he leaves office. 2008 will mark the first time since the 1928 election in which there is neither an incumbent president nor an incumbent vice-president running for his party's presidential nomination and thus not running in the presidential election. In the Presidential contest in 1952, the race was between Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower and Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson. Vice President Alben Barkley sought but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Current Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] has repeatedly stated he will not run for President. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," Cheney said on Fox News Sunday.

== Battleground States ==
The United States has become so regionally polarized that even though the 2004 presidential election was close nationwide, only nine states had outcomes having less than 4% margin between the candidates:

State, margin of victory, party that won the state in 2004

#Wisconsin, 0.38% (Dem)
#Iowa, 0.67% (Repub)
#New Mexico, 0.79% (Repub)
#New Hampshire, 1.37% (Dem)
#Ohio, 2.11% (Repub)
#Pennsylvania, 2.50% (Dem)
#Nevada, 2.59% (Repub)
#Michigan, 3.42% (Dem)
#Minnesota, 3.48% (Dem)

== Republican Strategy ==
The Republican presidential nominee must win Wisconsin or Minnesota, and hold Iowa. The outcome in New Mexico, which has only 5 electoral votes, is irrelevant. Minnesota's margin of victory for the Democrats in 2004 probably places it out of reach for Republicans in 2008.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Republican nominee must win Wisconsin and hold Iowa in order to win the general election.

===Declared Republican Party Candidates===
Senator [[Sam Brownback]], [[Kansas]]

[[John H. Cox]]

Former Governor [[Jim Gilmore]], [[Virginia]], withdrew July 14, 2007.

Former Mayor [[Rudy Giuliani|Rudolph Giuliani]], [[New York City]]

Former Governor [[Mike Huckabee]], [[Arkansas]]

Representative [[Duncan Hunter]], [[California]] 52nd

Senator [[John McCain]], [[Arizona]]

Representative [[Ron Paul]], [[Texas]] 14th

Former Governor [[Mitt Romney]], [[Massachusetts]]

[[Michael Charles Smith]]

Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], [[Colorado]] 6th

Former Representative and HS Secretary [[Tommy Thompson]], withdrew

===Republican Party Members with Presidential Exploratory Committees===
Former Senator [[Fred Thompson]], [[Tennessee]]

== Democratic Strategy ==
Evaluating the race in terms of the [[Electoral College]] forces caution upon the Democrats. Between the [[United States presidential election, 2000]] and the [[United States Presidential election, 2004]], only three states budged from one party to the other: New Mexico (from Democratic to Republican), Iowa (from Democratic to Republican) and New Hampshire (from Republican to Democratic). The American people would seem to be not only strongly divided, but in the vast majority of states, faithful over a period of years to their chosen parties. Not even the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] could persuade the people of New York to vote Republican, for example, and it is highly unlikely that the depopulation of [[New Orleans]] will be considered a good reason for the majority of voters in Louisiana to become Democrats. The phrase [[Second Coming Republicans]] (or Democrats) takes on new meaning in light of the relative lack of party-switching in response to these events.

Had all three of the above [[swing states]] voted Democratic in 2000, and everything else remained the same, [[Al Gore]] would have become President in 2001, so this is the result Democrats should especially aim for. This does not necessarily mean they can let their guard down in the states that voted their way in both of the last two elections -- particularly if the Republicans nominate [[Rudy Giuliani]], [[Mitt Romney]], or another candidate associated with one of those states.

Strategy for Democrats is a hot topic for debate among members of that party and independent [[pundits]]. [[Daily Kos]] can occasionally provide arguments on the strategy that should be pursued by Democrats, although most posts there are simply rants against the Republicans or Democrats deemed insufficiently [[liberal]], which led [[Barack Obama]] to say in 2006 that he found the site "predictable." A majority of Democrats are confident that the declining popularity of [[President]] [[George W. Bush]] and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008, to the extent it may even be their race to lose.

Evaluating the race by historic analogy, the last Senator elected President and the last Northern Democrat elected President were the same person: [[John F. Kennedy]], in the [[United States presidential election, 1960]]. If this pattern continues to hold true this cycle, the candidate best positioned this year is [[Bill Richardson]], who is cast somewhat against type as a member of the [[National Rifle Association]] and also has the distinction of being from one of the three [[swing states]] cited above. In strong second place would probably be [[John Edwards]], but it needs to be said that the Democrat who can carry Edwards' home state of [[North Carolina]] in a Presidential election probably hasn't been born yet. [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] was the last person to do so, just after writing off most of the South for the Democratic Party by passing the [[1964 Civil Rights Act]]. Still, the Democrats, as pointed out above, feel for the most part that this is their race to lose and may "let it all hang out" in the belief that any of their first-tier candidates (though probably not Gravel or Kucinich) will handily defeat a [[generic]] Republican candidate.

===Declared Democratic Party Candidates===
Senator [[Joseph Biden]], [[Delaware]]

Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], [[New York]]

Senator [[Chris Dodd]], [[Connecticut]]

Former Senator [[John Edwards]], [[North Carolina]]

Former Senator [[Mike Gravel]], [[Alaska]]

Representative [[Dennis Kucinich]], [[Ohio]] 10th

Senator [[Barack Obama]], [[Illinois]]

Governor [[Bill Richardson]], [[New Mexico]]

=== Possible Democratic Party Candidates ===
VP Al Gore, [[Tennessee]]

==Third parties==
New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] has been frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007. If he runs, he could put in over one billion dollars of his own money into the race.

==Opinion polling==
A big concern in the Hillary Clinton camp is whether or not she is electable. An Electability Poll in which the participants are asked in no certain order, a list of candidates from both parties, whether they would vote for candidate X or prefer someone else. Recent polling has revealed, of all major presidential candidates from both parties, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom a majority of 52% would not vote for, or would prefer someone else. <ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx Poll: Is Hillary Electable?], by Mark Murray, ''NBC News'', June 28, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 29, 2007.</ref>

The poll results show majorities would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Electability Poll
|''Who would you vote for, the candidate or somebody else?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 64% - 36%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 62% - 38%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 61% - 39%
|-
| Barak Obama
| 60% - 40%
|-
| John Edwards
| 59% - 41%
|-
| John McCain
| 58% - 42%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 56% - 44%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 54% - 46%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 48% - 52%
|}

The poll also revealed that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom more voters view her unfavorably than favorably. 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while a larger number of 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Favorability Poll
|''Do you view the candidate favorably or unfavorably?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 43% - 17%
|-
| Barak Obama
| 36% - 21%
|-
| John McCain
| 33% - 28%
|-
| John Edwards
| 32% - 28%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 25% - 12%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 24% - 20%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 21% - 20%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 20% - 18%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 19% - 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 16% - 12%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39% - 42%
|}

The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:NewsBusters

2007-08-15T19:14:55Z

RWest: New page: There's more quote than content in this article. Can whoever cites it five times a day on the main page update this article? I don't know much about the site, and honestly it doesn't loo...

NewsBusters

2007-08-15T19:04:07Z

RWest:

'''NewsBusters.org''' is a [[media]]-focused [[blog]]. Its motto is "''Exposing and Combating [[MSM|Liberal Media Bias]]''". In August 2005, the [[Media Research Center]] (MRC) "''launched the the NewsBusters [[blog]] to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting''".

NewsBusters.org is "''a project of the MRC, the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias''". <ref> [http://newsbusters.org/node/91 About NewsBusters.org]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
http://newsbusters.org/ Official Website

[[category:conservative media]]
[[category:websites]]

Hate speech

2007-08-06T13:58:49Z

RWest:

'''Hate speech''' is widely defined as defamatory speech based solely on the victim's identity in a group. These groups can include gender, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, age, disability status, or any other. Under some legal codes, hate speech can be considered a [[hate crime]].

Under a new Swedish law, any person who demonstrates disrespect (Swedish: “missaktning”) for people’s sexual orientation may be sentenced up to four years in prison. Needless to say, although the Bible is clear about God’s love to fallen mankind and that “God so loved the world….” there are many passages in the Bible that warns about sodomy and its dangers to both individuals and to society at large. Those passages – although expressing disrespect for the depraved act of sodomy - may erroneously be interpreted by some people to express disrespect for the people who engage in such activity. Or as the the Kalmar Court verdict against Pastor Green reads: “It is the opinion of this Court that Åke Green, through his statements, has deeply offended the homosexuals as a group and the purpose of his sermon was clearly aimed at showing disrespect for the homosexuals as a group.” [http://www.akegreen.org/]

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
*[[Hate crime]]

[[category:politics]]

Operation Eagle Claw

2007-07-30T18:36:37Z

RWest: Moved first sentence, as it was not an appropriate first sentence

Due to the criticism Carter received for ignoring the safety of American citizens, he finally ordered a small-scale rescue mission on April 24, 1980, after 173 days of captivity. [[Operation Eagle Claw]], as it was codenamed, was a total and complete failure due to poor leadership and management.<ref>The mission was overly complex and lacked an overarching organizational structure to assume command and control of operational forces. These factors, coupled with a lack of planning and other operational mishaps encountered during the deployment phase, led to the mission being aborted at the initial landing site that was designated as “DESERT ONE.” [http://www.apc.maxwell.af.mil/text/excur/eagle.htm The Air & Space Power course] - U.S. Military</ref>

There is some speculation that since in late April 1980, President [[Jimmy Carter]] was losing ground to challenger [[Ted Kennedy]] in a close primary for the Democratic nomination for president. Carter's main weakness was the ongoing [[Iran Hostage Crisis]], and Operation Eagle Claw was an attempt to free (or at least appear to try to free)those hostages.<ref>http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:67hJq9Z_RBUJ:sobek.colorado.edu/~isaacson/Research_files/Isaacson-%2520National%2520Interest%2520vs.%2520Re-election.pdf+%22Ted+Kennedy%22+%22Jimmy+Carter%22+%22Operation+Eagle+Claw%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us</ref>

:The impetus for the rescue mission was not, as Carter had often claimed it would be, that the lives of the hostages were in immediate danger; in fact, Carter and all of his advisers believed that the hostages would be kept alive and unharmed for at least three months, as indicated by the memo above. Again, on April 23rd, only hours before the rescue mission was to commence, Carter received a last-minute intelligence report which Carter states in his memoirs that the heart of the memo was that "there was little prospect of the hostages' release within the next five or six months" (Carter 1982, pg. 513). Why was this time frame of five to six months so important to Carter? It is at least interesting to note that at the time of Carter’s decision, the November election was just over six months away.

Eight U.S. helicopters were deployed in the Iranian desert before heading to Tehran. Despite requests from the mission commander, no spare helicopters were permitted, even though the commander warned that losing more than two helicopters would doom the mission.

Due to flying too low, sand caused equipment failure in two of the helicopters, so the rescue mission was called off before it was even really started. When the Americans began retreating, a helicopter crashed, killing eight American servicemen. The bodies were recovered by Iranian forces, and used in a street demonstration protesting the “invasion.” Khomeini credited the “victory” to the divine intervention of [[Allah]] on his behalf. This increased Khomeini’s ever-growing support from the Iranian public.

*... the helicopter pilots were told to fly at or below 200 feet to avoid radar. This limitation caused them to run into a haboob, or dust storm, that they could not fly over without breaking the 200 foot limit. Two helicopters lost sight of the task force and landed, out of action. [http://www.specwarnet.net/miscinfo/eagleclaw.htm]

A second rescue attempt was conceived but not implemented.

An analysis published by Maxwell Air Force Base said:

:In 1980, President Carter authorized OPERATION EAGLE CLAW, a joint military service operation, to rescue hostages at the American embassy in Iran. The plan called for resources from all four services, including Air Force C-130 and C-141 aircraft, Navy helicopters, and Army Delta Force Rangers. The mission was overly complex and lacked an overarching organizational structure to assume command and control of operational forces. These factors, coupled with a lack of planning and other operational mishaps encountered during the employment phase, led to the mission being aborted at the initial landing site that was designated as “DESERT ONE.” The Air Force was doctrinally unprepared to enter into the complicated joint and conventional operations posed by OPERATION EAGLE CLAW. The failed operation raised serious doubts regarding the ability of the Air Force and the other services to effectively integrate as a joint team. [http://www.apc.maxwell.af.mil/text/excur/eagle.htm]

Delta Force commander Col. Charles Beckwith said:

:"...the assault plan was sketchy. Its chances for success were very slender indeed. The basic scenario looked very complicated. It also revealed that at this time the Armed Forces of the United States had neither the present resources nor the present capabilities to pull it off. [http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2002/Vol28_2/5.htm]

A naval combat officer in the RSN said that the
rescue plan was [[complex]] and [[tightly-coupled]] task, i.e., "an accident waiting to happen" [http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2002/Vol28_2/5.htm]

Veteran Navy SEAL [["Demo Dick" Marcinko]] lambasted the Carter Pentagon for poor planning and micromanagement and suffered a whistleblower's penalty.

==External links==
*[http://www.helis.com/featured/eagle_claw.php Operation Eagle Claw] - most detailed account
*[http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2002/Vol28_2/5.htm Operation Eagle Claw, 1980: A Case Study In Crisis Management and Military Planning]
by LTA Chua Lu Fong

==Notes==
<references/>

Talk:Operation Eagle Claw

2007-07-30T18:30:49Z

RWest:

I couldn't locate my copy of ''Rogue Warrior'' in time, but I recall that Marcinko's main criticism of the operation was not the planning or the resources but "[[command and control]]".

IIRC, he said that the Pentagon micromanaged the mission by remote control from a room in Washington, D.C., instead of letting the commander on the ground operate autonomously. This factor alone would doom the mission.

The decision to require the helicopters to fly close to the ground to avoid radar was okay, in itself, but there was no flexibility in it. When a sandstorm occurred, the local commander had no right to make a decision about maybe increasing the altitude of the helicopters and risk radar detection. He might have decided to take a chance: "They don't have good radar under 3,000 feet and they don't expect us anyway, so the heck with it! We're going in!"

Self-confidence is a key motivating and energizing factor in commando operations. Making your own decisions and seeing the successful results is the top confidence builder, and being micromanaged from afar is the top confidence destroyer. Having to relay simple (but crucial) decisions to some [[REMF]] overseas doomed the mission. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the rationale for this very strong statement about Carter's motives really based on the speculation of a Master's student in a paper written for a class? This is '''far''' from an authoritative reference, and should certainly not be the basis for most of the article. - [[User:RWest]] 14:29, 30 July 2007

Social Darwinism

2007-07-27T20:35:08Z

RWest: Cleanup of racism paragraph

Beginning in 1887, social scientists were using the term '''Social Darwinism''' to describe the application of the survival-of-the-fittest theory to social situations, although the concepts arose in the work of [[Thomas Malthus]] and [[Herbert Spencer]] before Darwin published [[The Origin of Species]] in 1859. Under this theory, the wealthiest or most powerful in society must be biologically superior, and less "fit" persons should die, i.e. "Survival of the Fittest".

Charles Darwin himself felt that social instincts such as sympathy and moral sentiments had also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies, and that all races and nations deserved sympathy.<ref> Darwin, Charles "The Descent of Man" </ref> In fact, scientists and commentators have noted as much recently.<ref> NY Times, "Sociable Darwinism," http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/books/review/Angier.t.html</ref>

Some people began to apply the concept of survival of the fittest (a term which Darwin never used) to the racial struggles and wars that have always beset mankind. The horrific wars of the 20th century, employing shockingly brutal tactics, were encouraged by a belief in survival-of-the-fittest among humans.[Citation needed] While social Darwinism itself was applied to social and economic situations rather than military ones, it is easy to see how extreme versions of social Darwinism could justify physical struggles among races.

Some socialists attacked [[capitalist economics,]] especially [[laissez-faire]] [[economics]], by equating it to social Darwinism. The grounds for this view were that the premise of social Darwinism rests on competition for scarce goods, and that one interpretation of capitalist economics involves a sink or swim attitude towards economic activity.

However, [[Ludwig von Mises]], an advocate of laissez-faire, argued in his book ''Human Action'' that social Darwinism contradicts the principles of [[liberalism]].

The social ramifications of his Theory led Darwin to racist claims. In ''The Descent of Man'' he predicted that the gap between humans and lower species would widen through the extinction of "evolutionary intermediates" such as gorillas and Negros. He declared that ''"the break will then be rendered wider, for it it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as at present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."'' <ref>'''''The Descent of Man,''''' Charles Darwin, 1871, p. 201</ref> In this sense, he too was subject to the contemporary misunderstanding of the nature of the human species.

== Social Darwinism ==

In the late 1800s and early 1900s in the [[United States]], social Darwinism had a cruel and barbaric effect on attitudes towards the mentally disabled or feebleminded, as admitted by leading [[liberal]] [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justices:<ref>''City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.'', 473 U.S. 432, 461-63 (1985)(Marshall, J., dissenting, joined by Brennan and Blackmun, JJ.)</ref>

:Fueled by the rising tide of Social Darwinism, the "science" of eugenics, and the extreme xenophobia of those years,<ref>On the role of these ideologies in this era, see K. Stampp, Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877, pp. 18-22 (1965).</ref> leading medical authorities and others began to portray the "feebleminded" as a "menace to society and civilization . . . responsible in a large degree for many, if not all, of our social problems."<ref>H. Goddard, The Possibilities of Research as Applied to the Prevention of Feeblemindedness, Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction 307 (1915), cited in A. Deutsch, The Mentally Ill in America 360 (2d ed. 1949). See also Fernald, The Burden of Feeblemindedness, 17 J. Psycho-Asthenics 87, 90 (1913) (the retarded "cause unutterable sorrow at home and are a menace and danger to the community"); Terman, Feeble-Minded Children in the Public Schools of California, 5 Schools & Society 161 (1917) ("[Only] recently have we begun to recognize how serious a menace [feeblemindedness] is to the social, economic and moral welfare of the state . . . . [It] is responsible . . . for the majority of cases of chronic and semi-chronic pauperism, and for much of our alcoholism, prostitution, and venereal diseases"). Books with titles such as "The Menace of the Feeble Minded in Connecticut" (1915), issued by the Connecticut School for Imbeciles, became commonplace. See C. Frazier, (Chairman, Executive Committee of Public Charities Assn. of Pennsylvania), The Menace of the Feeble-Minded In Pennsylvania (1913); W. Fernald, The Burden of Feeble-Mindedness (1912) (Mass.); Juvenile Protection Association of Cincinnati, The Feeble-Minded, Or the Hub to Our Wheel of Vice (1915) (Ohio). The resemblance to such works as R. Shufeldt, The Negro: A Menace to American Civilization (1907), is striking, and not coincidental.</ref> A regime of state-mandated segregation and degradation soon emerged that in its virulence and bigotry rivaled, and indeed paralleled, the worst excesses of Jim Crow. Massive custodial institutions were built to warehouse the retarded for life; the aim was to halt reproduction of the retarded and "nearly extinguish their race."<ref>A. Moore, The Feeble-Minded in New York 3 (1911). This book was sponsored by the State Charities Aid Association. See also P. Tyor & L. Bell, Caring for the Retarded in America 71-104 (1984). The segregationist purpose of these laws was clear. See, e. g., Act of Mar. 22, 1915, ch. 90, 1915 Tex. Gen. Laws 143 (repealed 1955) (Act designed to relieve society of "the heavy economic and moral losses arising from the existence at large of these unfortunate persons").</ref> Retarded children were categorically excluded from public schools, based on the false stereotype that all were ineducable and on the purported need to protect nonretarded children from them.<ref>See Pennsylvania Assn. for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279, 294-295 (ED Pa. 1972); see generally S. Sarason & J. Doris, Educational Handicap, Public Policy, and Social History 271-272 (1979).</ref> State laws deemed the retarded "unfit for citizenship."<ref>Act of Apr. 3, 1920, ch. 210, § 17, 1920 Miss. Laws 288, 294.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:philosophy]]

Milgram experiment

2007-07-27T20:27:32Z

RWest:

The '''Milgram experiment''' was a seminal experiment in [[psychology]], specifically in the field of [[social psychology]]. It was done by [[Stanley Milgram]] at [[Yale University]] and published in 1963. The study focused on obedience to authority and showed that people were willing to perform dangerous and even deadly actions against other people under instruction from an authority figure.

The central tenet that Milgram wanted to address revolved around the trial of [[Adolf Eichmann]], a [[Nazi]] [[war criminal]]. Eichmann insisted throughout his trial that he was "only following orders." Milgram wanted to know "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"<ref> Milgram, Stanley. (1974), ''Obedience to Authority; An Experimental View''. Harpercollins (ISBN 0-06-131983-X).</ref> To answer this question Milgram recruited 40 men between 20 and 50 to participate an in experiment that would test their willingness to harm another person while "only following orders".

==Method==

The subject was brought into the room and met with another individual they were told was also a volunteer (in actuality it was someone working for the experiment, a confederate). The researcher told both participants they would be participating in an experiment that would test the effects of [[punishment]] on [[learning]].

Then the researcher presented the subject and the confederate each with a piece of paper, which they were told would either say teacher or learner. The subject thought there was a 50 percent chance he would be one or the other, but in reality the subject was always the teacher and the confederate always the learner. Afterwards, the confederate went behind a wall and the subject sat at a desk with what looked like an electric-shock generator.

The subject was given a list of words that were paired together. He was instructed to read the word pairs to the other individual and then say the first word and ask what word was paired with it. The subject gave four possible answers and the learner would push a button that would light up in front of the teacher to signify the answer. The teacher was then suppose to give a shock if the answer was wrong, or move on to the next word if correct. For each wrong answer the shock voltage would be turned up a notch.

The subject was under the impression a real electric shock was given each time. But in reality no shock was ever administered. Instead the activating of the "electric-shock generator" would play a clip from an audio tape that gave more and more distraught responses. The confederate would, after a few shocks, pound on the wall and complain about a heart condition. A few shocks later the confederate would cease all communications.

At various times the subject was likely to protest to the researcher about the experiment, the purpose, or the dangers to the other individual. At any time the researcher would simply offer only one of these responses:

#Please continue.
#The experiment requires that you continue.
#It is absolutely essential that you continue.
#You have no other choice, you must go on.

If the subject still wanted to stop the experiment after all four verbal prods then it would be stopped. If the subject did not stop, the experiment would end after the maximum voltage of 450 volts was administered for the third time.

==Results==

Many people when they first hear about the outline of the experiment often predict only a few people will proceed to the maximum voltage. In fact, Milgram asked 19 psychology majors before the experiment what they thought would happen. The average was that barely over one percent would go all the way.

The results are often surprising the first time you see them: 26 out of the 40 participants (65 percent) administered the full shock, and not a single subject stopped before 300 volts. All the subjects, at one point at least, expressed concern, many offering to give back their compensation if they could quit, but with the single sentence prod from the researcher they continued. Of the subjects that did stop early, none checked on the learner, or inquired about their welfare.

Several other studies have replicated Milgram's work, with over 60 percent being the standard number of individuals that are willing to deliver a fatal shock.

==Reactions and Criticisms==

By today's standards such an experiment would never receive ethical approval. The emotional distress caused to the subject would be viewed as too severe. Also the debriefing done after the experiment was not adequate by modern standards. However, all the participants in Milgram's study were polled at a later date and asked about how they felt about participating. Close to 90 percent said they were "glad" or "very glad" they did so. Many wanted to join his lab and help with his work afterwards.

The interpretations of the results and the ethical dilemmas surrounding it were instantly a hot topic. To this day psychology courses across the world focus on Milgram's work.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:psychology]]

Conservapedia talk:About

2007-07-27T13:41:09Z

RWest:

Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?

Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.

==Finally!==

Finally a way for me, the oppressed white Christian male to have '''his''' voice heard. Next stop taking the vote away from women and minorities! After that let's go kill some gays after all if we listen to Leviticus 20:13 ''' "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."''' You're all with me right? Or do you love the gays and hate Jesus?[[User:Mrreaper|Mrreaper]]

This is utterly disgusting and shameful. It is not often that I am offended enough to create a login name merely to respond to one misled person, but this is more than merely fallacious, it is detestable. The above contributor has presented us with an ultimatum that we must either want to "kill some gays" or love the gays and hate Jesus. If it wasn't for the already upsetting claims that this is any sort of a encyclopedia rather than a collection of blind (there is a difference between blind and merely biased) opinions that shy away from addressing any slightly controversial topic. We will revisit that subject, but meanwhile back to the pugnacious bit above: find the place where Jesus, whose ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' you invoke in your ultimatum, advocated any sort of killing. If you claim to believe in this God, and you think that you have nailed down any aspect of his character with your little tirade than you serve a disgusting and unworthy God. Mrreaper, I assume you go to church. I assume that if at church at some point you have taken part in the Eucharist. For one second look at your blindness and stop spreading hateful ignorance. The Gospel of your named Lord is a Gospel of peace-not of hate and murder. The Eucharist, if you have ever taken a part of it, is a spreading of that peace. By invoking the ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' of Jesus you have implicated yourself in what He is about. And that is peace and love, not war. You quote Old Testament law in your posting. Those laws we must understand existed for a reason, but we do not live in the Old Testament. Your Savior Jesus is supposed to have changed all that, you now live in an age not of law, but of mercy and grace. For God's sake (and I do not take His name in vain here) either do not use the name of Christ, or temper your pathetic war-mongering and spread a Gospel of love and peace.

And why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is a perversion of what your God created as sex. A bit similar to the process of mast ur bation (I split this up because the site deemed to flag this word as unacceptable, perhaps on account of the stubborn practice of running headlong from real issues). Perhaps in our battlecry against the homosexuals we should raise another against the mast ur bators (this is ridiculous). Unfortunately that might implicate more people than we are comfortable with?...Correct? Shame. {{unsigned|Tjames}}
:I took Mrreaper's comments to be those of a non-Christian writing a parody of how he saw Christians, and not worthy of a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I a Christian think this website is unnecessary and useless. This website serves only one purpose in my eyes and that is for weak people to hide. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedia's allow '''Everyone''' to express their opinions. A Christian God has told us about difficult times and I believe running away from and hiding from critical views is cowardice. Surely any Christian would agree that not standing up for your faith and your beliefs is shamming yourself and your Lord.
Caznoob
--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 17:46, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
: Wikipedia does ''not'' allow "everyone" to express their opinions. Wikipedia is supposedly not about opinions, but despite its NPOV policy, it allows certain POVs to be pushed. I have experienced this first-hand with the creation/evolution/Intelligent Design issue. We are most certainly not "running away and hiding"; we are presenting an alternative. By having this site, we are indeed "standing up for [our] faith and [our] beliefs". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==What kind?==

"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.

When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years!
I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors?
Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that
scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists
bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient?
Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate
there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.

Who's the closed minded one now? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahem. Exuse me but this site is only a few months old. It may not be a large source ''now'' but if we receive alot of contributions it will. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, this thing doesn't deserve to be called an encyclopedia. It's full of bias. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is full of what the editors here call "liberal bias", which is just neutrality policy... just goes to show that this "conservapedia" os not worth the suffix "-pedia".--[[User:Materialist|Materialist]] 13:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia claims to be neutral but is riddle with bias. Conservapedia doesn't claim to be neutral, but to be conservative. What's the problem? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== WHAT? ==

Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site.
Good luck!

:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Please everyone, don't take this site too seriously. It is intended as an ironic joke. Isn't it? [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: This site is not a joke, but your edits have been. Do you know something worth contributing? 100,000 page views a day is your audience here. Tell us something worthwhile. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: Vandalism is not something worth contributing. I've banned him and reverted all his non-talk-page edit. (See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Koala&diff=prev&oldid=144426 here] for an example of his vandalism.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No it doesn't. I think it is a good effort by conservatives to get their voice out. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

By creating a site that attempts to offset the "liberal bias" (I use quotes because the real situation is one of more liberal journalists working for organizations which are controlled by more conservative owners, thus the conservative bias is one of coverage while the liberal bias is one of how it is covered.) it simply creates a setting for a one-sided dabate, which tends to solidify and even lead to more of an extremist positions. This fails to even adress the issues and instead bypasses debate and simply creates a politically slanted version of reality. If bias was actually the issue, then the existance of this website would surely be needless, as bias can be confronted and a compromize can be reached between conservative and liberal ideals. Bias, when hardened beyond the reach of compromize and the strival for neutrality actually becomes propaganda. Acording to the dictionary definition "propaganda" is: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 21:58, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: I don't follow your logic. Sure bias can be confronted, but when control is overwhelmingly in the hands of liberals intent on imposing their bias, then the bias will continue. I consider Wikipedia to be an example of that, and [[Bias in Wikipedia]] contains ample illustrations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== This says it all. ==

"Conservapedia" was founded by high school students. I suppose that explains the ridiculously uninformed political slant. Great job, guys!

== Liberal Theologians ==

If this site is against the liberal ideology, would it then be fair to say that it is against the liberal view of the bible? Liberal view referring to the viewpoints that came out of people like Carl Barth. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I do - I work in a counter-cult ministry and am frustrated to see how secular humanism is the true "proponent" of the American Public.

Public schools are trashing conservative worldview at an alarming rate. There are more neo-marxist, neo-darwinian, neo-pagan and feminists than I have ever seen in my life. Their views are "compatiable" with neo-darwinian worldview which is promoted in our courts of law. The whole thing is just sad.

Nancy Pearcey writes a wonderful book on this for recovering the evangelical Christian worldview titled Total Truth. While not everyone who may be conservative certainly isn't evangelical, it's still an excellent read! --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 21:11, 10 April 2007 (MDT)

== Worry Not ==

Like you, for me this site was a source of disbelief, outrage, amusement and finally, hilarity. Sadly, it's already getting SENSIBLE. Because other people are editting it. And it's now getting the same liberal/leftie/international/The Rest of the World 'bias' that the billions of people who haven't been home schooled in the wilds of N. America have. For the record I'm from Scotland, which evangelist Pat Robertson described as 'as dark country full of homosexuals'

The Rev Robertson certainly hasn't been to Scotland....is he confused by the kilts?

== Reliability ==

Quote: "Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

This comment has no supporting arguments, or source.

:I strongly agree. I find it to be certainly untrue. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias? ==

An example of such, this page is. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Yoda]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal bias of Wikipedia==

It is '''very''' misleading to refer to this specious mathematical whimsy as "our study". This is the kind of claim that kills the respect that Conservapedia could have. It is a legitimate poll result combined with an irrelevant reference to obscure Wikipedian categorization (by the way, the count today is 81-76 Liberal-Conservative, so the evidence for this "study" isn't valid anymore). I understand that it is a flagship statement, but it is wrong, and is deleterious to Conservapedia's mission. -- [[User:RWest|RWest]] 9:38, 27 July 2007

:I agree with Aschlafly's assessment, based on my 5 1/2 years of participation in the Wikipedia project:
:*Our study suggests that Wikipedia is '''6 times''' more liberal than the American public.
:Wikipedia is stuffed with [[Liberal bias]]. Its NPOV policy sounds good, but has become unenforceable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::But… 3:1/1:2 doesn't equal 6:1! [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::How do you work out if how liberal wikipedia and how liberal the American public is??? And anyway you need to realise there is more alot more to the world than the U.S.A. and as for the use of British English, British English is proper english because english comes from England and for those of you who consider the world to be centred around America and don't know where england is, it's in Britain (where British English is from).
User: Plqgnmv 21 April 2007

Linus, can you write out your math more clearly? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

What the study actualy suggests is that knowalgable internet users are 6 times more liberal than other computr illiterate people {{unsigned|Eljawa}}

== Edit request: copyright link ==

As there is a link to [[Conservapedia:About]] displayed at the bottom of every page, could someone who is allowed to edit it please add a link to [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] to the page so that readers can easily find out their permissions for reuse. Something like:

:Conservapedia encourages free reuse of its material. For details see [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].

Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 21:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not really an encyclopedia, any more than Fox is a real news station. Your articles are few, your analysis is weak, your rightwing bias is transparent. You call yourselves conservatives, but you are really reactionaries. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}

I see that Conservapedia contributors, rather than researching a topic and correcting it when it is inaccurate, just delete the incorrect statement without replacing it with a correct one. This is pathetic at best. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}

== Well, I'm pleased. ==

On the Daily Show With Jon Stewart the other night, they talked about Conservapedia. I'm pleased that the crowd booed when they read the Conservapedia description of 'Homosexuality'. Conservapedia, wake up. You claim the rest of the internet is biased? Take a look at your pages and then look up the word 'biased' in the dictionary. [[User:SierraTangoCharlie|SierraTangoCharlie]]
:The word bias also means your own attitude against this website, which you don't seem to realize. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Moderapedia?==

When are we moderates going to get a wiki?

Oh wait. It's called Wikipedia...

{{unsigned|PandaBear}}

== Who gives the facts? God? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia You can NOT be serious] when you say Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Where did you get that your study, and I quote, "suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public"? Did you take 10 Americans off the street and multiply them by the number of abortions, divided by Liberal Biases? How did you get "6 times more liberal"? That sounds like the most made up, wish-washed, falsified claim I have EVER heard. Start using facts, ladies and gentlemen. Start using facts.

--[[User:DogChapman|DogChapman]] 02:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)DogChapman
:Prove that it doesn't, and you've got a case. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:12, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:: No, that's not how debate works. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. But, of course, reality has a liberal bias so why prove anything? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 17:49, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==Criticism==

OK. so you have criticism for all the democrats and the democratic party but none for the republicans. {{unsigned|Gwforlife}}

Conservapedia talk:About

2007-07-27T13:39:55Z

RWest:

Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?

Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.

==Finally!==

Finally a way for me, the oppressed white Christian male to have '''his''' voice heard. Next stop taking the vote away from women and minorities! After that let's go kill some gays after all if we listen to Leviticus 20:13 ''' "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."''' You're all with me right? Or do you love the gays and hate Jesus?[[User:Mrreaper|Mrreaper]]

This is utterly disgusting and shameful. It is not often that I am offended enough to create a login name merely to respond to one misled person, but this is more than merely fallacious, it is detestable. The above contributor has presented us with an ultimatum that we must either want to "kill some gays" or love the gays and hate Jesus. If it wasn't for the already upsetting claims that this is any sort of a encyclopedia rather than a collection of blind (there is a difference between blind and merely biased) opinions that shy away from addressing any slightly controversial topic. We will revisit that subject, but meanwhile back to the pugnacious bit above: find the place where Jesus, whose ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' you invoke in your ultimatum, advocated any sort of killing. If you claim to believe in this God, and you think that you have nailed down any aspect of his character with your little tirade than you serve a disgusting and unworthy God. Mrreaper, I assume you go to church. I assume that if at church at some point you have taken part in the Eucharist. For one second look at your blindness and stop spreading hateful ignorance. The Gospel of your named Lord is a Gospel of peace-not of hate and murder. The Eucharist, if you have ever taken a part of it, is a spreading of that peace. By invoking the ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' of Jesus you have implicated yourself in what He is about. And that is peace and love, not war. You quote Old Testament law in your posting. Those laws we must understand existed for a reason, but we do not live in the Old Testament. Your Savior Jesus is supposed to have changed all that, you now live in an age not of law, but of mercy and grace. For God's sake (and I do not take His name in vain here) either do not use the name of Christ, or temper your pathetic war-mongering and spread a Gospel of love and peace.

And why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is a perversion of what your God created as sex. A bit similar to the process of mast ur bation (I split this up because the site deemed to flag this word as unacceptable, perhaps on account of the stubborn practice of running headlong from real issues). Perhaps in our battlecry against the homosexuals we should raise another against the mast ur bators (this is ridiculous). Unfortunately that might implicate more people than we are comfortable with?...Correct? Shame. {{unsigned|Tjames}}
:I took Mrreaper's comments to be those of a non-Christian writing a parody of how he saw Christians, and not worthy of a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I a Christian think this website is unnecessary and useless. This website serves only one purpose in my eyes and that is for weak people to hide. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedia's allow '''Everyone''' to express their opinions. A Christian God has told us about difficult times and I believe running away from and hiding from critical views is cowardice. Surely any Christian would agree that not standing up for your faith and your beliefs is shamming yourself and your Lord.
Caznoob
--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 17:46, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
: Wikipedia does ''not'' allow "everyone" to express their opinions. Wikipedia is supposedly not about opinions, but despite its NPOV policy, it allows certain POVs to be pushed. I have experienced this first-hand with the creation/evolution/Intelligent Design issue. We are most certainly not "running away and hiding"; we are presenting an alternative. By having this site, we are indeed "standing up for [our] faith and [our] beliefs". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==What kind?==

"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.

When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years!
I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors?
Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that
scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists
bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient?
Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate
there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.

Who's the closed minded one now? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahem. Exuse me but this site is only a few months old. It may not be a large source ''now'' but if we receive alot of contributions it will. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, this thing doesn't deserve to be called an encyclopedia. It's full of bias. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is full of what the editors here call "liberal bias", which is just neutrality policy... just goes to show that this "conservapedia" os not worth the suffix "-pedia".--[[User:Materialist|Materialist]] 13:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia claims to be neutral but is riddle with bias. Conservapedia doesn't claim to be neutral, but to be conservative. What's the problem? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== WHAT? ==

Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site.
Good luck!

:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Please everyone, don't take this site too seriously. It is intended as an ironic joke. Isn't it? [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: This site is not a joke, but your edits have been. Do you know something worth contributing? 100,000 page views a day is your audience here. Tell us something worthwhile. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: Vandalism is not something worth contributing. I've banned him and reverted all his non-talk-page edit. (See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Koala&diff=prev&oldid=144426 here] for an example of his vandalism.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No it doesn't. I think it is a good effort by conservatives to get their voice out. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

By creating a site that attempts to offset the "liberal bias" (I use quotes because the real situation is one of more liberal journalists working for organizations which are controlled by more conservative owners, thus the conservative bias is one of coverage while the liberal bias is one of how it is covered.) it simply creates a setting for a one-sided dabate, which tends to solidify and even lead to more of an extremist positions. This fails to even adress the issues and instead bypasses debate and simply creates a politically slanted version of reality. If bias was actually the issue, then the existance of this website would surely be needless, as bias can be confronted and a compromize can be reached between conservative and liberal ideals. Bias, when hardened beyond the reach of compromize and the strival for neutrality actually becomes propaganda. Acording to the dictionary definition "propaganda" is: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 21:58, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: I don't follow your logic. Sure bias can be confronted, but when control is overwhelmingly in the hands of liberals intent on imposing their bias, then the bias will continue. I consider Wikipedia to be an example of that, and [[Bias in Wikipedia]] contains ample illustrations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== This says it all. ==

"Conservapedia" was founded by high school students. I suppose that explains the ridiculously uninformed political slant. Great job, guys!

== Liberal Theologians ==

If this site is against the liberal ideology, would it then be fair to say that it is against the liberal view of the bible? Liberal view referring to the viewpoints that came out of people like Carl Barth. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I do - I work in a counter-cult ministry and am frustrated to see how secular humanism is the true "proponent" of the American Public.

Public schools are trashing conservative worldview at an alarming rate. There are more neo-marxist, neo-darwinian, neo-pagan and feminists than I have ever seen in my life. Their views are "compatiable" with neo-darwinian worldview which is promoted in our courts of law. The whole thing is just sad.

Nancy Pearcey writes a wonderful book on this for recovering the evangelical Christian worldview titled Total Truth. While not everyone who may be conservative certainly isn't evangelical, it's still an excellent read! --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 21:11, 10 April 2007 (MDT)

== Worry Not ==

Like you, for me this site was a source of disbelief, outrage, amusement and finally, hilarity. Sadly, it's already getting SENSIBLE. Because other people are editting it. And it's now getting the same liberal/leftie/international/The Rest of the World 'bias' that the billions of people who haven't been home schooled in the wilds of N. America have. For the record I'm from Scotland, which evangelist Pat Robertson described as 'as dark country full of homosexuals'

The Rev Robertson certainly hasn't been to Scotland....is he confused by the kilts?

== Reliability ==

Quote: "Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

This comment has no supporting arguments, or source.

:I strongly agree. I find it to be certainly untrue. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias? ==

An example of such, this page is. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Yoda]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal bias of Wikipedia==

It is '''very''' misleading to refer to this specious mathematical whimsy as "our study". This is the kind of claim that kills the respect that Conservapedia could have. It is a legetimate poll result combined with an irrelevant reference to obscure Wikipedian categorization (by the way, the count is 81-76 Liberal-Conservative, so this bizarre "study" isn't even valid anymore). I understand that it is a flagship statement, but it is wrong, and is deleterious to Conservapedia's mission. -- [[User:RWest|RWest]] 9:38, 27 July 2007

:I agree with Aschlafly's assessment, based on my 5 1/2 years of participation in the Wikipedia project:
:*Our study suggests that Wikipedia is '''6 times''' more liberal than the American public.
:Wikipedia is stuffed with [[Liberal bias]]. Its NPOV policy sounds good, but has become unenforceable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::But… 3:1/1:2 doesn't equal 6:1! [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::How do you work out if how liberal wikipedia and how liberal the American public is??? And anyway you need to realise there is more alot more to the world than the U.S.A. and as for the use of British English, British English is proper english because english comes from England and for those of you who consider the world to be centred around America and don't know where england is, it's in Britain (where British English is from).
User: Plqgnmv 21 April 2007

Linus, can you write out your math more clearly? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

What the study actualy suggests is that knowalgable internet users are 6 times more liberal than other computr illiterate people {{unsigned|Eljawa}}

== Edit request: copyright link ==

As there is a link to [[Conservapedia:About]] displayed at the bottom of every page, could someone who is allowed to edit it please add a link to [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] to the page so that readers can easily find out their permissions for reuse. Something like:

:Conservapedia encourages free reuse of its material. For details see [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].

Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 21:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not really an encyclopedia, any more than Fox is a real news station. Your articles are few, your analysis is weak, your rightwing bias is transparent. You call yourselves conservatives, but you are really reactionaries. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}

I see that Conservapedia contributors, rather than researching a topic and correcting it when it is inaccurate, just delete the incorrect statement without replacing it with a correct one. This is pathetic at best. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}

== Well, I'm pleased. ==

On the Daily Show With Jon Stewart the other night, they talked about Conservapedia. I'm pleased that the crowd booed when they read the Conservapedia description of 'Homosexuality'. Conservapedia, wake up. You claim the rest of the internet is biased? Take a look at your pages and then look up the word 'biased' in the dictionary. [[User:SierraTangoCharlie|SierraTangoCharlie]]
:The word bias also means your own attitude against this website, which you don't seem to realize. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Moderapedia?==

When are we moderates going to get a wiki?

Oh wait. It's called Wikipedia...

{{unsigned|PandaBear}}

== Who gives the facts? God? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia You can NOT be serious] when you say Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Where did you get that your study, and I quote, "suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public"? Did you take 10 Americans off the street and multiply them by the number of abortions, divided by Liberal Biases? How did you get "6 times more liberal"? That sounds like the most made up, wish-washed, falsified claim I have EVER heard. Start using facts, ladies and gentlemen. Start using facts.

--[[User:DogChapman|DogChapman]] 02:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)DogChapman
:Prove that it doesn't, and you've got a case. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:12, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:: No, that's not how debate works. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. But, of course, reality has a liberal bias so why prove anything? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 17:49, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==Criticism==

OK. so you have criticism for all the democrats and the democratic party but none for the republicans. {{unsigned|Gwforlife}}

Talk:Alberto R. Gonzales

2007-07-26T16:21:59Z

RWest:

wow, really nothing else here? lol, anybody been watching the news AT ALL?

I cleaned up the introduction to make it sound less like a high school yearbook article. --[[User:RWest]] 12:21 26 July 2007

Alberto R. Gonzales

2007-07-26T16:21:03Z

RWest:

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:480px-Alberto Gonzales - official DoJ photograph.jpg|right|thumb]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: Indigo no-repeat scroll top left;"|Alberto Gonzalez;
80th Attorney General of the United States
|-
|Born
|August 4, 1955
|-
|Term
|February 3, 2005 -
|-
|}

'''Alberto R. Gonzales''' (born August 4, 1955) is the 80th Attorney General of the United States, succeeding [[John Ashcroft]]. He is a graduate of [[Rice University]], and a former member of [[Lovett College]]. As a Hispanic, Gonzales provides ample proof that the Bush administration is committed to having diversity in their political appointees and Cabinet-level officials (i.e. not just a bunch of "Good Old Boys"). Gonzales was one of the best students in his graduating class, considered one of the school's brightest and most intellectually rigorous students. In 2007 he came under attack for the firing of 8 US attorneys across America. As of April 19, 2007 [[President Bush]] has stated that he will not call for the resignation of Gonzales.

== Achievements ==
* Led Project Safe Neighborhoods to help eliminate violence in inner cities.<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/May/06_ag_262.html</ref>
* Was instrumental in passing the historic Military Commissions Act

== "Controversies" ==
Alberto Gonzalez was the center of a controversy over the firings of 8 United States attorneys. Detractors insisted that the attorneys were fired for political reasons, instead of performance-based reasons (a claim that no one in the White House has ever made, though some Justice Department officials initially made this claim in Congressional testimony).<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801880.html</ref> Despite the fact that United States attorneys serve at the pleasure of the [[President of the United States]], and can be fired at any time for any reason, the [[Liberal bias|liberally biased]] media insists on calling it a scandal. So, even if the President did want to remove any United States attorney just because he or she was a Democrat, the President would be within his purview to do so. In fact, Alberto Gonzalez "tempered the White House desire to replace U.S. Attorneys wholesale." <ref>http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day24/archive/2007/03/23/alberto-gonzales-raw-deal.aspx</ref>
During his testimony over this "Controversy", Mr. Gonzales stated 74 times that he could not recall various events relating to the situation.
<ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/221105/alberto_gonzales_testifies_to_congress.html</ref>

== Trivia ==
* Albert Gonzalez was voted the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1992.
* His Secret Service nickname is "Elephant", a reference to his uncanny ability to memorize obscure parts of United States law.

== References ==
<references />

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gonzales, Alberto R.}}
[[Category:Political people]]

War

2007-07-26T14:09:14Z

RWest:

'''War''' is a prolonged state of violent conflict between two or more states. War has been conducted for many purposes, such as the acquisition of goods, seizing enemy territory, to satisfy the honor of the [[sovereign]], eliminating a threat to the homeland, stamping out rival religious sects (see [[Religious_war]]), or exporting political ideologies. Warfare between factions within a single [[state]] is called [[civil war]].

Wars have often been periods of great technological innovation as each side finds itself faced with the necessity of creating new methods of offense and defense to ensure national survival. The [[American Civil War]], coming only a decade after the [[Industrial revolution]] took root in the United States, introduced mechanized warfare to the world with metal [[warship]]s, [[railway|railroad]] transportation of forces and material, and instant communication via the [[telegraph]]. The conflict known as the Great War (later called [[World War I]]) introduced air combat, [[chemical warfare]], [[submarine]] and [[tank (military)|tank]] warfare, and the large scale deployment of the [[machine gun]]. [[World War II]] refined tank tactics in the form of the [[Blitzkrieg]] as the [[aircraft carrier]] took mastery of the seas. It ended with the first use of [[nuclear weapon]]s in wartime.

The decades after World War II saw America emerge as a military colossus, unchallenged and irresistable on the battlefield head-on, but vulnerable to a new type of [[asymmetrical warfare]] against an enemy who shuns uniforms, hides among the populace, and employs cheap but effective improvised weapons against multi-million dollar U.S. hardware.

[[category:sociology]]

The New York Times

2007-07-26T14:08:07Z

RWest:

The '''New York Times''' is a daily newspaper that is published in New York, New York and distributed to readers worldwide. It is the third most widely circulated newspaper in the United States behind ''USA Today'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' <ref>http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html</ref>.

The New York Times is published by 3rd generation NYT publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. The NYT publishes 15 other newspapers, including the ''International Herald Tribune'' (based in Paris) and the ''Boston Globe.''

==Controversies==
*[[Michelle Malkin]] says the NYT has violated an agreement regarding [[journalists]] covering [[war|war casualties]]. <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/02/01/the-nytimes-unspeakable-violation/ The NYTimes’ unspeakable violation]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[category:US Newspapers|New York Times]]

Unitarianism

2007-07-26T14:03:11Z

RWest:

'''Unitarianism''' is the belief in the oneness of God, as opposed to ''trinitarianism,'' believe in the doctrine of the Christian [[Trinity]] of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It thus contradicts the [[Nicene Creed]]; as a Unitarian minister has written, "Unitarians and Universalists have always been heretics."<ref>[http://www.uua.org/info/origins.html Unitarian Universalist Origins: Our Historic Faith], Mark W. Harris, minister of the First Parish Unitarian Universalist in Watertown, Massachusetts</ref> The word does not simply mean monotheism and is not applied to Jews, but to people who consider themselves Christians.

== Unitarian Universalism==

In the United States, ''Unitarianism'' is also an informal name for the beliefs of a religious denomination, originally the ''American Unitarian Association,'' known since its 1961 merger with the Universalists as the ''Unitarian Universalist Association.''<ref>Members of the denomination are often referred to simply as the Unitarians, although members of the organization, not wishing to overlook Universalism, prefer to call themselves "U-Us."</ref>

The American Unitarian Association was founded in 1825, based on principles espoused in the sermons of [[William Ellery Channing]], notably an 1819 sermon entitled "Unitarian Christianity."<ref>[http://www.transcendentalists.com/unitarian_christianity.htm Unitarian Christianity], text of Channing's sermon</ref>

Unitarian Universalism is noncreedal. A Unitarian Universalist minister answers the question "Are Unitarian Universalists Christian?" with a forthright "Yes and no."<ref name=wesley>[http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/uufaq.html Our Unitarian Universalist Faith: Frequently Asked Questions], Alice Blair Wesley</ref> She notes that "At a Unitarian Universalist worship service or meeting, you are likely to find members whose positions on faith may be derived from a variety of religious beliefs: Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, naturist, atheist, or agnostic. Members might tell you that they are religious humanists, liberal Christians, or world religionists."

Unitarian churches are particularly common in the Northeast United States, where the denomination originated. Many Unitarian church structures are picturesque white-painted frame structures of the sort that are emblematic of New England. They are, however, likely to have a rainbow flag flying in front of them, as the denomination has been at the forefront in welcoming same-sex couples; one U-U pamphlet is entitled "Unitarian Universalism, A Religious Home for Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender People."<ref>[http://www.uua.org/pamphlet/3065.html Unitarian Universalism, A Religious Home for Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender People],
Barbara L. Pescan</ref>

Unitarians self-describe as ''religious'' liberals. It is probably fair to say that the denomination has a reputation for ''political'' liberalism as well. As one sermon put it, "Sometimes we act as if we believe we can effect a complete separation of our liberal faith and our politics. Some of us confuse liberal religion with liberal politics and seem to operate under the belief that if we are registered with the Democratic party we have fulfilled our religious obligations in the public sphere. Both these beliefs are actually false. I say this even though I myself have at different times acted as if I believed one of these two things."<ref>[http://www.uunewbedford.org/excerpt.htm An Election-day Sermon for Religious Liberals], Dan Harper, First Unitarian in New Bedford</ref>.

The ''American Unitarian Conference,'' founded in the year 2000, believes the Unitarian Universalists have departed from the "Unitarian Christianity" of Channing and regards itself as a "reborn" version of the American Unitarian Association, which it says "disbanded" in 1961 when it merged with the Universalists.<ref>[http://www.americanunitarian.org/ American Unitarian Conference: Promoting the American Unitarian Tradition]</ref>

==Unitarian Universalists and Christianity==
A Unitarian minister has answered the question "Are Unitarian Universalists Christian?" in these words:<ref name=wesley/>
:Yes and no.
:Yes, some Unitarian Universalists are Christian. Personal encounter with the spirit of Jesus as the Christ richly informs their religious lives.
:No, Unitarian Universalists are not Christian, if by Christian you mean those who think that acceptance of any creedal belief whatsoever is necessary for salvation. Unitarian Universalist Christians are considered heretics by those orthodox Christians who claim none but Christians are "saved." (Fortunately, not all the orthodox make that claim.)
:Yes, Unitarian Universalists are Christian in the sense that both Unitarian and Universalist history are part of Christian history. Our core principles and practices were first articulated and established by liberal Christians.
:Some Unitarian Universalists are not Christian. For though they may acknowledge the Christian history of our faith, Christian stories and symbols are no longer primary for them. They draw their personal faith from many sources: nature, intuition, other cultures, science, civil liberation movements, and so on.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

John Newton

2007-07-26T13:42:02Z

RWest:

'''John Newton''' (1725-1807) was a [[Christian]] [[minister]] and hymnist. He is best known for writing "Amazing Grace" surviving a storm at sea which led to his conversion to [[Christianity]].

John Newton's conversion happened during a storm that nearly sank the slave ship he captained. He prayed at first, and later he read Thomas a Kempis' 'Imitation of Christ.' This was the beginning of his [[conversion]]. Newton abandoned the slave-trade and became a minister. He spent the rest of his life preaching against [[slavery]].

Newton helped [[William Wilberforce]] end slavery in England. Newton's tombstone reads:

<blockquote>"John Newton, Clerk, once an [[infidel]] and libertine, a servant of
slaves in Africa, was, by the rich mercy of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, preserved, restored, pardoned, and appointed to preach
the faith he had long labored to destroy."</blockquote>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Newton, John}}
[[Category:Ministers]]
[[Category:Abolitionists]]

Talk:Eric Robert Rudolph

2007-07-25T16:16:56Z

RWest: New page: I cleaned up the opening paragraph so that the reader doesn't have to read the next sentence to find out what other group he hates. -- User:RWest 12:16 25 July 2007

I cleaned up the opening paragraph so that the reader doesn't have to read the next sentence to find out what other group he hates. -- [[User:RWest]] 12:16 25 July 2007

Eric Robert Rudolph

2007-07-25T16:15:13Z

RWest:

'''Eric Rudolph''' is an American terrorist. Inspired by his anti-abortion and anti-homosexual beliefs, he committed four bombings, killing five. He is currently incarcerated.

==Attacks==

Rudolph's most famous attack was a bombing at the [[Atlanta Olympics]], which killed Alice Hawthorne and injured her daughter and 110 other spectators. The attacked was originally blamed on the security guard who found the bag. When it was recognized Rudolph was behind the attack, he was placed on the [[FBI]]'s [[most wanted list]]. He also bombed 2 abortion clinics, killing 2 (including a police officer not connected with the clinics), and a Gay and Lesbian night club, injuring 5.

==Arrest==

After 5 years on the run Rudolph was captured in North Carolina living in squalid conditions. He was sentenced to 2 life sentences for his crimes, and is currently locked up in supermax. He still sends anti-abotion and anti-homosexual messages to the [[Army of God]], a militant anti-abortion group, which publishes them on its website.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rudolph,Eric}}

[[Category:Terrorists]]

Eric Robert Rudolph

2007-07-25T16:14:50Z

RWest:

'''Eric Rudolph''' is an American terrorist. Inspired by his anti-abortion and anti-homosexual beliefs, he committed four bombings, killing five.

==Attacks==

Rudolph's most famous attack was a bombing at the [[Atlanta Olympics]], which killed Alice Hawthorne and injured her daughter and 110 other spectators. The attacked was originally blamed on the security guard who found the bag. When it was recognized Rudolph was behind the attack, he was placed on the [[FBI]]'s [[most wanted list]]. He also bombed 2 abortion clinics, killing 2 (including a police officer not connected with the clinics), and a Gay and Lesbian night club, injuring 5.

==Arrest==

After 5 years on the run Rudolph was captured in North Carolina living in squalid conditions. He was sentenced to 2 life sentences for his crimes, and is currently locked up in supermax. He still sends anti-abotion and anti-homosexual messages to the [[Army of God]], a militant anti-abortion group, which publishes them on its website.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rudolph,Eric}}

[[Category:Terrorists]]

Talk:Assault on Reason

2007-07-25T15:54:25Z

RWest:

In logic, one of the best ways to determine that a premise is faulty is to derive two contradictory inferences from it. This ''proves'' that the premise is false.

Generally, whenever we catch someone telling a lie, we begin to doubt other things they've spoken about.

Any piece of "reasoning" which contains an internal contradiction (i.e., both affirms and denies the same point) is considered to be unsound. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:27, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I removed the following paragraph. Its logic is completely unparsable and it contains an obviously personal opinion.

<blockquote>Some have criticized Al Gore's hypocrisy. Id est, in the book Al Gore denounces the media saying that they put little difference, if any difference at all, between news and celebrity, yet he is an ex Vice President of the United States and an Academy Award winner. </blockquote>

-- [[User:RWest]] 11:54 25 July 2007

Talk:Assault on Reason

2007-07-25T15:53:54Z

RWest:

Assault on Reason

2007-07-25T15:50:18Z

RWest:

[[Image:Thumb assaultonreason 1.jpg|right|thumb]]
''The Assault on Reason'' is a political book <ref>Gore still says he has no plans to run for president, but his latest book, "The Assault On Reason," is so nakedly political and sharply critical it's hard to discern what his plans may be. [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3192596 ABC News] </ref>
by [[Al Gore]] which he denies is political. <ref>"I'm not a candidate and this is not a political book, this is not a candidate book," Gore told Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America. [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3192596 ABC News] </ref>
In the book, Gore accuses [[President Bush]] of having an unprincipled hunger for power.

In the book, Al Gore discusses how he thinks that the American democracy has been undermined by the current administration's intrusions of power. While claiming that the book is not political, Gore attacks the current President and his administration relentlessly.

In a June 12, 2007 review for Reason Magazine, Michael C. Moynihan wrote:
<blockquote>
The Assault on Reason reestablishes Gore as America’s premier besserwisser and moral scold: the politician who both warns that we are scaring people to death and argues that Manhattan will soon be submerged beneath the Atlantic.<ref>[http://reason.com/news/show/120701.html Free Speech for People Who Think Like Me], Michael Moynihan, ''Reason'', June 12, 2007</ref>
</blockquote>

ABC's Jake Tapper wrote:
<blockquote>
"The Assault On Reason" is an assault on President George W. Bush -- 308 pages of professorially rendered, liberal red meat.
</blockquote>

==Notes==
<references/>

==See Also==
:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64 Video of Al Gore blasting George H. W. Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism]

[[category:book]]

Talk:Essay:Conservapedias Law/1

2007-07-24T19:59:22Z

RWest:

==General comments==

I didn't realize that slinging mud at other people was a valid method to defend what a person says. No matter what, someone can mention that Hitler killed millions during the Holocaust, so it shouldn't matter that Ann Coulter is a bigoted transvestite.

Coulter is crazy. Her crazyness has many aspects, one of which is a desperate seeking of attention. Another is a tendency to think of absolutly everything as a religion. Liberalism? Religion. Evolution? Religion. Another is consistantly demonising those she dislikes: Homosexuals become violent pedophile abusers, liberals become christian-hating communists, and so on. - Suricou, rambling.

[http://www.hoolinet.com/straponvets/tabid/278/default.aspx] The truth about Ann Coulter.

Attempting to defend Coulter's statements just exposes the incredible bias and partisanship of this site. She made a ragingly stupid, offensive and derogatory statement. There is not doubt about what she said or what it means.

I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it is important, for precisely the reason articulated below by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. Coulter says the word "has nothing to do with gays." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Faggot means a bundle of sticks. I do not understand the liberal media's obsession with casting her as a bigot. She was merely pointing out an etymological anomaly. At worst, it was misinterpreted by people who were looking for something to complain about. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

: I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree that it comes from British prep schools a century ago, the three-letter version anyway. More than a century ago, actually, as it appears throughout ''Tom Brown's Schooldays,'' published in 1857 and probably is derived from Hughes' experiences decades before. But I can only suppose that you have been deceived by the euphemistic way in which British prep schools have been described in literature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:

::::n. 1. A cigarette c1915 .... 2 A homosexual; an effeminate man.... Although [it use for cigarettes] may have reinforced the use of the word, [three-letter version], a boy servant or lackey has been common Eng. schoolboy use since before 1830, and may be the origin....

::::There is probably no way to be certain of the range of services traditionally provided by "boy servants or lackeys" in British prep schools. <s>Even Orwell's "Such, Such Were the Joys" is very elliptical on this point.</s> In "Such, Such Were the Joys" Orwell says "At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem," but is frank about its existence at St. Cyprians. He gives few details, saying that at that time he was in "an almost sexless state" and he does not use the word we're discussing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], If your source for "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century" is your own experience, all I can say is, not at the American school '''I''' attended in the 20th century. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I don't know. But the term was never meant to apply exclusively, or even primarily, as a slur against gays. Mayor Sharpe's use demonstrates that. It's more plausible that homosexuals adopted the term "faggot" just as they adopted the term "gay". A famous Alfred Hitchcock movie (1940s?) has a line where the actor describes San Francisco as "gay". That was not a slur, and the adoption of the term by the homosexual movement does not mean that everyone else must immediately abandon its traditional meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Even the etymology cited in the article does not support Ann Coulter's stated definition of 'wuss'. The term has never meant anything like 'wuss'. The definition connected with schools cited in the article says: ''It also may have roots in Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This was also used as a verb.'' [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10.50 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot Etymology] of the term, for anyone who's interested. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for the citation, which I've concluded. Does Sandbagger think the meaning of the word "niggardly" has now changed also? I've added that incident to this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think the parallel is good. The meaning of "niggardly" is well-defined. The dictionary does not suggest that it is racial slur, or hint that it should be avoided because of its similarly in sound to a racial slur. The person who used it was almost certainly using it in good faith with its dictionary meaning (there's a possibility he was ''deliberately'' using it ''because'' it was similar in sound to a racial slur but I discount it). Those who objected to it were fools.

:: In the case of Ann Coulter's use of the word she used, the situation is not parallel. It is much hazier. Unlike "niggardly," the standard dictionary definition of the word '''is''' a reference to homosexuality. (I don't think anyone would argue that she was talking about a bundle of twigs). Coulter may have been going by the meaning of the word as she learned it at school. She very likely never looked it up in a dictionary. Her recollection of what the word meant in her school may be accurate—or may have reflected innocence on her part at the time. And in the intervening years she may never have heard the word used to mean "homosexual."

:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: But Edwards isn't gay. So what do you think Coulter meant by the term, if not the ordinary schoolhouse usage? Do you think it is racist for one African American to use the "N" word to refer to another African American? I really don't see how there can be a gay slur against someone who isn't gay.
::::Although Edwards is not gay, he is known for taking a lot of care with his personal appearance, particularly his hair. This trait is thought by some people to imply effeminacy. I think Coulter was using the word faggot to make that implication and associate Edwards with that trait in the minds of some people. Essentially, she was making a joke, but her claim of schoolhouse usage is thoroughly disingenuous. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11.17 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: By the way, dictionaries are biased just like anything else. "Common Era" is in the dictionary now also, but we expressly reject the dictionary about that. Conservatives resist liberal attempts to change meanings of words to suit the liberal agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think the "niggardly" incident really has any place in this article, especially if the goal is to limit gossip. In my opinion, all that really needs to be said on the "faggot" comment is that Coulter said it, some people got upset, she apologized for it. End of story. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I removed the claim that no leading conservative group distanced themselves from their statements, because I remember reading a press release from the website of the Christian Defense Alliance doing just that. I consider this group notable because their pro-life activism has been noted on a national stage (particularly their attempts to get Rick Warren to distance themselves from Barack Obama.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought that Conservapedia was going to stay away from this sort of trivia and gossip. Who cares about the Edwards remark? Why is it of any significance? Possibly some people were offended, but those same people are probably more offended by 100 other things that Coulter has said. I say that the whole section should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, these statements-- and the despicable, violent left-wing overreaction-- make her who she is. It's definitive, so it should stay (but be streamlined). {{unsigned|MikeM}}

It's not just gossip, in my opinion, because this is a major news story that has been covered by the news. I know it's not as significant, but it's like saying that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was just gossip. I don't want this to dominate the article, but I don't want people thinking we approve of it, because I agree with the Christian Defense Alliance and many other conservatives that Ms. Coulter makes us look bad as conservatives.

This is just my personal opinion, though. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: There is no need to either approve or disapprove. Maybe you could say that she occasionally makes inflammatory remarks. Beyond that, I see no value to showing some opinions on this particular remark. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I just realized how redundant I was. "News story that was covered by the news"? I'm tired. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior.[6] Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning."

This last unsourced sentence, effectively makes conservapedia AGREE with Edwards being a "faggot". Why not add "in Ann Coulter's opinion" to that? I came to this site with high expectations and here we have the site agreeing with childish name-calling as if it is a known, verifiable fact! [[User:deronde|deronde]] 16:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Why is this page blocked? Doesn't it deserve the contributions of internet users like other articles, or have we decided that an article on Coulter falls below the standard for democratic exertion?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 21:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It's pretty sad when a hate monger like Coulter is lionized on a site that is reputedly organized around Christian values and her blatent hate speech is ( apparently seriously ) treated to a convulated etymology that priveledges definitions far removed in place and time over the one that she so obivously meant. Isn't there some sin in this? It just goes to show the hypocracy and fascism that this project embodies. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't corrupt use of power a sin? Oh, I forgot the intelligent design debate. Obviously some 'christians' think lying is ok when it serves a grander purpose like, say confirming their bias or damaging those they perceive as enemies for instance. Have you no shame? The lord's work indeed. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 15:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Godman, Why do you feel the necessity to engage in name calling? Isn't using vicious invective hate speech? What about impugning motives without cause? Doesn't throwing around the term "fascism" recklessly denigrate the meaning and suffering of fascism's real victims? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think Coulter's actions speak for themselves. As a practicing Christian and a true conservative I feel some compulsion to point out when radical elements co-opt the label conservative and Christian for their own seemingly cynical ends. That saddens me, as it should any Christian and any patriot, and it weakens the impact of God's message and closes hearts of those whom Coulter attacks. I didn't throw out the label fascism lightly. Coulter's position and belief seem founded on its tenents. By your tacit defense of Coulter, I gather the 'god' you worship delights in hate speech and name calling as does the brand of 'conservatism' you embrace. As it is, conservapedia is an embarassment and an abomionation. The name should be changed to radicalapedia or fascipedia. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I really hope you're joking. To suggest that we should disregard MONTHS of precedent on this site and completely warp its original focus to somehow give the impression that one must be a "radical" or "fascist" in order to share their viewpoints is probably one of the most absurd, and, coincidentally, radical and fascistic concepts I have heard in a LONG time. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Ann Coulter is a political entertainer. She knows this is true and the joke is on those who take her seriously. For instance, she recently made a joke that she's made more money off her comments about wishing Edwards was killed in a terrorist attack than he has made attacking her. She's laughing all the way to the bank. That said, conservapedia has a conversative, Christian bias. To lionize Coutler is to praise someone who is actually the enemy of religous conservatism. Her behavior does not represent any of the kind and noble virtues set forth in the Torah or the Christian bible. She doesn't represent intelligent, mature discussion of issues void of schoolyard antics. Her principle is to make money off controversy. Like a neo-con Rosie O'Donnell, happy to reap the rewards of a society voracious for public spectacle. I'm a democrat and more than happy to call a spade a spade, whether they be a republican or a democrat. To be taken seriously, you must be honest and live your word.

I think that the point is largely being missed here. It simply cannot be argued that Edwards comes across in a somewhat effeminate fashion, from the quality of his voice to his obsession with his hair. I think that Coulter was making a perfectly valid accusation, and that it should be taken seriously. Many homosexuals do marry in order to retain their mainstream appeal while continuing to engage in horrid "extracurricular" activities. Maybe we should seriously consider that Edwards is a "fag." Frankly, that she would back down on this sort of hardhitting genius for which we all respect her is really one of the most dissapointing occurences I can recall in her public history.
[[User:ATB|ATB]] 11:35, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

How can a woman who is a self-proclaimed 'pot-stirrer' not have a section on controversy or criticism? I bet she would be upset if she saw that there is not a prominent list of liberal faggots that she's ticked off. [[User:RWest]] 15:58 23-7-2007

==Ann's next book==
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:
Ann's book publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, has no problems with Ann and is planning an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258370,00.html Coulter's Book Publisher Undeterred by Flap Over Remark About Gays] FoxNews.com</ref> [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Done. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ann Coulter is to politcal discourse what [[Richard Speck]] was to the nursing profession. Thanks to hatemongers like her, Savage, and Limbaugh, we've got a country split between Conservatives who think all Liberals are communist homosexuals who murder children for thrills, and Liberals who think all conservatives are jackbooted [[Neanderthals]] who can't wait to start another [[civil war]]. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::The liberals are for free speech unless it is a conservative voicing their views not using politically correct speech. The left resorts to name calling labeling conservatives "hatemongers", "homophobes", etc. I've heard the Hollywood left saying hateful speech about President Bush and the left has no problem because it's liberal politically correct. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
<references/>
::I concur. Why do we put up with all these namby pamby goofs that want to keep us from the truth. Bill Clinto is gay, look at Hillary. I would be gay too if I was married to that. We should be able to say whatever we want on this site--it is for us--not them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And one more thing, why don't we call things like they are? I read somewhere that the word "cowboy" was being replaced by "person of the west" in kids' textbooks. Can't we just call them cowboys and indians? And what about Manhole covers? Do we really need to say "person-hole-covers?" I have many black friends and I don't refer to them as "african-american" or whatever--I call them black. They call me white and we get along. Sometimes, jokingly, we call each other 'negro' but so waht? we're friends. If we want to call each other something unpopular, who cares? I applaud that senator from Virginia for calling the kid macaca, or whatever. it was meant to be funny. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==
If this article is unlocked at some point, it should probably be added to [[:Category:Political people]] or [[:Category:Biographies]]. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well that's all a matter on how one views Coulter, isn't it? I think she's in there with Mort Sahl, Rush Limbaugh, (and dare I say it:) Al Franken: People who're commentators on the world as THEY see it NOW. Sure, the underlying messages are serious but she's using the tongue-in-cheek method to be able to explore issues that one cannot approach in a serious fashion because it would look like attacks straight off. I think her a master of the use of hyperbole that gets her opponents ''so'' riled up as to leave their common sense, (and at times common courtesy), in the trunk of the car. And she knows this and ''plays'' it like it's all been scripted out beforehand.
:While I do not know the woman personally, I like her. In some ways she reminds me a bit of the [[User:Aschlafly| Boss']] mother. Strong, articulate, fast on her feet, personable with being overly deferential.
:MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Perhaps some more information about her credentials ==

I'd like to see some more information about Ann Coulter's credentials as a journalist/commentator. Many people are unaware of her years of service as a lawyer in Washington. I'd be happy to make the addition if it was unlocked.

== Biographical data ==

Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc.
This entry is not really about ''Ann Coulter'', it's about what ''she writes'' about. This looks like a section in a lrger entry on Coulter, not a complete entry. Why is it blocked? How can this essential encyclopedia style information be added?

:It is my understanding that Ms. Coulter is unmarried, and carries on sexual relationships outside of marriage. This is very concerning to me, because this behavior is in direct violation of God's Laws. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

shouldn't this information be in the article? I mean we know for a fact where she was educated, where she has worked, and what her residence is. Although on that last point there has been some dispute as her voter fraud run in with the law has shown. Would that be gossip or pertinent biographical data? The article as it stands is just pertaining to the Edwards flap and has little to do with Coulter. Why has this article been locked??

:I'm not sure how this is relevant. I find Ms. Coulter's unmarried status to be troubling, because she is of marriagable age. I would like this Conservative icon to find Love and reconcile her personal life with the Precepts of the Divine. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Total Fag" ==

For context on how Ann was using the word to refer to Edwards, I just think its relevant to point out Ann's appearance on Hardball last July, after saying a day before that Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay?
COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.

So she's clearly aware of at least some connection between toe word Fag and homosexuality. So when she says that the word "has nothing to do with Gays," she's kind of... you know, lying.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

OTHER WORD GAMES: If the censors who locked the article see this, in point of fact David Howard resigned after the "N-word" incident; he was not fired. Also, the reaction was not so much from "liberals" as from Marshall Brown, an African-American colleague of his who either misheard it or misunderstood it.

== Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives ==

Coulter is a puzzle -- how did someone who, on innumerable occasions, quite enjoys insulting, attacking, and saying nasty and unkind things about people with whom she disagrees ever become a beacon for people who loudly proclaim they are Christians? Judge not, that ye be not judged -- it seems plain enough that Christ himself decries such behavior, so I am eternally puzzled as to how self-avowed Christians find her actions admirable. On purely logical grounds, her ''ad hominem'' attacks against Edwards and others are laughable (but not in the way she imagines). In any case, what we have here is not an encylopedia entry, it's a puff piece, and one locked away so that none of us who may differ with it can do anything about it. That doesn't sound to me as though it will lead to "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust"! [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think Coulter's entire persona is a parody of the typical conservatives idea of 'jerk fodder.' At least I hope it is. If she's a real person... ... wow. Doesn't bear thinking about, really. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: So? The article doesn't say that Coulter is a role model. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::She's trying to get attention. She wants people to read her books and columns and listen to her.

::Her contention is that liberals shut down debate and monopolize the airwaves and print media with their biased POV. After she gets the audience's attention, she points out this liberal bias and gives a consevative retort.

::She uses irony, mockery and sarcasm to '''keep the reader's attention''' as she makes her points.

::IMHO she does this as a deliberate tactic, not because it's her nature. But my tactic vs. nature speculation is, well, just personal speculation. I wish she conducted herself with as much dignity as [[Diane Ravitch]] or [[Lynne Cheney]]. On the other hand, who but me has ever read the latter two's works? Ravitch is virtually unknown outside the academic world, and Cheney is regarded merely as the VP's wife. At least Coulter gets her points across in books that keep making the ''New York Times'' bestseller list. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Coulter tells it like it is!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yeah, and all those times where she's been roven to be wrong just shows you how biased objective reality can be trying to smear her, right?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 08:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think Coulter is Funny. Liberals are allowed to have their Al Frankens -why can't we have our comedians. Of course, some of her language is inappropriate for small children. However, for adults -she is just fine.
[[User:ChristianFaith|ChristianFaith]] 14:10, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==Schoolyard taunt?==
The thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is that she believes she's ''defending'' herself by calling the word "a schoolyard taunt."

Are "schoolyard taunts" the proper stuff of discourse between adults on matters of consequence? Does she think it is appropriate for a woman in her forties to be behaving like a schoolchild? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::why don't you call her up and ask her? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Do you know where I could get appropriate contact information? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get over it. Most politicians have occasionally made a childish wisecrack about someone on the other side of a political battle. Find me someone who never uses a taunt, and that would be news. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I didn't say "it doesn't happen." Are ''you'' saying you consider it to be ''appropriate?'' For liberals? For conservatives? For responsible adults? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'd call ''Bush lied, people died'' a taunt. No one seems to care about how many Kurds Saddam gassed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Erm, you ''could'' say that Bush cared for the Kurds, considering he deposed Saddam. Highly unlikely, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Offensive manner==

We could mention reports of people '''taking offense''' but it's not objective to label her manner as offensive. Here's an example. Suppose I say that atheism is sinful, and John Smith feels offended. Have I given offense? Hard to say.

But if he voices an objection, we can certainly quote him:
*Ed says atheism is a sin. John called Ed's remark "offensive".

That's how I would do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It would not be offensive to atheists, because sin is the transgression of God's Law, and atheists do not believe in God, so it would be like someone accusing you of transgressing the law of Zeus, or Baal. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Comedic" ==

The opening sentence describes that Ann Coulter is "comedic" yet the article only demonstrates that the despises "liberals" and is indifferent to cultures of other nations. Previously there was the commentary on the not-gay-related-at-all John Edwards "Faggot" remark, and since a room full of conservatives found that laugh-out-loud hilarious for whatever reason, that claim could be made, but since that is no longer present on the article there is no explanation or demonstration of her being funny. Please either remove the word or demonstrate how she's "Comedic", and if you could, explain how calling people Stupid Traitorous Lying Religiously-Godless Fanatical Faggots (who must not be spoken to) is funny? Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and it only seems to me to be insulting.
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:If it will give you any comfort, Ann Coulter is relegated to the lunatic fringe by the rest of the right-wing commentariat, along with Michael Savage. You would never find her as a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show, for example. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 14:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont think being invited as a major speaker at the Conservatice Political Action Conference jives with being "relegated to the fringe," and neither does Mitt Romney endorsing her before she speaks, but maybe thats just me.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building," ==

I agree that this is sufficiently troubling that a good source is needed. I think it is relevant precisely because it seems to me to go beyond the bounds of anything that can possibly be brushed off as humor. I think an Associated Press story printed in USA Today is a good enough source.

If the issue is whether the New York Observer actually printed this, I'm willing to pay the $2.95 to confirm it, but I don't think this is at issue. If this issue is whether she really said it, presumably if she issued a "clarification" (which IMHO makes it worse) to rightwingnews.com that means she acknowledges saying it. I haven't actually found this in rightwingnews.com, but believe that the AP would be reliable on this. As nearly as I can tell, rightwingnews.com is actually a conservative website (not one on which liberals track right wing excesses or anything like that). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Found the Right Wing News interview. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Help me write [[Out of context]]. It also might need a title change. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== interesting artlcle ==

As you can imagine (if you read my user page) I somewhat disagree with Ms. Coulter on one or two issues. What I found amusing about this article was that, after the blushingly adoring intro paragraphs, there are a bunch of quotes. Ironically, they are the ones I am familiar with, from hard core left wing sources. Nice job on the balance! First she is praised, then her nut-job ideas are actually quoted so people can "decide" <s>who</s> what she is. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:The misquote was obviously intended to make Coulter appear to be joking about genocide when in actual context it is nothing of the sort. She ''in fact'' is paraphrasing liberals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which quote are you referring to? I am talking about ''all of them''. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Are you saying these quotes are made up? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::No, not at all. I just find it odd that the same quotes that travel in liberal circles to show, um, what we think of Ms. Coulter are the ones being presented here. Meaning, they mostly horrify me, rather than make her seem like a leader or intelligent pundit. Ah, and the previous comments get confusing - I was asking "which quote" is the "misquote". My first comment was about "all of them". [[User:Human|Human]] 13:16, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Why do you find it surprising that liberals would comment on the outrageous things that Ms. Coulter has said? Do you think that her horrifying comments about executing liberals and her disgusting smear against women who lost their husbands to 9/11 are not revealing and should not been repeated when assessing her as a pundit? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:19, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:Do conservatives really consider her a "thinker" or am I reading too much in this? She sounds like a total fruitcake. I mean, if she didn't go to law school, I imagine her pushing a shopping cart and arguing with mailboxes. That's about the level of thought I expect form her. Who cares what she says? She's a total idiot. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:23, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::She's a "total idiot" who is regularly invited to give her opinions at major Conservative gatherings and on nationally broadcast talk shows, and the misinformation she's disseminated about, for instance, Joseph McCarthy, is routinely repeated as fact by naive and ignorant souls who mistake her books for nonfiction. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:27, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:I know, I know. I'm just saying she's basically a troll that gets fed by ultra-conservatives and I wish they'd stop. Kind of like watching an ugly guy ask out a cute girl and the process takes a long time and is ''really'' uncomfortable.... That is what I think every time I see her on TV. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:21, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Why should they "stop feeding her?" She's not only a valuable source of misinformation, she helps to push out the boundaries of debate in this country closer and closer to direct advocacy of violence and political repression against Moslems, liberals, and other people she dislikes. They like that. That's why they "feed" her. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:25, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::makes my heart "bleed" a little more every time I read the first two lines of her column on Thursdays. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Strong following? ==

While there has been much talk about her as a role model above, I'd like to know if the following is true:

"Coulter has earned a strong following among conservatives".

Every right-wing american I know either considers her a joke, or at least "you have Michael Moore, we have Ann Coulter, they are equally bad" (not that I would ever compare Moore to Coulter). [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

By taking on a human form it is able to gather minions.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

"We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. " [9]

A very Christian idea. I'm sure Jesus approves whole-heartedly. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:There is capital punishment in the Bible. Do you think the dictum "Judge not, lest ye be judged" was meant to give ''carte blanche'' to evil? Jesus spent most of his time telling people to stop doing bad things. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. Jesus regularly advocated burning sinners to death. I'm agreeing with you.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:10, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The only places I can think of where Jesus did anything like call for the death penalty is when he's calling out the Pharisees in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 12:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Jersey girls ==

''moved from [[User talk:Ed Poor]]''

"Ad Hominem" Attacks:

"Rather than answering any of her criticisms of liberal ideology substantively, critics made ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem or "to the person", rather than against what she is saying. It is typical of liberals to change the subject and refuse to debate issues but rather to distract people with side issues or outright irrelevancies."

::Okay Ed, let's see if I've got this straight. Ann Coulter describing the Jersey Widows as "harpies," suggesting they hurry up and pose for PLAYBOY before they get too old, and announcing that they are "enjoying" their husbands deaths is NOT an ad hominem attack on these widows -- But objecting to her insulting these women in such a gross, deeply personal manner IS an ad hominem attack?

::Care to explain this? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:37, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:::[[Ad hominem]] means against the person, not against what they're saying. If the Jersey widows have presented a POV on topic X, and if Coulter wore to say that their POV is wrong or should be ignored because of personal attribute Y, then she'd be making an ''ad hominem'' argument. If so, you should describe all that in the [[Ann Coulter]] article. Be sure to state whet the widows' POV is first, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:03, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

(afterthought) I just found out the the phrase "ad hominem" is also used simply as a synonym for "[[personal attack]]". It does not have to be a fallacy, it can simply be bad manners. Perhaps this is the sense in which you were using the term? If so, please be clear.

We need to distinguish between (1) [[ad hominem argment]] (sometimes expressed in Latin as ''argument ad hominem'') and (2) a [[personal attack]], e.g., a gratuitious swipe, an insult, etc. If you plan on staying around in this encyclopedia project, you must be prepared at a moment's notice to explain yourself more clearly. Using straightforward, unambiguous terminology is always better than using vague language, especially when it's about a hot topic. Clear terms can cool things down. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:12, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, Ed, I know that "Ad Hominem means against the person, not against what they're saying." And yes, ad hominems quite frequently take the form of a personal attack, as Ann Coulter's ad hominem against the Jersey Girls most certainly does. It therefore qualifies as both a fallacy and bad manners. What do you consider unclear about this? What do you consider puzzling or ambiguous about the inappropriateness of a passage in which Ann Coulter's refers to these women as "harpies" who are enjoying their husband's deaths, makes the disgusting suggestion that they pose for Playboy before they get too old, and suggests that their deceased husbands might have been planning to divorce them anyway? Do you really need me to explain to you WHY this passage of Ann Coulter's qualifies as both an ad hominem attack and an outrageous and inappropriate personal attack on them?

:::The Jersey girls roused Coulter's ire by insisting on the formation of the 9/11 commission and by being both vocal and critical about the way in which 9/11 has been handled by the Bush administration. Coulter responded by grossly insulting them. I invite you to read Laurie Van Auken's July 22, 2005 statement (http://www.nowpublic.com/node/16472) and explain to me where exactly she talks about enjoying her husband's death, where she speculates about maybe appearing in PLAYBOY, where she talks about her husband trying to divorce her. Then maybe you can explain HOW Coulter galloping off into speculation about their marriages and their looks qualifies as a substantive response.

:::Still looking forward to your vigorous defense of the...uh..."arguments" presented by Coulter in that quote. Remember, Ed -- use "straightforward unambiguous terminology" while you're offering us all what you know about these women's personal lives and appearances, and be sure to explain to us how it's relevant. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this web site. I'm not about to "defend" anyone, any more than you would be justified to "attack" them. We have already agreed that personal attacks are out of place here. Or at least I have '''decreed''' them to be out of place, and I have fairly consistent backing from senior staff on that. Whether you agree or not, I'm not sure.

:::But as you know, Ed, the issue is not whether or personal attacks are acceptable here on Conservapedia. The issue is Ann Coulter's attack on the Jersey Girls in her recent book. I included the relevant quote in a Conservapedia article on that book. You removed it on the strange grounds that somehow that quote was irrelevant, and then added an odd little paragraph about how liberals are frequently guilty of ad hominem attacks -- something that made no sense unless you were claiming that objecting to Coulter's attack on the Jersey Girls somehow qualified as a liberal "ad hominem" attack on her. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Your strategy seems to be to attack Coulter and then challenge me to refute your attack. What you hope to accomplish by this strategy is beyond me. If it has any connection with writing the [[Ann Coulter]] article, I'll allow it, though.

:::My "strategy" is to include relevant passages in Conservapedia articles. You didn't want that quote from Coulter included, probably because it reveals far too much about why so many people object to Ann Coulter. I maintain the passage is relevant and belongs in the article.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:40, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps you find Coulter's remarks insulting.

:::Don't YOU find her comments about the Jersey Girls insulting? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

If so, you might want to add something to the article about her writing and/or speaking style. Does she pepper her comments with personal attacks? If so, how often? And how does the frequency or percentage of this compare to other pundits, authors, or public figures? Do politicians ever do this?

:::Yes, she peppers her comments with personal attacks, far more frquently than other pundits, authors, and public figures who enjoy the same level of exposure. I know of no politician who has made remarks comparable to her's about "physically intimidating liberals" or her "witty" implications that Moslems smell (quotes happily supplied on request) and I would be very interested to learn of any, if you know about them. And if you really REALLY want me to add these kind of comments to the article on GODLESS I'll be happy to do it -- and will expect those comments to remain in place once they're there. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Or maybe it is [[Personal attack]]s in general you disagree with. That's a red link, which as you know means that you are free to start an article on that topic. Are personal attacks always out of place?

:::Unless you are a close relative and friend, yes. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Is it wrong to accuse people of personal faults?

::: If the "personal faults" you are accusing them of involve information you have no way of knowing, like how they felt about their husbands, what the state of their marriage was, and whether they have plans to pose for nudie magazines, yes, it is wrong.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Or is it only wrong when you do so to distract attention from what-they-are-saying to who-they-are?

::: The kind of remarks Ann Coulter made about the Jersey Widows are wrong in any context.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you think of [[Double standard]]s?

::: They stink. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Should one standard of conduct be applied equally to all people and all nations?

::: Yes. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Or should our political opponents be held to a substantially higher standard than our political allies?

::: No. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

How much slack are we entitled to cut our friends?

::: None. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Or, to put it another way, how much wrongdoing must we overlook in our friends before we finally have to say, "You have crossed the line. I just can't cover for you any more."?

::: None. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Back to the matter at hand: you have repeated in some additional detail that Coulter attacked the "Jersey Girls". I'm not sure why you added all this detail, because I read a lot about it when the flap occurred. There's no question that her comments constitute a [[personal attack]]. Same as her swipe at Edwards:
*At the end of her speech ... Coulter said: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, [[John Edwards]], but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot, so I'm kind of at an impasse." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610.html]

::: I added "that detail" because in a discussion of the book in which it appeared, it is relevant. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Would you like to write something about the way Coulter attracts attention to her message with sarcasm and insults? The JG and JE cracks certainly look typical. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:01, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
*A member of the Sept. 11 commission ... lashed out at ... Coulter for a "hate-filled attack" in saying the widows whose husbands died in the World Trade Center used the deaths for their own political gain. [http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-09-coulter-roemer_x.htm]

::: I am more interested in the extent to which the right continues to invite her to important conservative conferences, even as they attempt to deflect criticsm of her remarks with the old "She's just kidding," or "the poor dear just wants attention..." wheezes. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Even though this is a completely one-side article which amounts to a personal attack on Coulter, we can cite it - if we investigate the context of Coulter's remarks. Was she just ''saying'' that the widows used the deaths for their own political gain, or did she offer any grounds for saying this?

::: How does simply quoting Ann Coulter and noting that her comments aroused controversy qualify as a "personal attack?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

An even more interesting question, of course, if whether she ''only'' responded to the widows' political remarks or requests with an attack - or whether she had counterargments. If the press only reported her "insult" then the real story is how one-sided the press is. Are AP, Washington Post, USA Today, et al. dominated by Democratic [[partisan]]ship or are they known to be utterly objective or even neutral? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:15, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

::: That question is completely irrelevant, Ed. Even if Coulter included substantive counter-arguments to the JG's statements, that would not excuse her calling them "harpies," accusing them of "enjoying" their husband's deaths, and nastily implying that they should pose for PLAYBOY.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==Protests==

Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::See what the others think. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-07-24T19:37:30Z

RWest:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]

==Johnny Appleseed==
Yeah, I just read the article at Wikipedia, and I've not seen anything along the bias that this refers to. The story about the preacher was showing that Johnny was very much a person who took his Christian beliefs very seriously. The date of his death is officially contested and this contention is mentioned in the article. There is nothing that smacks of "bias" as this page indicates. I will take out Johnny Appleseed in 24 hrs if there is no argument. [[User:ChairmanMeow|ChairmanMeow]] 12:44, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has responded to a number of our examples of bias after we have presented them. That does not mean that we cannot mention past incidents as examples of the general culture and outlook of Wikipedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:Consider updating the reference links in these cases to show the revision of the wikipedia article as it was at the time maybe. [[User:Amahony|Amahony]] 12:32, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

== #1 ==

Again, this isn't bias. If it had been an ''FA'', that would have been one thing, but ''GA'' is not quite the same level of recognition. This list is getting more and more ludicrous. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you here, Linus the Turbogeek. But can I call on you if I have technical computer questions? :-) A good Easter to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Um… you can't ''call'' me, but feel free to send me e-mail. A happy Easter to yourself as well. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal bias ==

The list contains still the statement that "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public", which still makes every statistician frown at conservapedia as soon as he looks where we get the data for Wikipedia from. A self-selected sample, with 131 categories, from which respondents can choose as many as they like, is compared to a Harris poll.

The other innovation of this example of Wikipedia bias is the definition of liberal bias; it now even has its own article as [[Liberal_quotient|Liberal Quotient]]. This article will make every mathematician frown, and it demonstrates that LQ is highly confusing. The article defines the LQ as Liberals/Conservatives, which has its own problems, but the illustrative part is that the article does not even once uses the definition of LQ correctly. None of the LQs mentioned in the article for particular groups, such as journalists, uses LQ correctly. It was never correct since it was created by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. And if you look at the [[Talk:Liberal_quotient|talk page]] you'll notice that most editors aren't able to apply the definition correctly either.

My suggestions would be 1) get a solid data base, since it it obviously a violation of good practice in statistics. 2) use a definition of liberal bias that people understand, now that it has been demonstrated, that the current definition is poorly understood. [[User:Order|Order]] 9 April, 18:40 (AEST)

:In addition, 3:1/1:2≠6. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Actually 3/(1/2) is 6. This is the correct part of it. You proabably mean 75%/33%? That is indeed something different and 225%. This just illustrates that the ''Liberal quotient'' is plain confusing. [[User:Order|Order]] 11 April, 11:00 (AEST)

== The Deluge criticism ==

As a Christian I can understand the criticism in which the Great Flood is treated as a piece of myth, or if you go to the Great Flood it will take you to the Deluge section: but what you have to realise is that the Great Flood can be seen in nearly all mythologies, for example, Dylan in Welsh and Atlantis in Greek. Therefore, the Noah account is part of wider scope, yet, it can be said that the Great Flood in all cultures could be the account of the same flood that Noah escaped in. {{unsigned|James M Hayes}}
:James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the [[Great Flood]]? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hmmm...==
"Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases." OK, but this page cannot be edited. Isn't that just as bad? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 16:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Nooooo. this is entirely different in a way, I'm unable to explain to you. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:A page that has been removed cannot be read, this one can. That's a pretty obvious difference, I would think, and one that I had no difficulty explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wasn't Conservapedia's [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] removed as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm, yes there was such an article that was deleted. But it was removed on the grounds that it was a rant with obscenities. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::And then deleted and then protected against further re-creation? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::It was created and deleted twice (with the second version apparently being a copy of the first version), so presumably it was thought prudent to prevent the same thing being done over and over. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Myk, we allow a great deal of criticism of our site here, far more than Wikipedia allows. I was not involved in the deletion of that particular entry but over time, as this site becomes more stable and secure against vandalism, that page can be reopened just as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Wikipedia is six times as liberal"==

Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's approx. 2.25, and that's not how "liberal bias" is defined. Stop being an idiot, Aschlafly. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code> 20:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'm going to be really really really sorry I ever mentioned this, but you '''can''' also think of it this way.

::::Accept for argument Andrew Schlafly's assumptions—(which I most bodaciously do ''not'' accept)—that America is conservative, 2:1 and that Wikipedia is liberal, 3:1. Now, imagine conservatives at Wikipedia encircled by and trying to fight off liberals, and ask: for every pair of conservatives, how many liberals on average must they vanquish in order to prevail? The answer is every pair of conservatives needs to subdue '''six''' liberals. Now ask the same question for America. Here, the answer is that every pair of conservatives only needs to dispatch '''one''' liberal. Ergo, at Wikipedia the conservatives would need to work six times as hard. QED. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't read Andy's mind, but I doubt that is how he arrived at his magic number of 6. Creative thinking though!! [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the critical point that is missing here is that Wikipedia is '''not''' an American institution. It is a '''global''' one. Thousands of the English articles are not written by Americans. Why else would there be such comprehensive information about cricket? It has no need to represent America, nor should it. Any argument that Wikipedia should reflect America is evidence of severe tunnel vision and likely xenophobia. [[User:RWest]] 15:34, 24 July 2007.

== #47 ==

<blockquote>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 [a] story</blockquote>

What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Newspapers are known to have a liberal bias also, and hence the copying from the liberal Wikipedia is noteworthy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What does any liberal bias in the written press (LOL) have to do with whether Wikipedia has a liberal bias or not? Number 47 simply is not an example of bias in wikipedia. You may think it's "noteworthy" but so what? It's listed as an example of bias in Wikipedia. I think that counts as [[deceit]].--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 09:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== #41 ==

That shouldn't be there, surely, as it is simply someone saying Wikipedia is biased, rather than an actual example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: It quotes an insightful remark by an authority. That's what good encyclopedias do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that it's not actually an example of bias. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 11:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the heck…? ==

I'm sorry about this, and I'll get to work on [[MediaWiki]] and stay out of trouble for a while after I have my say, but how is criticism of articles without a worldwide viewpoint a "bias"? Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and yes, America is not the only English-speaking country around, so it can't claim ownership of even the English edition. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the criticism means that Wikipedia places an excessive emphasize on the "worldwide viewpoint", often to the exclusion of US views such as conservatism. It's one thing to say what everyone in the world thinks, another to try to homogenize it into one "consensus" view. (See [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] - or until those are written, [[multiculturalism]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested edit ==

Could globalist be linked to [[Globalism]]. Has that anything to do with [[Globalization]]? [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 13:16, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:Link added. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules ==
It saddens me to see that people feel that it is OK to criticize a project that they have not even read most of the rules of. Yes, Wikipedia says that it is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and is NPOV. Of course it is not NPOV yet, but someday could be. Most of these criticisms (well over 70%) are based on ignorance of Wikipedia rules. There are 42 policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I doubt most people who are writing these criticisms have bothered to read any of those, except for the introduction. And the unbelievable hypocrisy of ''deleting'' and ''protecting'' a page called [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]] is sickening. So yes, if anybody was to go and read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they will see that these criticisms are completely unfounded (well, most of 'em). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Hoji, the criticisms are based on the results, and the Wikipedia rules really have very little to do with this. The rules themselves encourage bias (e.g., "NPOV" towards terrorists) or the rules may be applied against conservative edits (e.g., initially against the entry on Conservapedia). And then there are the criticisms about the rules don't say, such as the Wikipedia rules do not prohibit obscenity, gossip, or pretending liberal opinion is fact.

: A study of bias doesn't really care what the rules or cause is. The study is about the results. But thanks for your comments and Lord bless you for your efforts on Wikipedia and here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::And, ignorance is bliss ... it's much easier to blindly criticize something instead of trying to study/investigate the reasons. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently not easy enough, as some people (including Jimmy Wales himself) still pretend that Wikipedia does not have bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Time for my response (sigh); First of all, Jimmy Wales admits that it has a bias; he would be ignorant not to. But it is obvious that articles are much better now than they were a year or two ago. It's clear that great strides have been made towards not having a noticeable bias. And you say criticism is based on results? The stated goals of a project dictate what will be considered "good" and "bad", and most of the criticisms here are empty in their factual backing. Also, the "NPOV" towards terrorists is more neutral than calling them just "terrorists", no? Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, LTTE, etc. aren't usually referred to as "terrorist", because they are seen as legitimate freedom fighters by huge chunks of the Arabic and Western world.
:::: Groups like al-Qaeda are still described as terrorist organizations in the introduction, since a larger group of legitimate sources consider them to be terrorists.
:::: And "pretending liberal opinion is fact"; Liberal opinion is rarely represented as fact, but liberal reports with ''factual backing'' is reported with more legitimacy. That's what the WP:RS guideline exists, to make sure reliable sources are used. I think you mean liberal ''pontification'' on facts represented as facts; that's what WP:CSB is trying to fix. And may I refer you to look at our very own [[Theory of evolution]] article, where there are 14 blockquotes from sources who have very little authority to be talking about evolution. Let us remember that 99.84% of scientists support the evolutionary theory. How are those 14 blockquotes, along with many, many, many AiG references not "conservative opinion is fact"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
: What ''study''? [[User:Order]] May 14.
::Hojimachong, the problem here is that wikipedia only "officially" follows the principles of neutrality , "No original research" and "reliable sources". The reality is that all those "policies" are little more than unenforced facades (since when do left - wing propaganda rags like the New-York times, the Guardian and the rest of them count as non-partisan or reliable?). Wikipedia provides the mechanism by which extremist cabals (mostly of the far-left persuasion) can infest articles related to politics, religion, history and spirituality with a very partisan far-left bent, and they aggressively edit-war (even recruit admins to their revert-gangs and persuade them to abuse their powers in the gangs' favor). While the technical articles on wikipedia may not be so biased (except for the articles on so-called "evolution", which is now a politicized issue), the articles on all the topics I mentioned suffer from a systemic bias hidden between the lines of apparent neutrality. The way I see it, conservapedia takes a different and more honest approach, addressing systemic bias by admitting to it and working within it's constraints. That is far more intellectually honest than the left-wing nutcases on wikipedia. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jewish encyclopedia ==

There's no need for scare quotes around the Jewish encyclopedia, it just looks like we're either ignorant or accusing Wikipedia of being anti-semitic. The Jewish encyclopedia is a real work, and often cited for things relating to Judaism. [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ link to the Jewish encyclopedia]. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: The quotation is accurate. The quotation marks inform the reader that the term was expressly used by Wikipedia. I don't see how removing the quotes would be more informative or more accurate. Wikipedia is specifically and expressly complaining about its own use of "the Jewish Encyclopedia."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You should remove the quote marks. They are not found in the Wikipedia link, and as the earlier poster has already noted, the Jewish Encyclopedia is real. Nor was Wikipedia targeting Judeo-Christian tradition. The passage in question dealt with the wholesale copying of information from works that have entered the public domain--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: This new entry seems to imply that American lives are more important than the eyes of anybody else in this world. What is bad about trying to get more coverage on articles which deal with the deaths of many more people? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree with Hoji. Why is point 1 on this list phrased as if to say that Conservapedia believes the death of 3000 Americans ''is more important'' than the deaths of 400,000 Sudanese? Is that ''really'' the Conservative perspective?
:::In support of RDre and 27102340, how about replacing ''...Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."'' with the full list ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Nuttall Encyclopaedia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and other older encyclopedic works''? I don't know if the 1911 EB was regarded as a "Christian encyclopedia" at the time, or now. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:26, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I considered that replacement, but most people don't realize that the Nutall Encyclopedia and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica were Christian encyclopedias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed cahnge to #23 ==

Can we change #23 to this

"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. To remove the problem of ias in censorship in Conservapedia edits to the theory of evolution page aren't allowed in the first place."

Or maybe just delete it?

{{unsigned|Igor nz}}

==Chip Berlet==
I think perhaps the article should elaborate more on the Chip Berlet bias thing, particularly since Berlet himself has a wikipedia account, and aggressively edit-wars in tandem with extremist leftist cabals on wikipedia (see his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cberlet contribs]). [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting. Please tell me more, perhaps with some examples. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread (particularly his pet peeves like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism Dominionism]). His primary emphasis on wp seems to be against the LaRouche types, but he frequently whitewashes extremism on the part of the left by mischeviously attributing it to the right. For instance, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism New Anti-semitism] he blames the leftist antisemitism on some imagined association between the extremist left and the far-right movements in the United States, an assertion that is entirely without foundation (and not a view widely held by numerous advocacy groups combating left wing antisemitism, such as the Stephen Roth center and others). Plus, left-wing antisemitism is a global phenomenon, and it amuses me to think how the prevalence of antisemitism of the [http://www.jcpa.org/cjc/cjc-katz-f05.htm Communist Party of India] (say) would connect to some Neo-Nazi skinheads.
::I'm sure there are other examples if people dig deep enough. [[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 01:25, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Globalize?==
May I suggest that we globalize our focus just a tad here? The extremist liberal and anti-conservative bias of wikipedia is relevant to the politics of numerous countries in Europe and Asia as well as the United States. admittedly the problems there are less high-profile than the US-related articles, but the liberal bias in many non US-related articles are far more extreme and frequently delves into partisan references, racialist stereotyping and scapegoating, rabid support for Islamism, and other such positions characteristic of the far-left radicals.[[User:Giskard Reventlov|Giskard Reventlov]] 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, that is a superb point. I've suspected as much, because often there will be less resistance to the bias in non-US articles. Lord willing, let's expose this bias and please post specific examples here that I can incorporate in the entry. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Whinny Article ==

Wow, what a whinny article. It has almost no truth to it, and most of it is greatly exagerated in the most obscene way. It needs to be rewritten or completely removed in my opinion.{{Unsigned|MrDubya|MrDubya }}

*Ahhh, shut up. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:41, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Notice how many people make sweeping criticisms, but don't offer any specific problem that needs fixing? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Notice how cranky Karajou and TK made it a quiet evening, Philip? 6 hours of quiet. If you are still around in another couple of hours, the user might need another time out, I am thinking..... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:35, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

All those examples of bias on the content page, and "MrDubya" (what a ridiculous user id.) can't find a single error!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

: TK: Telling MrDubya to shup up was not a very intelligent way to respond to his comment (while not well backed up has some relevance), and was quite unprofessional and rude. [[User:Humunculous|Humunculous]] 11:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== numbers 18, 21, 22, 37 ==

Pardon my questioning, but isn't number 18's claim that "But Wikipedia gives no warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages" incorrect? There is an official [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer Wikipedia content disclaimer] which says that the site may contain objectionable content. This is linked to from every page through the general disclaimer.

number 21 doesn't point out that Wikipedia isn't itself implying the idea that Jesus never existed, but rather that other people have implied such an idea. This seems to be evident in the phrasing quoted, and fails to mention that Wikipedia sourced that statement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#_note-3] to show that some people have doubted his existence.

number 22 seems to be outdated, since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803 the current revision when I checked] says that "many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to <nowiki>[Christianity]</nowiki>"

number 37 is outdated, wikipedia has about 1.8 million articles now.

I don't mean to criticize, but if this is to be taken seriously, we should probably weed out errors or things which are outdated - otherwise, it might look like a bunch of random people smearing something they don't like, regardless of any weaknesses in Wikipedia which may exist. [[User:Aristotle|Aristotle]] 12:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: Criticisms are welcome, and I've clarified the entry in response to your points as follows:

:: Point 18 is made stronger as the result of your link, which proves that Wikipedia does not warn about specifically images of sexual activities, pornography, or adult content.

:: Point 21 is unchanged, as Wikipedia does repeat an absurd claim of Jesus deniers. Would Wikipedia do likewise in a serious entry about the Holocaust, and give credibility to claims of Holocaust deniers? I hope not.

:: Point 22 is updated to reflect Wikipedia's backhanded reference to Christianity in its Renaissance entry.

:: Point 27, 1.5 was changed to 1.8. This does not alter the point here.

: Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:11, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== #3 ==

Wikipedia now mentions that Johnson credited his victory to God. They have a footnoted source for it, too. -[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:48, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

: But Johnson credited [[Christ]]. The [[liberals]] controlling [[Wikipedia]] apparently don't want to admit that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== D. James Kennedy ==

Recently added to his Wiki article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy here]) is the information that he is a "supporter of intelligent design." This information was added based upon nothing more than:

:1. An unbacked statement made by a far-left professor in an interview for the far-left Americans United for the Separation of Church and State [http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special],
:2. A repeat of said professor's claim in a far-left book about Republicans alleged "war on science" [http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=4],
:3. The simple fact that he wrote the foreword for a book about design - no indication was given as to what either he or the book actually says,
:4. A complete misrepresentation of Kennedy's sermons and TV show's special segments [http://www.coralridgehour.com/coralridgehour.asp?page=topicmessage&id=777], and
:5. Citing that his church's website sells materials on ID - a whopping total of ''four'' items (which is misrepresented as "a broad range" on Wiki), two of which are the same item in DVD and VHS [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=intelligent+design] - while completely ignoring the many, many other items about Creation(ism) they sell [http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrsearch.asp?sc=ProductDescription&search=creation].
That's it. That's the justification for claiming Kennedy is a supporter of ID. Ah, but if you can't prove a negative (a logical fallacy to start with) and provide a reference that states "Kennedy is not a supporter of Intelligent Design," then you have no basis for removing the false information from Wikipedia.

Admittedly, Kennedy agrees with IDers that the universe and life look designed, but his and their conclusions based upon that are completely different. Kennedy is a Bible-based. dyed-in-the-wool, 6-literal-days, 6000-year-old-Earth, life-created-as-is Creationist who points out that even though he and IDers agree about design, IDers are not Creationists. Why, if you were a supporter of ID, would you point out that IDers are not Creationists? This is the discernment that liberal Wiki editors who are enslaved to the rule of Wiki law lack (or force themselves to ignore).

And in the spirit of full disclosure, that addition to Kennedy's article is what drove me to leave Wikipedia. I argued against it (quite well, if I may be so bold) and got ganged up on by at least three liberal editors who used their combined efforts to "game the system" and dodge Wiki's "3 reverts rule." I watched my edits so as not to run afoul of the 3RR, but was still found in violation of it despite not having more than three reverts in 24 hours because I was watching my edits! (Someone explain that one to me.)
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

: I'll add this to the next update the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] list, probably tomorrow. Your comments here are right on target. I just returned from a conference where a leading ID scientist drew the same distinctions that you have. The [[liberals]] at Wikipedia no longer surprise me in their bias and unwillingness to accept basic logic. Welcome to Conservapedia, where logic is respected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Midge Potts ==

A cross-dressing man who has not undergone conventional hormone therapy and has not had sex change surgery is referred to as "she/her" on Wikipedia because he "identifies as a woman." I confronted this liberal nonsense [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Midge_Potts#Status_of_Potts.27_gender_alteration_and_pronouns here] with no liberals being able to successfully counter my arguments. Still, the article has been continually reverted to the version with female pronouns. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:41, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated "Missing Facts" articles ==

It seems that most of the things on this list are merely complaints about what used to be missing from Wikipedia articles. The point of user-generated project like Wikipedia, after all, is that when a mistake or an omission is noticed (say, the lack of commentary on indentured servitude in the Bacon's Rebellion article), the person who noted it can fix the omission.

For example: There is no page on Conservopedia for the [[Armenian Genocide]] or [[Premillennialism]], and the [[Giuseppe Garibaldi]] article is twenty words long. But nobody would jump to the conclusion that, because no one had expanded on the article, Conservapedia thinks that Garibaldi is historically unimportant.

Similarly: there are many statements of "bias" which are due to unnoticed vandalism, vandalism which was removed as soon as it was found. One can complain that Wikipedia needs more oversight, but there is a real difference between having idiots put up lies which simply went unnoticed, and a concerted effort to disseminate them. (It's also unclear to me how the "Liberal Agenda" is helped along by attacking Fuzzy Zoeller. Or by having lots of articles about Moby. But I digress)[[User:Nedlum|Nedlum]] 12:17, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: No, you misstate how Wikipedia works. Admins with special authority at Wikipedia review every edit and revert vandalism quickly. The instances cited here were approved by the Wikipedia authorities.

: None of the instances cited here are mere oversights, or random vandalism. They are examples of the bias in Wikipedia editors and admins in presenting factual claims to the public. Just look at how long the cited bias existed before someone heard about Conservapedia's criticism and then made a change in response to criticism here.

: Wikipedia allows and even encourages gossip, which we prohibit here. Wikipedia's use of gossip on Wikipedia does have a liberal bias, as numerous examples in this list illustrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, to assume that every single edit is immediately checked over (sit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges here] and watch how quickly they go by) is unrealistic. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:15, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Hoji, none of the examples in this list are vandalism. I don't think Wikipedia blocked any editor for these edits and typically multiple admins and editors saw and allowed these edits over an extended period of time. In the first example (Human Life International), the edit was by an IP address (unregistered user) to a controversial entry. That edit sticks out like a sore thumb even among a list of hundreds of recent edits. Yet it was allowed and I don't think the IP address has even been blocked for it.

::: If a Wikipedia admin speaking for Wikipedia says that one of these examples was vandalism and corrective action was taken (e.g., blocking the person responsible, posting an alert of some kind, locking the page, etc.), then I'll note that accordingly here. But that hasn't happened. More examples will be posted today. Lord willing, Wikipedia will do something to stop the injustice eventually.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Costello ==

I have to take issue with the statement about Jerry Costello. The ''exact quote'' from Wikipedia, as of July 8: "He has a pro-life voting record and has received favorable ratings from the American Conservative Union and the John Birch Society." They are merely stating the facts, no? Did they say he was a ''member'' of the JBS? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: It may also be a fact that the American Communist Party endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004. Should that be in Kerry's entry? Of course not. Inserting that into his entry would only be designed to smear him. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:I agree. There's really no reason for Wikipedia to mention it, especially in a very short article. It could only be designed to make him look bad. Also, did the communists endorse John Kerry? Just wondering. [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 16:35, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: For the curious, the answer to your question could be provided in the entry on the American Communist Party, not the entry on John Kerry. But I doubt Wikipedia would smear Kerry like that anyway. The injustice is the campaign at Wikipedia to smear conservatives, and vulnerable people. Wikipedia is a bully, an unrestrained mob. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Call me dense, but I just read the CP article on the [[John Birch Society]], and I don't see how it's a smear to associate someone with them (whether warrented or not). Anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-UN, pro-Constitution, pro Founding Fathers... it might be a little libertarian for some CP users, but not a smear. So could someone elighten this poor soul? :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: I won't call you dense, but the point is not whether a highly informed and fair-minded reader would be affected by this smear, but whether an uninformed reader might be. Obviously the intent behind Wikipedia's guilt-by-association is to smear the victims in the eyes of the general public. Obviously the Wikipedia's false claims of association with JBS are designed to smear the victims with guilt-by-association.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's just it though; I ''am'' in uninformed, and I don't get how this is a smear. If Costello didn't actually get their support then sure, it's an untruth. I just don't understand how calling a conservative a libertarian is a smear, unless there's some sinister side to this organization which both CP ''and'' WP left out. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Have you read the Wikipedia entry about the John Birch Society? It says that the "Society had been marginalized within the conservative movement since the 1960s." Read on, as the Wikipedia entry gets much worse. And then Wikipedia smears Costello, who has absolutely no connection with the organization, with the appearance of being connected with it. Wikipedia's insertion of JBS into Costello's entry is obviously designed to smear Costello. If you want to continue to deny it, then go ahead, but you would only lose credibility by doing so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:04, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm definitely not saying that the statement is appropriate, but it is not a [[lie]]. However irrelevant it may be, it is still factual. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:39, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that Wikipedia's smear of Costello is not a lie. But it is still an unjustified smear. Ditto for Wikipedia's smear of Fred Schwarz. The objection to the use of guilt-by-association is not that it is a lie, but that it is an unjustified smear.

::::: The Wikipedia smears of Dave Dravecky and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are baseless and also out-of-date. Repetition of defamation is no better than the original defamation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Math Error ==

I know this is pointless, because it's just gonna be burried.... but simple math will tell you that 99.84% of 50000 would be 49,200 People, leaving room for 800 dissenters.... Therefore, the 700 that support still leaves another 100... Now, it's probably true that more than 100 scientists beleive in evolution, but you can't claim bias off of guesswork [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow your argument here. Obviously when several hundred people sign a paper, that does not imply that millions who didn't sign it somehow disagree and are on the other side. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:No, it doesn't, but it doesn't imply that they are for it either. It simply states that they either have no opinion (doubtful) for that they choose not to enter debate. When using statistics as reasoning for an argument, you can't assume a positive or negative from data that isn't there. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:: No, failure to sign a petition does NOT imply a lack of opinion. It simply means the person did not sign the petition. The reason could be anything from too busy to "agree but don't want my name on a petition." Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::That's exactly what I said... either no opinion (doubtful) or choose not to enter the debate... However, as I said, statistics are effective in debate only when they're used exactly as reported. Therefore, according to the available data, Wikipedia is correct. Obviously, common sense tells that there are more scientists who support creationism, but only the available data can be used to make a logical point [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:For the record, 98.4% of 50,000 is 49,200. 99.84% of 50,000 is 49,920 leaving just 80 dissenters. Hope this helps. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:25, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Golf ==

Again, this will be ignored, but I looked at the Zach Johnson page, and found that it only contains one quote from him (about his getting better). However, if you look at TIger Wood's page, which is about 2 or 3 times as long, it doesn't contain any full quotes and only one "half quote" about the desert golf course. Furthermore, none of the master's pages have any quotes from winners or other placers [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: What's your point? Zach Johnson won the upset of the year, if not the decade, which he expressly attributed it to his faith in Christ. Of course that should not be censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:31, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::My point is that no censorship exists.... None of the golfers have personal quotes on the masters pages, and most golfers don't even have quotes on their own pages.... On top of that, I see no past version of the page where his religious quotes were included but removed.... If you think there's a problem with the page, at least try editing it before coming over here and screaming bias... Just put the quotes in and get a reason for the deletion (if it occurs) Then you have a legit case for censorship.... As it stands, I see none [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

== Sections for criticisms/controversies more often in articles for right-wing organizations than in left-wing ==

One can pick any of the well-known conservative groups from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_organizations_in_the_United_States this Wiki category list] and more often than not, you will find sections for criticism and controversies. Do the same for well-known liberal groups, such as "gay rights" groups on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_rights_organizations this list] (since Wiki doesn't have a "Liberal organizations of the United States" cat), and you'll find it difficult to find any sections for criticisms and controversies. Additionally, if you do find these sections on articles for liberal groups, they are much, much smaller than what you typically find for conservative groups. More examples of this bias can be found using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_advocacy_groups_in_the_United_States this mixed category list] of political organizations. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:17, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly right! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:37, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

==Take a step back==

I'm not trying to hide anything here: I'm from Wikipedia, and I don't like what you guys do here. If this is largely ignored, I won't be suprised or offended, but I have a question...

If Wikipedia is so biased, why run away from it, leaving it the way it is, to create your own version? Wouldn't it be infinitely more productive to help in the pursuit of a free encyclopedia by fixing the problems you see instead of seceding and forming your own faction?

Essentially, you see Wikipedia as full of liberals and have two choices:
 1. Fix the bias you see;
 2. Leave Wikipedia flawed and create your own flawed encyclopedia.

I mean, pages on Wikipedia are vandalized all the time with offensive, pointless, or unwanted material, and when people like me see it, we remove it and move on. We don't hole up elsewhere and complain about it. Reading some of these accusations of bias, I think to myself: why not fix it? I'm sorry liberal politicians have so little criticism; go find some! I'm sorry we ignored Johnny Appleseed's Christian whatever, add it!

It's not our fault that more volunteers are liberal in Wikipedia. Instead of stepping away, why not keep us balanced? We can work together; we can resolve our differences. If you want to talk, I'll check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boss1000 here]. - [[User:Boss1000|Boss1000]] 21:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:The above is an insult to our intelligence, Boss Man.

:In point of fact, every time we dare add the sort of edit you call upon us to add, people like your allies on Wikipedia take it down. ''As the histories will show'', Boss Man, if you care to look.

:And in ''other'' point of fact, Wikipedia has on it a number of entries that Conservapedia would never permit--entries, for example, on certain intimate practices that ought to disgust you or strike terror in your heart. I'd like to take those down--but I'd like to know how you or any of a thousand Wikipedia editors I could name would feel about ''that'', mate.

:So don't talk here about Wikipedia being open to criticism!

:And while I'm on the subject, I'll thank you not to make any more of your complex claims. You see us as flawed? By what standard? As far as I'm concerned, your flaw is our standard of excellence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Very well put, TerryH. I might add that many Wikipedia defenders will hide behind "vandalism" to explain its [[liberal]] bias. But the 50+ examples of bias are not vandalism.

Wikipedia is a smear factory, a high-tech lynch mob. In addition to destroying people with smears and lies, Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children. Wikipedia boosts its traffic for its for-profit search engine by promoting gossip and obscenity. It is worse than the National Enquirer. No thanks, I don't want anything to do with it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:Adding my own two bob's worth, when Wikipedia's {{wp|Intelligent_design}} article was proposed for Featured Article status (or something like that), I opposed on the grounds of the bias in the article. Not only was my opposition rejected, as I expected, but there were threats to delete my comments as being trolling! Yet ''many'' people over the previous months had complained of bias in the article, and they were always slapped down, and in some cases banned. I even had another Wikipedian, a scientist, e-mail me and say that he disagreed with pretty well everything I stood for (regarding religion, evolution, etc.), yet he agreed with me that the article was biased, but that he had given up trying to fight the bloc of anti-ID people protecting the article. That's just one example of several that I could quote. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:36, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Rudy Giuliani

2007-07-24T14:27:46Z

RWest:

{{protect|TK}}

This article appears to be in clear violation of the 6th commandment. The majority of the article is unsourced opinion. He is a lawyer. For this site's sake, shouldn't more care be taken to avoid libel? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

* I quite agree. I have removed the unsourced material, personal opinion, and added a complete, fair and ''accurate'' page. --[[User:TK|Terry]] 21:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

----

== User Mageoflulz/Eljoe ==

Just added "cross-dressing" to the list of Giuliani's hobbies. He should be removed as a user. I have reverted it. --Terry 01:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*User Mageoflutz just removed the post above....doesn't seem to understand the history is saved, even if he deletes it, lol. --[[User:TK|Terry]] 02:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Same user, vandalized the page, using user name: Eljoe, to read:'''

Personal

Giuliani's sexuality is often a topic in the press and at times his sexuality is questioned. The Catholic Church annuled Giuliani's first marriage between he and his then wife, Regina Peruggi, because Giuliani discovered that they were in fact second cousins. While he and his second wife Donna Hanover were separated he moved out of Gracie Mansion and moved in with two gay friends. Guiuliani has appeared several times dressed as a woman at public events. He appeared in drag in an episode of "Queer As Folk." He also wore a blond wig and pink dress for the 1997 Inner Circle dinner in New York. He then appeared again on national television on "Saturday Night Live" cross dressing. [http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2001/10/19/3]

:*User as Eljoe, just reposted the paragraph above. Reverted it. --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*User Eljoe reposted the above paragraph once again. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply''' Giuliani's cross dressing is of importance to voters that might plan on choosing him as the next President, particularly if family values and moral behavior are important to you. I cited my addition as well. What is the problem with this?

:::* Why would you revert the post about how Giuliani married his second cousin? It is a fact that he married his second cousin. TK you should stop trying to make this site less credible. Correct information should not be deleted.

*This is an encyclopedia, not the gossip columns. Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and many others have dressed in drag for comedy skits, same as Giuliani, and it is not important to their record of public service. You will be banned soon, so warm up your other logins. LOL--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::We put facts, not opinions, not judgements, not gossip on these pages. TK, I copied your message to Aschlafly on to the Conservapedia:Abuse page. It'll be replied to faster there. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

None of what I added is gossip. It is a fact he was married to his second cousin. It is a fact he moved in with two of his gay friends. It is a fact he appeared on television dressed in women's clothes. And how one presents himself to the public and the world is incredibly important when serving public office.

::*Myk, I had already added a section on Andrews page. ;-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 04:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I know... don't bother Andrew with all that... he's got enough to deal with. Hold up on the edits here for a sec... I'm going to reformat it. Not mucking with content, just making it encyclopedic. We edit conflicted and I lost it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Removed section ==

Removed line "he was hailed around the world as "America's Mayor,"" this is an unverifiable fact. It may be a quote from a single newspaper article but hardly a consscensous from around the world.

*Please do not edit if you are unaware of the facts. Please also sign your posts. He has been hailed as "America's Mayor" in almost every publication, newspapers, all major networks, including Fox and CNN. A person would have to be disingenuous or have lived in a total vacuum not to be aware of that. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Formating==
Now it looks more like an encyclopedia article and the format is at least similar to the McCain article. It's still slightly POVish... Giuliani does have some political warts, after all but it's looking much better. Nice job with the content, TK. If you want to help, I'm going to try to do some of the other Republican candidates tomorrow (this is conservapedia after all) before moving on to the Democrats (full disclosure.. I'm a Democrat). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*'' "full disclosure.. I'm a Democrat"''... Well, good luck with your choices, lol. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Comedy Skits ==

"This is an encyclopedia, not the gossip columns. Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and many others have dressed in drag for comedy skits, same as Giuliani, and it is not important to their record of public service."

::I was thinking about that comment and I have to agree that this is suppose to be an encylopedia and encyclopedias do not focus on one aspect of a person's life so it would not be appropriate to limit topics on Giuliani to simply his "record of public service". So in the same way it is important to understand Reagan in the context of the Cold War it is within the scope of an encyclopedia to include the fact that he was an actor and liked jelly beans. So I am suggesting a Giuliani topic that would be "Comedy Skits" would that be more acceptable?

*It isn't germain at all. However since you seem hell-bent on trying to get it in, I have no problem with it, as I just re-edited it. To me, it makes him look better than if you had just agreed to leave it out. Please sign your responses! It saves the aggravation of skipping back to history to see who you are. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== The entry is way too one-sided ==

This entry reads like a campaign brochure for Giuliani. I'm going to track down and reinsert some of the inappropriate edits that has made this so distorted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Rather than do that why not simply add some balancing material. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
*Goodness! Perhaps if you would respond to your email, or IM's sent to you, Andrew, stuff like this could be avoided, and there wouldn't be a need for you to publicly complain.....I'm a Newt man, and for the life of me, I don't see this article as pro or con Rudy. Could you be more specific? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This is from wikipedia but would balance the entry. Alot about hie leadership after 9/11 is mentioned but this is a fair criticism:

Aftermath of Ground Zero recovery effort

In February 2007, the International Association of Fire Fighters issued a letter accusing Giuliani of "egregious acts" against the 343 fireman who had died in the September 11th attacks. The letter asserted that Giuliani rushed to conclude the recovery effort once gold and silver had been recovered from World Trade Center vaults and thereby prevented the remains of many victims from being recovered: "Mayor Giuliani's actions meant that fire fighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills Landfill," it said, adding: "Hundreds remained entombed in Ground Zero when Giuliani gave up on them." --- Eljoe

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/giuliani.firefighters.ap/index.html

Is is fair to balance a formal complaint by a union of 280,000 firefighters with a single letter from a retired firefighter? There's more text discrediting the union (who were the real heroes of the day) than there is describing their claims. And why mention that Giuliani is trying to discredit them as partisan? It makes him look like he's playing politics with their lives. --~[[user:RWest]] 10:27 24 July 2007

*User Aschlafly has posted that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of information here, nor is it acceptable to cite it for work here. The complaints of a very few Firemen, as to if the Recovery effort was ended too soon, isn't a valid criticism, as it was predictable that there would always be some percentage that would think as they do, even if the Recovery effort lasted two years. PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS! --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Agree on the point in general about not using wikipedia, but the International Association of Fire Fighters is not a very small group of firemen. And I'll tell you, here in New York, this is a big deal. People are still finding remains down there. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 21:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes if you follow the CNN link the International Association of Fire Fighters is 280,000 members. It is a significant viewpoint of Giuliani's handling of 9/11--[[User:Eljoe|Eljoe]] 21:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*If one lives anywhere but NY, it isn't. 280,000 members for a "International" organization, isn't very large, gentlemen. If you are hell bent on adding that stuff, get the other side as well, and enter it in the same paragraph. Fair & Balanced like. I am not looking to paint him as Evil, and neither should anyone engaged in this project. For every story, there are at least two sides. On Fox News, I saw the story, the complaints about ending the Recovery effort. Do some research on major disasters, and see if NYC's recovery effort took less or more time than those...let's see you bring in what those who decided to end recovery say about those "charges". Then we will have something worth the space, and useful to those doing research. :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::That's what journalists do, not encyclopedists. For a man whose reputation is due in large part to his dealing with 9/11, criticism from first responders is a significant deal. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*No, encyclopedia's have an obligation to state facts. Charges by some group, any group, are not "facts". To my knowledge, what that fire fighters group is saying has not been proven factual by any board of inquiry or government body, correct? Are you suggesting that any and all allegations, made by anyone or any group should be included, that it is right to include such items, on the page of any person in this Conservapedia? Should, for example, the page about Ronald Reagan include speculation about his family? Should a page about Ted Kennedy include the speculations and charges of others about that girl who drowned when his car went off the road? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::There are two issues here. One is that a very large union of firefighters is criticizing Giuliani on behalf of its members who served under him during the 9/11 terror attacks. That is news because it will impact his campaign and already did when he wasn't invited / didn't show up to address this union at an event where every major candidate was president. And yes, they are still finding remains in the ruin which verifies the claims of the firemen. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*So, now you are saying opposite of what you said above. Encyclopedia's are not newspapers. I understand Andrew's additions, as they are indeed factual, and germain but the fire fighters not inviting him to address them, which is why he didn't attend, and their feelings about the recovery effort is something to include, since he is a candidate, however it should be balanced with his side as well. Otherwise the entry just becomes a vehicle for people who dislike him to include all manner of things, and I think my comment about what is "fair game" is valid. Look in any other written encyclopedia, and see if opponents remarks are printed with some rebuttal included..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::How did I contradict myself? Encyclopedia's report facts, but I'm not going to investigate. To the best of my knowledge Giuliani's campaign had no comment on the subject. If you would like to balance the story by finding Giuliani's response to it, that will be a fine addition. But I don't feel compelled to include it. An association of firefighters is openly criticizing a presidential candidate over the very issue which is the foundation of his candidacy. That is a key constituency for him. If I had a dog in that hunt I'd be looking at something to balance it, but I don't. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, for a guy without a dog in the hunt, you are pretty worked up, and post lots of words, about including what you did, lol. It's all good. But I do wish you would be more concerned with a balanced presentation, no matter what your personal interest is. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In case you didn't notice, I didn't actually add anything to the article. I just look it over to make sure it's got a source and that it looks pretty like. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*No, I apologize, Mike, I didn't really check that well. I think the lines I added balance out the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Military service ==

The fact that Giuliani received a deferrment is notable. The fact that he never served in the military is not. It could be justified in an electability section, but not in his early life section. Was he also not a Boy Scout? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact he did not serve in Vietnam is relevant to his "Early Career" particularly given the timiming.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Eljoe2, if you remove only a partial quote, as you did the portion about the fireman's union, you will earn yourself a time-out. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*'''It is neither notable, or unique, nor important to giving a description of his life. Hundreds of thousands received deferments from the draft for attending school or being in certain professions. This was something that was done by the Selective Service Administration. His draft lottery number in particular, isn't relevant. Not having served in the military (as I did) isn't something shameful or unique either. If you wish to skewer Rudy, do so the right way, by posting germain factual information about his public record as Mayor or a U.S. Attorney.''' --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

As a person who is seeking the Presidency, the Commander in Chief of America's military, it is of significance to include in an encyclopedia that persons history of involvement or lack of involvement during in that military, particularly during a time of war.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And people can figure out for themselves that he didn't serve by the fact that it is never mentioned that he ''did'' serve. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The quote I removed was from someone working on his campaign staff in regards to the Firefighters Union and John Kerry, that seems 1)Biased because of the source and 2) More fitting for John Kerry's entry. It should be removed.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If I recall correctly Dick Cheney had "other priorities" during the Vietnam War, getting multiple deferments in the process. Just an observation that may be taken into account here. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*Since the Union has a clear record of endorsing Democratic Party candidates, and in this case, endorsing Kerry way before he had locked up the primaries, their prior actions do indeed go to a pre-disposed bias, no? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So Eljoe made a good point anyway... the source was from the Giuliani campaign. Note that the Union supports Democratic candidates, which it does, and leave the analysis portion out of it. And '''unlock the article.''' Just because people disagree with you is not a good reason to protect an article.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*'''Since the Union has a clear record of endorsing Democratic Party candidates, and in this case, endorsing Kerry way before he had locked up the primaries, their prior actions do indeed go to a pre-disposed bias, no? And it was quoted in Bloomberg as Rudy's response to the Union's open letter, therefore it is part of the record. Showing only the Union's charges, without allowing the other side's response, isn't fair, it isn't balanced. My IM is listed in the box of my talk page, feel free to use it. Until all the constant reverts, and removing of partial quotes ends, either someone is being suspended, or it will stay locked for tonight.''' --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it is not clear that the Union has a record of endorsing democrats, the artcle provides the single example. In addition the linked reference actually then describes the political makeup as "About 42 percent of IAFF members are Republican, 40 percent Democratic and the rest independent, according to union spokesman Jeff Zack." --[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Dude, you are abusing your power as a sysop. I have presented multiple compromises and alternative ways to phrase it to present a neutral POV. I'm not going to IM you because I'm not going to give you my IM address. You seem to feel the need to bold your comments as if this will make them more important. It won't. And how can the constant reverts and edits change if it's locked? This is a wiki. If conservapedia turns into a top-down power structure, it will paint a very bad picture of conservatives. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, something more than idealogy must be driving you, Myk. I didn't ask for you to IM me, I said, you could avail yourself of it. If it is that important, I can agree a simple sentence, "RG did not serve in the Military, and was given an occupational deferment by Selective Service." would be fair. The rebuttal to the Union, as quoted by Bloomberg should stay. Far enough? If not, we can leave it locked, and you two can cry to Andrew, if you haven't already, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Errr... isn't that what we had after eljoe reposted it? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::And yes, something more than ideology is bothering me. List the facts, avoid speculation, let people find their own truth. Did Giuliani receive a deferment? Yes. Did he serve in the military? No... but people are smart and when they see no military record and the fact that he received a deferment, they'll figure it out? Was he rebuked by a firefighter's union? Yes. Does that union have a Democratic trend? Also, yes. Reporting the speculation of a Giuliani employee as to the possible motivations of rebuke, however, is not encyclopedic, even if it is reported by Bloomberg news. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*The article now notes he did not serve in the Military, and the portion of his reply to the union, speculating on its political motivation is removed, allowing the readers to decide. Now, all of your issues seem to have been dealt with. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==IRC==
Just a note: We have an IRC channel set up on irc.freenode.net #conservapedia to allow real time...discussions. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 01:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Wish I could, Cracker...don't have the IRC application, and it isn't allowed, anyway, on my work server, due to Govt. security rules. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If information about the Union is to be included to show that it is biased towards democrats than more information on that bias should be presented. Their support of John Kerry is not enough. Providing an official record of who they backed since their creation would show that. This article does not. If you want to show their political makeup include the quote from the same source I posted above.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 01:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== ralling point. ==

First paragraph. You mean rallying. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 01:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't my copy! I fixed it. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The part about the Union bias is still a direct statement from Giuliani's camapign staff. That is spin, not a fact. A fact is the political makeup of the Union as in the quote from the same article "About 42 percent of IAFF members are Republican, 40 percent Democratic and the rest independent..." or that the Union has endorsed the Democratic candidate for President in the past two election cycles.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 01:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, read the article. It said Rudy's response was....: and given by his campaign office, which is all he has, since he is no longer Mayor, eh? Would you prefer to change it, remove the response and add that the Union has endorsed Democratic candidates the last two election cycles for President? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
==picture==
[[Image:Rudy Giuliani.jpg|right|thumb]]

Talk:Rudy Giuliani

2007-07-24T14:22:52Z

RWest:

{{protect|TK}}

This article appears to be in clear violation of the 6th commandment. The majority of the article is unsourced opinion. He is a lawyer. For this site's sake, shouldn't more care be taken to avoid libel? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

* I quite agree. I have removed the unsourced material, personal opinion, and added a complete, fair and ''accurate'' page. --[[User:TK|Terry]] 21:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

----

== User Mageoflulz/Eljoe ==

Just added "cross-dressing" to the list of Giuliani's hobbies. He should be removed as a user. I have reverted it. --Terry 01:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*User Mageoflutz just removed the post above....doesn't seem to understand the history is saved, even if he deletes it, lol. --[[User:TK|Terry]] 02:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Same user, vandalized the page, using user name: Eljoe, to read:'''

Personal

Giuliani's sexuality is often a topic in the press and at times his sexuality is questioned. The Catholic Church annuled Giuliani's first marriage between he and his then wife, Regina Peruggi, because Giuliani discovered that they were in fact second cousins. While he and his second wife Donna Hanover were separated he moved out of Gracie Mansion and moved in with two gay friends. Guiuliani has appeared several times dressed as a woman at public events. He appeared in drag in an episode of "Queer As Folk." He also wore a blond wig and pink dress for the 1997 Inner Circle dinner in New York. He then appeared again on national television on "Saturday Night Live" cross dressing. [http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2001/10/19/3]

:*User as Eljoe, just reposted the paragraph above. Reverted it. --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*User Eljoe reposted the above paragraph once again. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply''' Giuliani's cross dressing is of importance to voters that might plan on choosing him as the next President, particularly if family values and moral behavior are important to you. I cited my addition as well. What is the problem with this?

:::* Why would you revert the post about how Giuliani married his second cousin? It is a fact that he married his second cousin. TK you should stop trying to make this site less credible. Correct information should not be deleted.

*This is an encyclopedia, not the gossip columns. Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and many others have dressed in drag for comedy skits, same as Giuliani, and it is not important to their record of public service. You will be banned soon, so warm up your other logins. LOL--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::We put facts, not opinions, not judgements, not gossip on these pages. TK, I copied your message to Aschlafly on to the Conservapedia:Abuse page. It'll be replied to faster there. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

None of what I added is gossip. It is a fact he was married to his second cousin. It is a fact he moved in with two of his gay friends. It is a fact he appeared on television dressed in women's clothes. And how one presents himself to the public and the world is incredibly important when serving public office.

::*Myk, I had already added a section on Andrews page. ;-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 04:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I know... don't bother Andrew with all that... he's got enough to deal with. Hold up on the edits here for a sec... I'm going to reformat it. Not mucking with content, just making it encyclopedic. We edit conflicted and I lost it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Removed section ==

Removed line "he was hailed around the world as "America's Mayor,"" this is an unverifiable fact. It may be a quote from a single newspaper article but hardly a consscensous from around the world.

*Please do not edit if you are unaware of the facts. Please also sign your posts. He has been hailed as "America's Mayor" in almost every publication, newspapers, all major networks, including Fox and CNN. A person would have to be disingenuous or have lived in a total vacuum not to be aware of that. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Formating==
Now it looks more like an encyclopedia article and the format is at least similar to the McCain article. It's still slightly POVish... Giuliani does have some political warts, after all but it's looking much better. Nice job with the content, TK. If you want to help, I'm going to try to do some of the other Republican candidates tomorrow (this is conservapedia after all) before moving on to the Democrats (full disclosure.. I'm a Democrat). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*'' "full disclosure.. I'm a Democrat"''... Well, good luck with your choices, lol. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Comedy Skits ==

"This is an encyclopedia, not the gossip columns. Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and many others have dressed in drag for comedy skits, same as Giuliani, and it is not important to their record of public service."

::I was thinking about that comment and I have to agree that this is suppose to be an encylopedia and encyclopedias do not focus on one aspect of a person's life so it would not be appropriate to limit topics on Giuliani to simply his "record of public service". So in the same way it is important to understand Reagan in the context of the Cold War it is within the scope of an encyclopedia to include the fact that he was an actor and liked jelly beans. So I am suggesting a Giuliani topic that would be "Comedy Skits" would that be more acceptable?

*It isn't germain at all. However since you seem hell-bent on trying to get it in, I have no problem with it, as I just re-edited it. To me, it makes him look better than if you had just agreed to leave it out. Please sign your responses! It saves the aggravation of skipping back to history to see who you are. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== The entry is way too one-sided ==

This entry reads like a campaign brochure for Giuliani. I'm going to track down and reinsert some of the inappropriate edits that has made this so distorted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Rather than do that why not simply add some balancing material. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
*Goodness! Perhaps if you would respond to your email, or IM's sent to you, Andrew, stuff like this could be avoided, and there wouldn't be a need for you to publicly complain.....I'm a Newt man, and for the life of me, I don't see this article as pro or con Rudy. Could you be more specific? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This is from wikipedia but would balance the entry. Alot about hie leadership after 9/11 is mentioned but this is a fair criticism:

Aftermath of Ground Zero recovery effort

In February 2007, the International Association of Fire Fighters issued a letter accusing Giuliani of "egregious acts" against the 343 fireman who had died in the September 11th attacks. The letter asserted that Giuliani rushed to conclude the recovery effort once gold and silver had been recovered from World Trade Center vaults and thereby prevented the remains of many victims from being recovered: "Mayor Giuliani's actions meant that fire fighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills Landfill," it said, adding: "Hundreds remained entombed in Ground Zero when Giuliani gave up on them." --- Eljoe

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/giuliani.firefighters.ap/index.html

Is is fair to balance a formal complaint by a union of 280,000 firefighters with a single letter from a retired firefighter? There's more text discrediting the union (who were the real heroes of the day) than there is describing their claims. And why mention that Giuliani is trying to discredit them as partisan? It makes him look like he's playing politics with their lives.

*User Aschlafly has posted that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of information here, nor is it acceptable to cite it for work here. The complaints of a very few Firemen, as to if the Recovery effort was ended too soon, isn't a valid criticism, as it was predictable that there would always be some percentage that would think as they do, even if the Recovery effort lasted two years. PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS! --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Agree on the point in general about not using wikipedia, but the International Association of Fire Fighters is not a very small group of firemen. And I'll tell you, here in New York, this is a big deal. People are still finding remains down there. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 21:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes if you follow the CNN link the International Association of Fire Fighters is 280,000 members. It is a significant viewpoint of Giuliani's handling of 9/11--[[User:Eljoe|Eljoe]] 21:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*If one lives anywhere but NY, it isn't. 280,000 members for a "International" organization, isn't very large, gentlemen. If you are hell bent on adding that stuff, get the other side as well, and enter it in the same paragraph. Fair & Balanced like. I am not looking to paint him as Evil, and neither should anyone engaged in this project. For every story, there are at least two sides. On Fox News, I saw the story, the complaints about ending the Recovery effort. Do some research on major disasters, and see if NYC's recovery effort took less or more time than those...let's see you bring in what those who decided to end recovery say about those "charges". Then we will have something worth the space, and useful to those doing research. :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::That's what journalists do, not encyclopedists. For a man whose reputation is due in large part to his dealing with 9/11, criticism from first responders is a significant deal. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*No, encyclopedia's have an obligation to state facts. Charges by some group, any group, are not "facts". To my knowledge, what that fire fighters group is saying has not been proven factual by any board of inquiry or government body, correct? Are you suggesting that any and all allegations, made by anyone or any group should be included, that it is right to include such items, on the page of any person in this Conservapedia? Should, for example, the page about Ronald Reagan include speculation about his family? Should a page about Ted Kennedy include the speculations and charges of others about that girl who drowned when his car went off the road? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::There are two issues here. One is that a very large union of firefighters is criticizing Giuliani on behalf of its members who served under him during the 9/11 terror attacks. That is news because it will impact his campaign and already did when he wasn't invited / didn't show up to address this union at an event where every major candidate was president. And yes, they are still finding remains in the ruin which verifies the claims of the firemen. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*So, now you are saying opposite of what you said above. Encyclopedia's are not newspapers. I understand Andrew's additions, as they are indeed factual, and germain but the fire fighters not inviting him to address them, which is why he didn't attend, and their feelings about the recovery effort is something to include, since he is a candidate, however it should be balanced with his side as well. Otherwise the entry just becomes a vehicle for people who dislike him to include all manner of things, and I think my comment about what is "fair game" is valid. Look in any other written encyclopedia, and see if opponents remarks are printed with some rebuttal included..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::How did I contradict myself? Encyclopedia's report facts, but I'm not going to investigate. To the best of my knowledge Giuliani's campaign had no comment on the subject. If you would like to balance the story by finding Giuliani's response to it, that will be a fine addition. But I don't feel compelled to include it. An association of firefighters is openly criticizing a presidential candidate over the very issue which is the foundation of his candidacy. That is a key constituency for him. If I had a dog in that hunt I'd be looking at something to balance it, but I don't. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, for a guy without a dog in the hunt, you are pretty worked up, and post lots of words, about including what you did, lol. It's all good. But I do wish you would be more concerned with a balanced presentation, no matter what your personal interest is. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In case you didn't notice, I didn't actually add anything to the article. I just look it over to make sure it's got a source and that it looks pretty like. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*No, I apologize, Mike, I didn't really check that well. I think the lines I added balance out the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Military service ==

The fact that Giuliani received a deferrment is notable. The fact that he never served in the military is not. It could be justified in an electability section, but not in his early life section. Was he also not a Boy Scout? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact he did not serve in Vietnam is relevant to his "Early Career" particularly given the timiming.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Eljoe2, if you remove only a partial quote, as you did the portion about the fireman's union, you will earn yourself a time-out. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*'''It is neither notable, or unique, nor important to giving a description of his life. Hundreds of thousands received deferments from the draft for attending school or being in certain professions. This was something that was done by the Selective Service Administration. His draft lottery number in particular, isn't relevant. Not having served in the military (as I did) isn't something shameful or unique either. If you wish to skewer Rudy, do so the right way, by posting germain factual information about his public record as Mayor or a U.S. Attorney.''' --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

As a person who is seeking the Presidency, the Commander in Chief of America's military, it is of significance to include in an encyclopedia that persons history of involvement or lack of involvement during in that military, particularly during a time of war.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And people can figure out for themselves that he didn't serve by the fact that it is never mentioned that he ''did'' serve. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The quote I removed was from someone working on his campaign staff in regards to the Firefighters Union and John Kerry, that seems 1)Biased because of the source and 2) More fitting for John Kerry's entry. It should be removed.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If I recall correctly Dick Cheney had "other priorities" during the Vietnam War, getting multiple deferments in the process. Just an observation that may be taken into account here. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*Since the Union has a clear record of endorsing Democratic Party candidates, and in this case, endorsing Kerry way before he had locked up the primaries, their prior actions do indeed go to a pre-disposed bias, no? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So Eljoe made a good point anyway... the source was from the Giuliani campaign. Note that the Union supports Democratic candidates, which it does, and leave the analysis portion out of it. And '''unlock the article.''' Just because people disagree with you is not a good reason to protect an article.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*'''Since the Union has a clear record of endorsing Democratic Party candidates, and in this case, endorsing Kerry way before he had locked up the primaries, their prior actions do indeed go to a pre-disposed bias, no? And it was quoted in Bloomberg as Rudy's response to the Union's open letter, therefore it is part of the record. Showing only the Union's charges, without allowing the other side's response, isn't fair, it isn't balanced. My IM is listed in the box of my talk page, feel free to use it. Until all the constant reverts, and removing of partial quotes ends, either someone is being suspended, or it will stay locked for tonight.''' --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it is not clear that the Union has a record of endorsing democrats, the artcle provides the single example. In addition the linked reference actually then describes the political makeup as "About 42 percent of IAFF members are Republican, 40 percent Democratic and the rest independent, according to union spokesman Jeff Zack." --[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Dude, you are abusing your power as a sysop. I have presented multiple compromises and alternative ways to phrase it to present a neutral POV. I'm not going to IM you because I'm not going to give you my IM address. You seem to feel the need to bold your comments as if this will make them more important. It won't. And how can the constant reverts and edits change if it's locked? This is a wiki. If conservapedia turns into a top-down power structure, it will paint a very bad picture of conservatives. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, something more than idealogy must be driving you, Myk. I didn't ask for you to IM me, I said, you could avail yourself of it. If it is that important, I can agree a simple sentence, "RG did not serve in the Military, and was given an occupational deferment by Selective Service." would be fair. The rebuttal to the Union, as quoted by Bloomberg should stay. Far enough? If not, we can leave it locked, and you two can cry to Andrew, if you haven't already, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Errr... isn't that what we had after eljoe reposted it? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::And yes, something more than ideology is bothering me. List the facts, avoid speculation, let people find their own truth. Did Giuliani receive a deferment? Yes. Did he serve in the military? No... but people are smart and when they see no military record and the fact that he received a deferment, they'll figure it out? Was he rebuked by a firefighter's union? Yes. Does that union have a Democratic trend? Also, yes. Reporting the speculation of a Giuliani employee as to the possible motivations of rebuke, however, is not encyclopedic, even if it is reported by Bloomberg news. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*The article now notes he did not serve in the Military, and the portion of his reply to the union, speculating on its political motivation is removed, allowing the readers to decide. Now, all of your issues seem to have been dealt with. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==IRC==
Just a note: We have an IRC channel set up on irc.freenode.net #conservapedia to allow real time...discussions. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 01:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Wish I could, Cracker...don't have the IRC application, and it isn't allowed, anyway, on my work server, due to Govt. security rules. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If information about the Union is to be included to show that it is biased towards democrats than more information on that bias should be presented. Their support of John Kerry is not enough. Providing an official record of who they backed since their creation would show that. This article does not. If you want to show their political makeup include the quote from the same source I posted above.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 01:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== ralling point. ==

First paragraph. You mean rallying. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 01:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't my copy! I fixed it. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The part about the Union bias is still a direct statement from Giuliani's camapign staff. That is spin, not a fact. A fact is the political makeup of the Union as in the quote from the same article "About 42 percent of IAFF members are Republican, 40 percent Democratic and the rest independent..." or that the Union has endorsed the Democratic candidate for President in the past two election cycles.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 01:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, read the article. It said Rudy's response was....: and given by his campaign office, which is all he has, since he is no longer Mayor, eh? Would you prefer to change it, remove the response and add that the Union has endorsed Democratic candidates the last two election cycles for President? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
==picture==
[[Image:Rudy Giuliani.jpg|right|thumb]]

Eugenics

2007-07-20T18:17:47Z

RWest:

[[Image:Gtr766.png|right|thumb|300px|Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921.]]
'''Eugenics''' was a movement which tried to eliminate "dangerous human pests" and "the rising tide of imbeciles" through what has been euphemistically called "[[selective breeding]]". What this meant, in actual practice, was [[forced sterilization]] of American immigrants and minorities (particularly in California). [http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/index.html]

== Connection with The Theory of Evolution ==

[[The Theory of Evolution]] suggests that humans evolved to their present state like all living organisms. This implies that, should selective pressures change, humans as a species may also change. In the early 20th century, the term ''Social Darwinism'' was in fashion. This idea stated that the fittest people did the best in life, and, tautologically, those who did the best were the fittest. This was often used as a justification for racism and other oppression. Since evolutionary theory does not really apply to individuals, but to populations, this was never a valid application of the theory. However, this idea has continued to be a popular topic.

Charles Darwin declared in Descent of Man:<ref>Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (London: John Murray, 1901), pp. 241-42 (footnote * is a reference to Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236) http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-06.html</ref>

:At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Darwin was not the first to claim racial superiority. But he was the first to suggest that some races of man "will almost certainly exterminate, and replace" other races of man. Although Darwin never advocated this action, and instead decried it, those that took the idea to its extreme developed a new intellectual field called "eugenics" for this mythical biological struggle. Darwin decried the use of eugenics in chapter 5 of the same book, where he wrote:

:The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.<ref>Darwin, the Descent of Man, Ch. 5</ref>

The importance of this quote ''vis a vis'' the other, cited above, is often minimized, but the two cannot be read apart from each other.

== Etymology and History ==

The word "eugenics" is based on Greek roots meaning "well born." The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides 1883 as the date of origin for the term, which was coined by Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton. Later Darwin's son, Leonard, served as the president of the First Congress of Eugenics in 1912 in London.

Richard Dawkins has stated in one letter that it no longer be banned from polite discussion, but did not actually advocate it; in fact he stated in the same letter his distaste for the idea.<ref>http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php</ref>

In the early 1900s, many influential officials advocated Darwinism and eugenics. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes became a strong proponent. So did many others in prominent government and academic positions. Members of the British Eugenics Society, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation, are listed [http://www.africa2000.com/ENDX/eug_ij.htm].

== Eugenics in America ==

Between 1907 and 1937, 32 American states passed eugenics laws requiring sterilization of citizens deemed to be misfits, such as the mentally infirm. Oliver Wendell Holmes and all but one conservative Democratic Justice upheld such laws in a Supreme Court decision that included Holmes' offensive statement that "three generations of imbeciles are enough." Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927).<ref>http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html</ref> In fact, the third generation "imbecile" was very bright, but was declared by a eugenics "expert" as "supposed to be a mental defective," apparently without an examination. The cases were later forcibly overturned under [[substantive due process]] cases holding sterilization to be an abridgment of a fundamental right.<ref>Skinner v. Oklahoma (316 U.S. 535)</ref> This era of case law, overturning eugenics, actually culminated in enlargements of "fundamental rights" into other spheres as well.

Eugenics was taught as part of the evolution curriculum of many science classes in America in the early 1900s. For example, it was featured in the textbook used in the famous Scopes trial in 1925.{{fact}}

"By 1928, the American Genetics Association boasted that there were 376 college courses devoted exclusively to eugenics. High-school biology textbooks followed suit by the mid-1930s, with most containing material favorable to the idea of eugenical control of reproduction. It would thus have been difficult to be an even moderately educated reader in the 1920s or 1930s and not have known, at least in general terms, about the claims of eugenics."<ref>''See'' "Science misapplied: the eugenics age revisited," Technology Review, August-Sep 1996 (Vol. 99, No. 6), at p. 22(10), by Garland E. Allen.</ref>

Holmes once wrote favorably in a letter to a future Supreme Court Justice about "restricting propagation by the undesirables and putting to death infants that didn't pass the examination."<ref>9/3/21 Letter to Felix Frankfurther. For a detailed criticism of Justice Holmes' support of eugenics, see Professor Albert W. Alschuler's Law Without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes (Univ. of Chicago Press 2000).</ref> As noted above, though, United States law has abandoned this perspective long ago.

== Eugenics in Europe ==

German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel promoted evolution by drawing fraudulent pictures of humans embryos, to pretend that their developmental stages imitate an historical evolution of humans from other species.<ref>''See'' [[Haeckel Fraud]]. These fraudulent drawings remain a part of American textbooks and were only exposed a century later as false by the New York Times.</ref>

In 1904, Haeckel reiterated the view of Darwin quoted above: "These lower races … are psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes or dogs) than to civilized Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives." <ref>Ernst Haeckel, The Wonders of Life (New York: Harper 1904), 56-57 (emphasis added).</ref>

It wasn't long before intellectuals viewed war as an essential evolutionary process. Vom Heutigen Kriege, a popular book by Geberal Bernhardi, "expounded the thesis that war was a biological necessity and a convenient means of ridding the world of the unfit. These views were not confined to a lunatic fringe, but won wide acceptance especially among journalists, academics and politicians."<ref>A history of Germany 1815-1990, 4th ed., at 205, by W. Carr.</ref> In America, Justice Holmes similarly wrote that "I always say that society is founded on the death of men - if you don't kill the weakest one way you kill them another."<ref>2/26/22 Letter to Sir Frederick Pollock.</ref>

World War I entailed a brutality unknown in the history of mankind. Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor of the liberal New Republic magazine, observed that "prior to the Scopes trial [in 1925, William Jennings] Bryan had been on a revival tour of Germany and had been horrified by the signs of incipient Nazism. Before this point, Bryan had been a moderate in the evolution debate; for instance, he had lobbied the Florida legislature not to ban the teaching of Darwin, only to specify that evolution must be taught as a theory rather than a fact. But after hearing the National Socialists talk about the elimination of genetic inferiority, [historian Gary] Wills wrote, Bryan came to feel that evolutionary ideas had become dangerous; he began both to oppose and to lampoon them."

The march of evolution/eugenics continued unabated in Germany. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolution concepts of heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927.

In 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. Next was the Nazi sterilization law entitled "Eugenics in the service of public welfare." It required compulsory sterilization for the prevention of progeny with hereditary defects in cases including congenital mental defects, schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis and hereditary epilepsy.

The German schools indoctrinated their students. In 1935, a German high-school math textbook included the following problem: "… how much does it cost the state if:

a. 868 [mentally infirm] patients stay longer than 10 years?
b. 260 [mentally infirm] patients stay longer than 20 years?
c. 112 [mentally infirm] patients stay longer than 2 years?"

See Science misapplied, supra.

One German student was Josef Mengele, who studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort. He became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the Holocaust and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of eugenics.

The liberal Journal of the American Medical Society provided this summary: "The publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 led to the rise of the eugenics movement in Europe. Eugenics supporters believed that races could be improved by selective breeding. The Nazi Party adopted this belief and began a campaign against the Jews. Many physicians joined the Nazi Party because they needed jobs." "Medicine against society: lessons from the Third Reich," The Journal of the American Medical Association, Nov. 27, 1996 (Vol. 276, No. 20), at p. 1657(5), by Jeremiah A. Barondess.
Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, was more succinct: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide." http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm

== References ==

<references/>

== External References ==

Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man", W.W. Norton and Co., 1981, 1996.

[[Category:philosophy]]

==See also==

*[[Genetic engineering]]

Eugenics

2007-07-20T18:17:16Z

RWest:

[[Image:Gtr766.png|right|thumb|300px|Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921.]]
'''Eugenics''' was a movement which tried to eliminate "dangerous human pests" and "the rising tide of imbeciles" through what has been euphemistically called "[[selective breeding]]". What this meant, in actual practice, was [[forced sterilization]] of American immigrants and minorities (particularly in California). [http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/index.html]

== Connection with The Theory of Evolution ==

[[The Theory of Evolution]] suggests that humans evolved to their present state like all living organisms. This implies that, should selective pressures change, humans as a species may also change. In the early 20th century, the term ''Social Darwinism'' was in fashion. This idea stated that the fittest people did the best in life, and, tautologically, those who did the best were the fittest. This was often used as a justification for racism and other oppression. Since evolutionary theory does not really apply to individuals, but to populations, this was never a valid application of the theory. However, this idea has continued to be a popular topic.

Charles Darwin declared in Descent of Man:<ref>Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (London: John Murray, 1901), pp. 241-42 (footnote * is a reference to Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236) http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-06.html</ref>

:At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Darwin was not the first to claim racial superiority. But he was the first to suggest that some races of man "will almost certainly exterminate, and replace" other races of man. Although Darwin never advocated this action, and instead decried it, those that took the idea to its extreme developed a new intellectual field called "eugenics" for this mythical biological struggle. Darwin decried the use of eugenics in chapter 5 of the same book, where he wrote:

:The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.<ref>Darwin, the Descent of Man, Ch. 5</ref>

The importance of this quote ''vis a vis'' the other, cited above, is often minimized, but the two cannot be read apart from each other.

The term "Eugenics" was derived from the Greek prefix "Eu" meaning "beautiful" and "genics" meaning "study of family". It was coined by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.{{fact}}

== Etymology and History ==

The word "eugenics" is based on Greek roots meaning "well born." The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides 1883 as the date of origin for the term, which was coined by Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton. Later Darwin's son, Leonard, served as the president of the First Congress of Eugenics in 1912 in London.

Richard Dawkins has stated in one letter that it no longer be banned from polite discussion, but did not actually advocate it; in fact he stated in the same letter his distaste for the idea.<ref>http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php</ref>

In the early 1900s, many influential officials advocated Darwinism and eugenics. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes became a strong proponent. So did many others in prominent government and academic positions. Members of the British Eugenics Society, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation, are listed [http://www.africa2000.com/ENDX/eug_ij.htm].

== Eugenics in America ==

Between 1907 and 1937, 32 American states passed eugenics laws requiring sterilization of citizens deemed to be misfits, such as the mentally infirm. Oliver Wendell Holmes and all but one conservative Democratic Justice upheld such laws in a Supreme Court decision that included Holmes' offensive statement that "three generations of imbeciles are enough." Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927).<ref>http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html</ref> In fact, the third generation "imbecile" was very bright, but was declared by a eugenics "expert" as "supposed to be a mental defective," apparently without an examination. The cases were later forcibly overturned under [[substantive due process]] cases holding sterilization to be an abridgment of a fundamental right.<ref>Skinner v. Oklahoma (316 U.S. 535)</ref> This era of case law, overturning eugenics, actually culminated in enlargements of "fundamental rights" into other spheres as well.

Eugenics was taught as part of the evolution curriculum of many science classes in America in the early 1900s. For example, it was featured in the textbook used in the famous Scopes trial in 1925.{{fact}}

"By 1928, the American Genetics Association boasted that there were 376 college courses devoted exclusively to eugenics. High-school biology textbooks followed suit by the mid-1930s, with most containing material favorable to the idea of eugenical control of reproduction. It would thus have been difficult to be an even moderately educated reader in the 1920s or 1930s and not have known, at least in general terms, about the claims of eugenics."<ref>''See'' "Science misapplied: the eugenics age revisited," Technology Review, August-Sep 1996 (Vol. 99, No. 6), at p. 22(10), by Garland E. Allen.</ref>

Holmes once wrote favorably in a letter to a future Supreme Court Justice about "restricting propagation by the undesirables and putting to death infants that didn't pass the examination."<ref>9/3/21 Letter to Felix Frankfurther. For a detailed criticism of Justice Holmes' support of eugenics, see Professor Albert W. Alschuler's Law Without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes (Univ. of Chicago Press 2000).</ref> As noted above, though, United States law has abandoned this perspective long ago.

== Eugenics in Europe ==

German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel promoted evolution by drawing fraudulent pictures of humans embryos, to pretend that their developmental stages imitate an historical evolution of humans from other species.<ref>''See'' [[Haeckel Fraud]]. These fraudulent drawings remain a part of American textbooks and were only exposed a century later as false by the New York Times.</ref>

In 1904, Haeckel reiterated the view of Darwin quoted above: "These lower races … are psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes or dogs) than to civilized Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives." <ref>Ernst Haeckel, The Wonders of Life (New York: Harper 1904), 56-57 (emphasis added).</ref>

It wasn't long before intellectuals viewed war as an essential evolutionary process. Vom Heutigen Kriege, a popular book by Geberal Bernhardi, "expounded the thesis that war was a biological necessity and a convenient means of ridding the world of the unfit. These views were not confined to a lunatic fringe, but won wide acceptance especially among journalists, academics and politicians."<ref>A history of Germany 1815-1990, 4th ed., at 205, by W. Carr.</ref> In America, Justice Holmes similarly wrote that "I always say that society is founded on the death of men - if you don't kill the weakest one way you kill them another."<ref>2/26/22 Letter to Sir Frederick Pollock.</ref>

World War I entailed a brutality unknown in the history of mankind. Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor of the liberal New Republic magazine, observed that "prior to the Scopes trial [in 1925, William Jennings] Bryan had been on a revival tour of Germany and had been horrified by the signs of incipient Nazism. Before this point, Bryan had been a moderate in the evolution debate; for instance, he had lobbied the Florida legislature not to ban the teaching of Darwin, only to specify that evolution must be taught as a theory rather than a fact. But after hearing the National Socialists talk about the elimination of genetic inferiority, [historian Gary] Wills wrote, Bryan came to feel that evolutionary ideas had become dangerous; he began both to oppose and to lampoon them."

The march of evolution/eugenics continued unabated in Germany. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolution concepts of heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927.

In 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. Next was the Nazi sterilization law entitled "Eugenics in the service of public welfare." It required compulsory sterilization for the prevention of progeny with hereditary defects in cases including congenital mental defects, schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis and hereditary epilepsy.

The German schools indoctrinated their students. In 1935, a German high-school math textbook included the following problem: "… how much does it cost the state if:

a. 868 [mentally infirm] patients stay longer than 10 years?
b. 260 [mentally infirm] patients stay longer than 20 years?
c. 112 [mentally infirm] patients stay longer than 2 years?"

See Science misapplied, supra.

One German student was Josef Mengele, who studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort. He became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the Holocaust and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of eugenics.

The liberal Journal of the American Medical Society provided this summary: "The publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 led to the rise of the eugenics movement in Europe. Eugenics supporters believed that races could be improved by selective breeding. The Nazi Party adopted this belief and began a campaign against the Jews. Many physicians joined the Nazi Party because they needed jobs." "Medicine against society: lessons from the Third Reich," The Journal of the American Medical Association, Nov. 27, 1996 (Vol. 276, No. 20), at p. 1657(5), by Jeremiah A. Barondess.
Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist, was more succinct: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide." http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm

== References ==

<references/>

== External References ==

Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man", W.W. Norton and Co., 1981, 1996.

[[Category:philosophy]]

==See also==

*[[Genetic engineering]]

Talk:Principle of induction

2007-07-20T18:14:55Z

RWest: New page: I deleted the following phrase from the end. It cast too bleak a shadow on the possibilty of human knowledge: Claims to know are therefore inherently unscientific.

I deleted the following phrase from the end. It cast too bleak a shadow on the possibilty of human knowledge: Claims to know are therefore inherently unscientific.

Principle of induction

2007-07-20T18:14:08Z

RWest:

The Principle of Induction is the fundamental precept of modern science. Without it, [[experiment]]s could not confirm a [[hypothesis]], and nothing in the physical universe could be predicted with any confidence. Thus there could be no natural laws or scientific truths.

When you get out of bed in the morning, how do you know your bedroom floor will not collapse under your weight? When you watch the sun set, how do you know it will rise again tomorrow?

<blockquote>''The PI states that if something x has happened in certain particular circumstances n times in the past, we are justified in believing that the same circumstances will produce x on the (n + 1)th occasion.'' <ref>“Everything and more, a compact history of infinity” by David Foster Wallace (Weidenfeld, 2003)</ref> </blockquote>

If something seems to happen repeatedly, such as an apple falling to the ground when it leaves the tree, you can use this prior behavior to predict what will happen next. All scientific [[theory|theories]] are based on the Principle of Induction.

However, there is no way of truly knowing for certain that something will happen again in the future. The more often something behaves as predicted, the less likely it becomes that it will ever behave differently, but extreme unlikelihood is not the same as impossibility. If an apple suddenly fell upward from a tree, the whole of [[science]] would have to be reinvestigated and changed to accommodate the new information. Until then the theory that works remains the one that is used to predict future events. All science does is to try and predict what will happen in certain circumstances based on prior behavior.

An example of the use of the Principle of Induction is the concept of numbers which are too big for any existing or foreseeable computers to calculate. This is known as Bremermann’s limit. <ref> http://www.kisekaeworld.com/Intractable/intractable.html?issue9.html </ref>

==References==

<references/>
[[category:mathematics]]

Talk:Environmentalist

2007-07-20T18:10:56Z

RWest:

Why does the first section of this article reference Sheryl Crow's proposal to limit toilet paper use? It seems to me that that is an obvious attack on the environmentalist mindset. I can assure you that most environmentalists do not share Crow's mindset and have more reasonable solutions to environmental problems. Perhaps a history of environmentalism would be better suited for the beginning of this article. I'd make the changes but my account's on probation.

:Agreed. It's like starting [[fiscal policy]] with a quote from Dale Earnhardt Jr.

Give a pat on the back to whoever changed this article from hateful Environmentalist bashing to something that's certainly more pleasant. Good job.

Give some justification as to why claim is appropriate. Alot of people that call themselves environmentalists do seek to protect the environment. Claim gives the impression of people saying one theing and doing something else.
-Gasmonkey

:''from the'' [http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tov_namerica.php ATTAC REPORT]:

[[Greenpeace]] Founding/Supervisory Organizations:
*Red China
*Soviet intelligence apparatus ([[KGB]]/FSB)
*[[World Peace Council]] (WPC)
Supporting Organizations:
*[[Red Army Fraction]] (RAF)
*[[Earth First]]! (EF!)
*[[Institute for Policy Studies]] (IPS)

Greenpeace

Type of Organization: Semi-violent/protest-organizing

Location: United States, Canada, various European nations, Soviet Russia, Red China, & others

Ideological cover: Environmentalist

Activities: Political & legal activism; provocation & incitement to violence; political & logistical support for [[terrorism]]

Target countries: United States, Canada, Western European nations, & others

Status: Confirmed active

Assisted Organizations:
*Earth First! (EF!)
*[[Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy]] (SANE)
*[[Sea Shepherd Conservation Society]] (SSCS)

Derivative/Controlled Organizations:
*[[Earth Liberation Front]] (ELF)
*Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS)
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm an environmentalist and I don't belong to Greenpeace. Great job at generalizing there cheif. Just because ONE group of a FEW environmentaly minded people at some times go too far and commit crimes you generalize that to all environmetalists? Seriously, congrats on that. Are you a Christian? Well, then you are proably an Aryan skinhead too by your logic. After all, they claim to be Christians too.
:I'm a corncerned environmentalist about the environment, too. That's why I thought my lagunage was pretty good.. What we are discussing here is organizations claiming to be environmentalist, which may have other agendas. I'm sure we can get some gound language rounded out. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

The ATTAC guys also claim that the PLO is behind 9/11 [http://www.attacreport.com/index.htm]. I'd be wary of giving them any credence. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 23:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Be wary of them? that's not anti-Semitic comment, is it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

if you claim to be an environmentalist and do something else then u aren't really an environmentalist.
if I claimed to be a republican but voted for and believed in democratic veiws would I still be a republican?--[[User:Benburned|Benburned]] 00:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:A person can be 40% environmentalist with 60% dedicated to another agenda. Likewise it's not uncommon at all for crossover votes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:43, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==The religuion of nature==
American, you were on to something, and it's even poetic, but it gets a little sarcastic at the end. I'll try and save what I can. This part,

:'' There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution ''

can be backed up with scripture, Genesis "because thou hast sinned, cursed is the ground for thy sake". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Worship of Gaia?==
Where is the sourced information for this section? The only source in it is a link to some speech Michael Crichton made. How is he an expert on any of this? Please clarify, or let's get rid of it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

No kidding, it's almost incoherent. [[User:Pendayho|Pendayho]] 16:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: Tis hilarious. Especially the Al Gore picture. I'm going to find me some other 'hilarious' pictures to plaster all over the site. Should be some good George Bush ones. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

:: And let us not forget about how mockery is a tool exclusive to the liberal repetoire. Oh and it's good to see how it all got put back with no attempt at an explination. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Mockery? It is all very well cited, and only encapuslated. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well cited? I like ATTAC: (I quote directly) which describes itself as 'A Hasidic Analysis of World War III'. The link up, which draws lines from Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club, to 'revolutionary communist terror cells', has had me laugh quite a bit. It's almost as good as [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory this]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

::: My mockery comment was more directed at the purposeful choice of pictures of liberals that make them look either 1) goofy or 2) sinister. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT
:::: Shall I replace it with [[Image:Al_gore.jpg]] this? I'm not sure having a picture of Al Gore serves any purpose beyond that which I would be loath to accuse RobS of. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]
::::: To be honest, I have no idea why this article even needs a picture of Gore other than that he's a noted environmentalist. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: And furthermore, can you explain what any of that has to do with environmentalists? It seems to me if you want to write about Gaia worshipers that should be moved to a different topic. You seem to be looking for the most ridiculous information you can find and trying to stereotype all environmentalists as nut jobs. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
‎::Gaia+environmentalist brings up 115,000 Google hits. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist%2BGaia&btnG=Google+Search] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::pie+enviromentalist brings up 174,000 Google hits. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist+pie&btnG=Google+Search]Perhaps we should include a section on how enviromentalists like pie?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 19:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Mattee brings up a good point, I'm not sure how Google hits validates an argument. If you want to have an article about Gaia worshipers, I don't have any problem with that. But as it appears in this article, you are mischaracterizing all environmentalists as being part of some new age religion. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Environmentalist + Jesus brings up 317,000 Google hits more that 2 times as many as Gaia+environmentalist.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:12, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Environmentalist + Conservative - 654,000 hits, therefore all environmentalists are conservative. Wuh? RobS, you're going to need some better proof. Anyway, 67900 of your sample above are about Lovelock, so it's not exactly compelling. All I can say is - search engines do nothing to prove/disprove hypotheses. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

RobS, why was that edit reverted? You were given ample time to respond here, but you didn't. In 24 hours, I'm going to revert if you haven't explained why here. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?] 14:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT) Note the timestamp.
:It's all on the discussion page, right here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Read the people questioning whether we need a picture of Gore at all. I'd rather not attribute you with the motives I think you're trying to push with that picture. Oh, and do you want me to write that section about the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist+conservative&btnG=Search conservative] environmentalists who like [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist+pie&btnG=Google+Search pie]? --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]
:So what. Quayle misspelled potato, but never ran as his parties nominee for President. On the otherhand, Gore is a larger historic figure, and we have sourcing defining exactly what he stands for, represents, and believes in. This is much more relevent than a simple common mistake someone who served in the same office, yet his opponents are intent upon never forgetting (read the Conservapedia article on [[Dan Quayle]], it was created precisely for this reason. No mention whatsoever of any accomplishments that lead him to that office). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

: What does that have to do with whether Gore needs a picture? There are (three) pictures on [[Al Gore]], not one of them very flattering, though that doesn't matter. You haven't really answered my question. Here some issues -

*The Google thing means absolutely nothing - but since that seems to be let go, I'll do the same.
*An environmentalist ''is'' someone who is concerned about the environment. It's boolean logic. If you aren't concerned about it, then you're not an environmentalist.
*Why the picture? Are you trying to suggest with it that Gore's praying to some environmentalist god? If not, then what's wrong with any other picture?

Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]
:Go fix the Quayle article and we'll talk about fixing an article that is not in the [[Al Gore]] mainspace. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:: What do you want me to do? Anyway, we're discussing '''this''' article, here, and how we should improve it - so answer the question. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]
:::Ok, I suppose we can articulate more about Gaia, neo-paganism, and eco-feminists, and how they have infiltrated the environmental movement. But all that still needs to be kept separate from the various environmental organizations with links to foreign intelligence sources and terrorism. And the environmental organizations on the [[domestic terrorism]] watchlist might have to be separate from that (maybe not). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Can we also distinguish between conservation (as in, let's not use it up but make it last) and "environmentalism"? A case in point is ivory. I heard many years ago that hunters were driving elephants to extinction to get their ivory tusks, and that bans ivory export were only driving up the price and tempting poachers to take greater risks. But then I heard of some country which decided to manage herds of elephants to "farm" them for their tusks as a business. (Kind of like raising minks or chinchillas for their fur.)

::::It's something like the way Weyerhauser manages forests so they can cut down trees to make paper. Their total cubic feet of "living wood" is constantly increasing. Their profit motive keeps them from cutting all the trees down. They are thinking decades ahead.

::::Many so-called environmentalists aren't concerned with forest destruction or animal extinction. They want NO USE of trees or animals. Nature is not for human exploitation (see [[animal rights]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:19, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good point. You may recall about three years ago Los Alamos had a terrible fire that swept accross the Labs and burnt down 400 homes. The cause of the fire was environmentalist opposing even the removal of dead wood from fallen trees to be commercially expoited as fire wood (commercial logging had long ago been banned). The forest was a tinder box ready to go up in flames. And of course when the Forestry Dept attempted a controlled burn to avoid disaster, they picked a day when the wind was blowing about 40 miles an hour. Classic study of government & environmentalist teaming together to prevent private, greedy, capitalist rape of the environment. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

==Pop stars opinions==

Why are pop stars' opinions removed when they make good points and included when they make dumb points (like here)? [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 12:16, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Because this is essentially a blog for people with an axe to grind. Why else? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 16:30, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Tahoe and fire management ==

One finger to point is at the environmentalists. Another is at flawed fire management policy for the past few decades. The Tahoe basin is an area that is subject to many natural fires. With so many houses in the area (where did the environmentalists stand on that?) it became necessary to put out every fire immediately. This prevented the natural cycle of fuel for fires from being reduced regularly. Fire management has acknowledged that this fire has been in the making for decades. Further reading: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/26/HISTORY.TMP Compare this to Yosemite (similar area) and the fire management policies there http://www.nps.gov/archive/yose/fire/wildland.htm http://www.yosemite.org/visitor/frequent-fire.htm . Additional useful reading is the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service on fire management - http://www.fws.gov/fire/living_with_fire/ . Overly dense crowding for the area, removal of fire resistant species of trees, and quick extinguishing of natural fires coupled with a much dryer than average winter. Environmentalists certainly are not to blame for the first three on that list, and can hardly be blamed for the fourth. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 01:07, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Additional quotes from the article mentioned:
* Regan said that of the 1,300 parcels in the neighborhood that sustained the most damage, only 274 were new or remodeled — and therefore more likely to have cleared "defensible space." "The majority of homes in Lake Tahoe have not completed defensible space," she said.
* "It's important to relay the message that homeowners can cut a tree down without a permit," she said. "If they want to cut down trees, all they have to do is call their fire districts," she said. Lauri Kemper of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board said most people in the basin are reluctant to clear out trees.

Reading on [[defensible space]] in the Tahoe area - http://www.meeksbayfire.com/dfns.htm

--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 01:14, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Christinaity and enviromentalism ==

I am curious to see what people get out of http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/may/32.52.html . I am also curious if these individuals are to be labeled terrorists as the current category reflects. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:58, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==Definitions==

We need to distinguish among the various kinds of environmentalists. Some are conservationists. Other are "no-use" preservationists. Many (most?) are activists who are ''using'' environmental issues to advance social, political or economic agendas; this group is the hardest to describe, as they often don't want to be pinned down.

The general impression as that environmentalists "care about" the [[environment]], but this is often ambiguous. Do they care about it for itself, or for what it can do for human beings, or what? And is their concern genuine or fraudulent?

For example, is agitation to ban or restrict [[DDT]] based on genuine concern for ecological damage - or on fear that using DDT to reduce malaria deaths will lead to [[overpopulation]]? If it's the latter, then ''we'' should be up front about this, even if ''they'' are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:20, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:A distinction needs to be made between "environmentalist" and "environmental groups," in other words, between singular and plural, or organized groups. It is among the organized groups were agenda's other than "environmentalism" occurs, and among the singular individuals were wackos who don't use toilet paper are evidentally becoming more common.

:Granted, there may be individuals and groups with a bona fide concern for the environment, but they have been overshadowed in the past by the individuals and groups described above. Nowhere can we make the wholesale statement that all self- described "environmentalists" and groups share a concern for the environment, because it simply is not true. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:28, 6 July 2007 (EDT)