Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Fox News Channel

2010-12-18T03:51:34Z

RightPatriot: /* Unencyclopedic */

Question: Is it the job of a news channel such as Fox, CNN, etc. to present the news and allow the viewer to decide or to take it upon itself to criticize the policies of the President? It seemed like during the reign of GWB, Fox chose to limit its criticism of the President, and instead leveled it at the President's critics. During Obama's Presidency, they criticize the President, while painting Obama's critics as Patriots, those people who embody the spirit of this nation. You simply cannot be an intelligent, responsible American and not see whats going on at Fox. They aim their "negativity cannon" at opponents of the GOP. Plain and Simple

Suggest someone writes this page properly, fairly and honestly (yes it's biased toward GOP/conservatism) and then locks it.

This article is exceptionally better than its predecessor. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Well... the last article called Fox News Channel was copied wholesale from wikipedia. This is fine. But we appear to have lost the discussion page for [[Fox News]]. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't revert pages while someone is editing!

Thanks. :-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Psst... no way to know something is being edited ;) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::* IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-)

== Morons/Vandals ==

'''Okay, it was pretty much made crap by a vandal, who has now been blocked. Post your suggestions here, if you have something worth-while to suggest, and I can incorporate your changes. I think it more important we spend our time creating pages which are badly needed, and missing from here, rather than constantly reverting pages screwed around with by ***holes, who are obviously mentally impaired, or little kids with too much free time.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Why is the point of this whole article to defend FOX news against criticism? Shouldnt it be about facts about FOX, and facts only? And then maybe have a separate "criticism" or "controversial" section at the bottom?

Is this an encyclopedia or is it something else? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*''Well, it is something else'', it is the '''Conserv'''-apedia. It would be intellectually arguable that the smears and disinformation put out there about the Fox News Channel is now integral to all of the information about it. Therefore a large portion of the page will contain the "information you object to. Since you do not have a user page here, I have no idea if you are a registered member or what. If you had bothered to look at the page information, you would see it was totally devoid of information until I populated it two days ago. I am sorry if my abilities are not up to your obviously higher standards, but I have been doing other things, like working at my job, placating needy clients who also demand attention. It has been my intention to get back to it, organize it, add headers, etc. But since this is a wiki, I also expected others to help organize it as well. I have no problem with you adding the header: "Controversy" Some of the information, especially quotes from Roger Ailes would necessarily end up in both sections. If you feel you can at least be aware of our users affinity for Fox News, because they provide a non-judgemental forum for the Christian right and Republicans, have at it, your help would, indeed, and most sincerely be welcome! --[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise for the somewhat aggressive tone in my former message. I had just read the locked moon article which, quite frankly, almost made me cry. I realize that this is a work in progress and that it is not no-where near complete in it's current state. And I would be happy to help, if I can find the time since I, like you, have things in real life to do as well. But until I can find the time to make some proper research my contribution will solely be in commenting the article.

::That being said, my biggest concern with the article is perhaps the large amount of facts, or maybe information is the right term since as you pointed out this is conservapedia and it is bound to have a bias, being added at once, instead of little at a time. In my mind, and you may or may not agree on this, less information in smaller packages makes the article easier to structure. Still, your effort in contributing what you have is a start and I would like to point out that this is not a complaint you should take personally, it is rather a suggestion to the future editors. Whoever that is, you, me, or someone else. [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 10:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Messpm! When collecting information, I find it sometimes easier to compose using Word, then pasting it over, so as I have the time, I add to it, then BAM! I paste it here. I know some additional headers and splitting it up some, for readability is needed. Sometimes with very political things, we need to move lots slower refining things. Putting emotions aside, by all credible studies and comments from people in the public arena, Fox has indeed surpassed the other news organizations in the US, in crediability, without giving up it's pro-America stance. A nifty trick, if the pros are to believed. ;-) Besides, just before midnite, my blood sugar is low, so I get cranky! :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 10:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory paragraph needs work ==

The end of the first paragraph doesn't sound great on an encyclopedic level. There are several oddly worded rhetorical questions which need to go. Also the tone sounds like someone is loudly arguing, which is not encyclopedic.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 02:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree.

==Pic to add==
[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

== '''FOX NOISE CHANNEL''' ==

Thats the real name of this neocon run noise making channel. Its full of fear-mongers and radical neocons. KO said it best so get it right its Fox Noise Channel.

The worst part about it is these neocons are all fakes.[[USER:Smithson9999‎]]

:Oh, look. A Slobbermann groupie carrying out their marching orders. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Jinxmchue just cured my anemia with all that irony. --[[User:9820|9820]] 00:21, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:You think I watch Fox News? I don't have cable TV at all. Not even rabbit ears anymore. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:18, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Eh, who needs TV when you have the internet? :P--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 20:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* can someone mention the fact on how it finaly gave a voice to white middle class american males. Also,. it is an unfair unbalanced network [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:06, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds like a fairly racist POV you have expressed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Could this article be added to [[:Category:Broadcasting]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed it can! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

There is an error in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the "Founding" section. "quit" instead of "quite"--[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:34, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

A lot of the statements in the article are not sourced and some are simply pure conjecture, also there is an obvious pro-Fox bias.--[[User:NeoCon4Life|NeoCon4Life]] 16:11, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*NeoCon/Liberal, please be specific! This isn't WP and trolling will be dealt with harshly! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:46, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*Do we have a citation for "It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined."?
--[[User:Cowbell14|Cowbell14]] 15:18, 10 December 2007 (EST)

*Please tag that the sentence "It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it quite often draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, combined."? needs to be cited. Recent information shows that CNN has slightly pulled ahead in overall ratings but can most likely be explained because of the major advertising campaigns they've been using. Regardless it needs a source cited to be an accurate statement and not just an opinion. --[[User:TheRockstar|TheRockstar]] 20:43, 1 February 2008 (EST)

*Please help ensure accuracy by removing opinion or conjecture and citing sources. Example: "Who can say what host Greta Van Susteren's politics are? She mostly covers the crime-of-the-day stories. Geraldo Rivera has always been liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for sex offenders.". This statement does not cite a source. While I may know from viewing that Rivera has been more liberal then others on the network people who are trying to get an educated factual statement don't know where it came from --[[User:TheRockstar|TheRockstar]] 20:47, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I would think it would be a good idea to have an article about the criticism fox news has gotten (I myself DO think it is a right wing station though) But some of the criticism it has gotten is a little bit absurd, and it would be somthing interesting to talk about.--[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 20:27, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== It's okay.... ==

Three Sysops editing at once, LOL. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:This article is starting to look fair and balanced. We probably need a little more about Ailes & his background. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, maybe we can get another two or three admins in here working on it! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Independent?==
You guys are conservatives, so facts don't always matter... But Bill O'Reilly has been shown as a registered Republican Many times. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 08:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*That is in fact more [[deceit]]. O'Reilly is registered Independent. All voting rolls are public record in the United States, and you should not be making such inaccurate, and possible trolling posts. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:31, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but he WAS a registered rebulican, and he supossed was one when he was saying he is "independent" [[user:thegovernator]]

== bias. ==

this article reads like fox news, please consider moving to conserva-

owait, its already here.

facts < politics

flaming appreciated, its a bit cold here. {{unsigned|Headsup}}

EXCUSE ME!!! is this an article or an advertisment for fox news channel????? how about some facts. eg, when did it start broadcasting, where does it broadcast besides the united states, who are its directors, what are its main topics and programmes??? {{unsigned|Plqgnmv}}

*Okay, I excuse you. Now, how about you doing what editors are supposed to do, and suggest specifics here, or ask that it be unlocked for you to add them? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:45, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Internal Links==
Both [[Chris Wallace]] and [[Brit Hume]] lack internal links in this article, even though there are articles on both of them. You might want to change that. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:46, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== Edit for Fair and Balanced section ==

In the interest of full disclosure, should the fact that Fox News is the biggest backer of Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson be mentioned?

I'm not sure of the accuracy of the claim, but it is on the front page of Conservapedia right now, and a backing of a presidential candidate by a news source is something of enough import to warrant its inclusion. {{unsigned|Stitch}}-- 00:54, 7 November 2007

*Well, news items are news items, articles in encyclopedia's are not the same, yes? What have one to do with the other? The source given was hard to find, but seems to be from someone's blog, and part of the citation there comes from one of those tabloid-like newspapers in the United Kingdom. Sort of a circuitous way to bring election coverage to the United States in my opinion, wouldn't you agree? So one should imagine whoever placed that item was just trying to use this silly sourced item for provoking discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:53, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== By way of criticism: Fox News still has a liberal style ==

To demonstrate the impact [[liberal bias]] has on the media, this article should note some instances where the "liberal" style of news commentary remains on Fox, for example:
* "preference for obscenity and profanity" http://foxnewsporn.com/
* "over-reliance on mockery" - Fox commentary shows do a lot of this, it's not very Christian
* "believing that conservatives will fail" Fox's election coverage sometimes portrays Hillary as inevitable because of the overwhelming media consensus
* "pretending to know more than he does" Fox's commentators, especially O'Reilly, sometimes presume to know things they don't know

In this way the criticisms liberals lodge at Fox can be turned back at them as examples of typical liberal style. [[User:Shii|Shii]] 23:30, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:Wow, way to turn Classic Conservative actions into "liberal ones"
: "over-reliance on mockery" and "pretending to know more than he does" You say yourself these are actions of O'Reilly and yet you somehow claim they are liberal actions. When faced with the ugly truth that Fox News is actually a tool of conservative propaganda....deny deny deny, eh? -Lono

You are in way over the top. Study [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html] after study [http://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-foxnews-is-the-most-balanced-election-coverage---pew-research-centers-project-for-excellence-in-journalism-2008] Fox News is more fair, more trusted. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:47, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

== Proof that Fox Noise has an agenda. ==
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/fox-news-we-report-e_b_80698.html Fox News: We Report -- Even if We Know It's False] Paul Begala complains about the lies told about him on air.

[http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/682323/EA_Slaps_Fox_News.html EA Slaps Fox News] EA's response to Fox News' recent overexaggerated claims of pornography in Mass Effect. Farren Ballast. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:04, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:Fox dutifully fulfills New Media Are Evil: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY here] and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWVDRx-V5n4 here] Then you've got [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGqPxn7njqM Fox News editing footage to make a dem look worse] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L5dYzu1w9k Fox ignoring Ron Paul], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxAPf2x96I0 Fox attacking "non-existant" veterans], and [http://foxattacks.com/ pretty much everything from Fox Attacks.]
:MSM is garbage. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:06, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::No? Fox Noise Channel's lies and attacks don't even warrant a "BUT THOSE ARE LOCAL CHANNELS" response? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:49, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::If you wish to continue to call it "Fox Noise Channel," please feel free to go back to DK or DU or wherever you came from (after I request that you be permanently blocked as a troll for it). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:21, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::::Stop trolling, Barakada. Maybe the reason you've been ignored is that nobody can take you seriously. How about you actually write something and say "this is what I think should go into the article" instead of posting a bunch of links strung together with nonesense and opinion? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Al...right... How about "The above links are proof that Fox News Channel does, indeed, have an agenda, and devotes parts of it's airtime to attacking forms of new media for no apparent reason, snubbing legit candidates, and attacking America's most patriotic citizens-- it's veterans."? Seriously, though, I thought I was allowed to show opinion on talk pages. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::::::You are allowed to have an opinion. I've already said it's not ''what'' you said but how you said it. Nobody's going to do the work for you, so if you want something placed into the article, write it up, including wikimarkup, and ask someone (I think it has to be a sysop) to either unlock the page or put the text in. None of your above posts are written in good encyclopedic form, so if indeed you were suggesting material for addition, the value of what you said got lost in the noise. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:16, 29 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::I didn't expect anyone to put my exact comments in the article. Even if I were to put the links above in in an encyclopedic form in a criticism section, I would surely be banned. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:47, 29 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::I don't get the point of complaining if you fully intend not to be taken seriously. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::I do intend to be taken seriously. However, I fully realise that any attempt to include those links in the article will come off as liberal bias, because it is. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Barikada, please take your [[liberal]] links and your [[liberal]] stories elsewhere. Or else try being more fair and balanced, like Fox News. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:31, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:Don't you start it now too, Feebas. There's nothing wrong with his links by themselves, but instead the problem is the manner in which he presented them. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I'm sorry... :) Admittedly, Barikada could have been a bit less grating and sardonic in his presentation. And perhaps - if it were kept relatively neutral/objective - a reasonable section on "criticisms of Fox News" section could even be written (not sure how well it'd go over, but regardless). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:31, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:::I think as long as the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] are followed (particularly #Attribution), there is no reason why we shouldn't have a criticism section. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:16, 29 January 2008 (EST)

::::Criticism, yes. Hate-fueled smearing, no. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Exactly. We don't allow that here, but neutral criticism is ok. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::::The links above are hate-filled, I agree. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/arts/television/26mass.html This] clear retraction by Cooper Lawrence, the author who made the accusation makes the Roger Ailes quote seem pretty empty - "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework."

Also, despite having a commentator who had actually played the game available, Fox chose not to use him in the broadcast. It makes this quote of his fairly hollow-sounding: "Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools.".

Hollow, that is, unless Fox does indeed retract. Which they may. When Hell freezes over. [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 22:43, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I believe that, at the very least, the Begala bit should at least get some mention-- there's no way to spin that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:21, 30 January 2008 (EST)

==Fox's ratings take another dive==
[http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/31/fox-news-ratings-take-another-slide/] Fox's ratings are dropping. If the decline of newspaper circulation is proof that society is becoming more liberal (As seen on the main page's talk page, courtesy of Andy) what does this mean? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:50, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:Crooks and Liars and Media Matters. Wow. Great sources, Barikada. What's next? The Weekly World News? Don't bother clicking the link, folks. It's just mindless, biased liberal propaganda. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:02, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::Besides, any drop in [[Fox News]]' ratings is likely due to the liberal [[MSM]], trying to draw viewers away from responsable, balanced reporting with their [[liberal]] [[propaganda]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:05, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Category change==

The Category:Broadcasting should be removed now that it is a supercategory of Category:Cable TV Networks. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:53, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Unencyclopedic ==

"There's no doubt, of course, that Fox News is closer to mainstream America than CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN. But, after all, that was its founding mission."

The preceding reads as an opinion. I am not arguing that the statement is untrue but I don't think a statement like that belongs in an encyclopedia. Please remove or rephrase. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 11:15, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
:Why do you ask this to be removed? Only liberals remove the truth from encyclopedias. You aren't a liberal are you? [[User:RightPatriot|RightPatriot]]

== Sorry (re: Fox entertainment) ==

I was just trying to clarify criticism of Fox by conservatives. Should I make another article and link it?[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:That's one alternative....check and make sure we don't already have an article about "Big Fox". They are all different corporate entities, the different networks, News, Sports, TV, etc. Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 19:58, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::[[Fox Network]]. Checked, and expanded.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== "is a conservative ... channel" ==

I'd think Fox News is pretty unbiased, especially compared to other news channels. I was going to remove the word conservative but wanted to see what everyone here thinks. [[User:SaltLake|SaltLake]] 19:38, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservative ==

Mr. TK sir, isn't it a conservative channel?--[[User:TaroMasuki|TaroMasuki]] 23:02, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:No. Even the John F. Kennedy School of Government, at Harvard, says it is one of the, or the most unbiased and balanced among all networks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:04, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::That is very strange sir because on this thing [http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:lLVQk7Cmah8J:content.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D539+"john+f+kennedy+school+of+government"+"fox+news+channel"+conservative&hl=ja&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=jp] from them it says that 74% of the people who like it are conservative or very conservative, which sir would ordinarily lead me to believe that its coverage tends to be conservative.--[[User:TaroMasuki|TaroMasuki]] 23:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
Try watching Fox News for ten minutes and tell me where you see any conservative bias around. [[User:SaltLake|SaltLake]] 16:06, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:I am truly amazed at the 'head in the sand' mentality you display. Everything about Fox News screams conservative bias. Their constant criticism of everything
:the Democrats do and their hippocricical switching from "support the president, no matter what" during Bush Jr.'s terms to "Obama is unAmerican and destroying this
:country" is obvious. You know, I think most Americans would respect the Conservative movement more if they would just ADMIT that yes, Fox is a biased tool
:of the Republican/Conservative party rather than attempting to deny it. Its laughable in its obvious-ness. [[User:Lono|Lono]] 15:40, 10 August 2010

Talk:Islam

2010-12-18T03:46:32Z

RightPatriot: /* Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
See [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]] if you have an opinion.
----
Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21
:: Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
: This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Not ''self'' defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating "entirely" like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]
: It is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. '''That''' should go up on the page. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "controversial" statements in encyclopedias, please read [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa
: I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of "putting across" your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:: As above, see [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎]]. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction ''does'' imply falsehood, but ''apparent'' contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

::What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21

::: Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... "Let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The "entire Old Testament" is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the ''entire'' Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)
::: Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Anything "can be viewed" as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches ''one'' God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't "make" a Son of God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --[[User:Jrp32|Jrp32]] 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Recategorization ==

Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==See Also==
Can we add [[Jesus in Islam]] to the See Also list? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What about the Satanic verses? {{unsigned|VoteGOP21}}

==Islamic Violence==
Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21

==Historical Background==
I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21432.pdf Islam: A Primer]. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but "Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying."
:Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: The article says, "Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain". My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's ''not'' correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Head covering for women ==

While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Star and moon symbol ==
Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star & Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. {{unsigned|Sarahn}}

: I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for "islam" and "islam symbol" the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

* http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

== Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam ==
Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.[[User:Truthmonger|Truthmonger]] 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
::Except that it wouldn't be a truth. I'd say a major portion would be at least 0.5%, the number of jihadist muslims is much less.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:55, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Jihad is an important part of Islam. These people believe in a religion that supports "holy war", if killing infidels isn't a major part of Islam I fail to see why much else is.[[User:RightPatriot|RightPatriot]]

== Is Obama a ''Prominent Muslim''? ==

Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so.
Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes.
Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a ''prominent'' Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Read up on the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]], particularly numbers 1 and 2. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the "vetting", it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:Not to get into the Obama "controversy", but why not list some ''more'' prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? [[User:Human|Human]] 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)

:Gloria, I think you will find the Obama article ''speculates'' that he follows the Islamic faith. There is no conclusive proof (as yet) and as such he should not be included here. I am sue your concern is well-meaning, but speculation does not equate to fact. If he is ever found out be one, then by all means he can be added to the list. Until then...no. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the prompt & courteous response. I would argue that if we can say in the main article that he might be a Muslim, then we should be allowed to say that elsewhere on CP too. (After all, if we can't say it here, where ''can'' we say it?) However, I will be bound by your command. [[User:GloriaL|GloriaL]] 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:In a way,I honestly do not mind (he is not my President, in any event), but your reply answers your own question. There is a difference between saying he 'might' be a Muslim and listing it as 'fact' under "Prominent Muslims". Maybe "Prominent Suspected Muslims" but let us rather not go down that road. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 11:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== I object! ==

I submit that the "related" link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

The first section in this debate section-[ http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F] is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Removed Obama ==

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

TThe section Debate, is obama a muslim covers that myth, and is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

== Prominent Muslim ==

Right now it lists "Barack Hussein Obama" as a prominent Muslim but says he is "President-elect" of the United States. Even though it's inaccurate, is the title really necessary? Everyone should know who Obama is [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Relevance? ==

The last line of the introduction to this article states that "the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims." While this may be true - at least the majority of terrorists who are aimed at the United States may be Muslim, I'm not sure the majority of the world's modern terrorists are muslims - it is definately not cited. There is no evidence to this fact.
And frankly, even if there does turn out to be evidence, I do not see the relevance that this has to the Islamic faith as a whole. You would not see on the "African American" page that the majority of domestic violence cases occur within this ethnicity. It is just IRRELEVANT. [[User:89vanguard|89vanguard]] 9:53 11, March 2009 (EST)

== Consistency of Koran/Quran ==

I noticed that the article is not consistent in its use of Koran and Quran. Could we make a decision as to which one to use, then use it throughout? I don't know enough about it to say which one to use, I am just pointing the inconsistency.{{unsigned|PatrickA}}
:Good point. The correct spelling appears to be "Qur’an", although I am under the impression that "Koran" is probably the acceptable Western spelling. Would you care to go ahead and standarise the article accordingly? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 11:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Sorry for not getting there sooner, I had to get off. Thank you for standardizing the article. [[User:PatrickA|PatrickA]] 16:57, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
::Just as Chanukah has multiple spellings in english, Koran has no definite spelling using english characters.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 22:34, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens) ==

Can someone link the name in the prominent Muslim section, there is an article for him now.

:I reverted a comment on this page by User:The Troll because it was nothing more than rude remarks and did nothing to add to the article. I know we usually do not revert talk page comments. If any Sysop feels I was wrong, please feel free to revert my deletion of the comment, thanks [[User:Taj|Taj]] 16:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Obvious trolling, as in this case where the user self-identified as a Troll, isn't protected. We are not a free bulletin board for those who disagree with conservative and Christian values are welcomed to disagree with us with impunity, or argue we are wrong without end. Respectful disagreement or questions are welcome. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== could you remove something ==

I think the "despite his illiteracy" in the introduction is a little biased sounding. It's true he was illiterate, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like it didn't happen that way. While muslims believe that was a miracle in itself, you could always just put another sentence saying "So-so people doubt this because so-so". Just to make it less biased. I would do it, but I wasn't sure exactly if i should because it's a change in tone, although I feel a more neutral one.--[[User:Panda|Panda]] 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

*We are not unbiased. We are a conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia by definition. We have no interest in diluting the facts here, or making them "politically correct" so no one could possibly be offended. You should fight carrying over things you were indoctrinated with from Wikipedia and MSM. Someone saying God doesn't exist is a lie, and we don't mind saying so quite clearly. Too bad they don't agree; there are thousands of atheist/agnostic/secular wikis, boards and forums for them to participate in. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:21, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

== Dilution of Conservative POV ==

Please do not water this article down! By the tacit and explicit agreement of the so-called moderate elements of Islam, their failure to consistently and loudly speak out against violence, it is a violent religion. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:46, 15 January 2010 (EST)

But there are several instances of Muslims and Muslim organizations speaking out against violence and terrorism. A notable example is here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter16.htm [[User:YNathanielsz|YNathanielsz]] 20:23, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Liberal tricks

2010-12-18T03:35:45Z

RightPatriot: Addition on the liberal influence in media

Here are some common [[liberal]] tricks that many people fall for:

# When a liberal theory of pseudo-science is disproved or discredited, then simply change the name (or definition) of the theory to render it impossible to test, as in "global warming" -> "climate change."<ref>Another example is the redefinition of "evolution" to mean "change over time," which could mean anything.</ref>
# Claim a candidate is a racist if his campaign received a small donation (amid thousands of other donations) from someone who might be called a racist.
# Distracting and disrupting reasoned discussion, as in stating irrelevant claims, inconsequential tales of personal experience, or false outrage.
# Making pseudo-religious arguments even though the person making the arguments does not adhere to the [[Bible]], such as "judge ye not!"
# Making arguments that have superficial appeal to the dimwitted, but are actually nonsensical and probably not believed by the liberal himself.<ref>For example, one might conclude that [[Michael Moore]] makes silly statements designed to appeal to the less intelligent.</ref>
# Try to draw a [[conservative]] in to saying or doing something which can then be dishonestly twisted to cast him in a bad light.
# So as not to show his true beliefs of supporting evil infanticide and taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], [[Barack Obama]] insists he is pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/16/obama-and-mccain-try-to-woo-conservative-voters-at-forum/ Obama, McCain’s Abortion Positions Contrast Sharply at Faith Forum] Fox News, August 16, 2008.</ref>
# Inserting a [[liberal]] assumption into a question, as illustrated by the classic "When did you stop beating your wife?!"
# Pretending that liberals do not have a political point of view, but are just being reasonable.<ref>For example, people who insist on promoting [[abortion]] with mandatory taxpayer funding claim they are merely "pro-choice".</ref>
# Exaggerating praise for fellow liberals.<ref>For example, liberal praise by law professors for [[Barack Obama]] borders on the absurd.</ref>
# Pretending that atheism equals intelligence.
# In court decisions, holding in favor of the [[conservative]] side by using [[liberal]] reasons that will be cited for liberal outcomes in ''future'' cases<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Everson v. Board of Education|Everson v. Board of Ed.]]''</ref>
# [[Liberal]]s [[liberal friendship|befriending]] you so that you become liberal. (Conversely, why don't they become [[conservative]]?)
# Citing "live and let live!" except when it comes to praying aloud in school, keeping the money you earn, building on your own property, and every other liberal issue.
# Citing "it doesn't hurt to try!" (In reference to drugs, alcohol, and other immoral behaviors such as premarital sex, worshiping other gods/many gods/no gods, homosexuality, or abortion).
# Claiming that because everyone else supposedly believes in something, therefore it must be right.
# Claiming that your [[parent]]s aren't cool; that [[Hollywood values]] are cool; that [[professor values]] are brilliant; and that you must blindly follow your government.
# There is a shortage of everything we want.
# [[Prayer]] is for dummies, or is antiquated.
# [[children|Kids]] are getting smarter than old folks.
# Smearing your adversary with a highly offensive accusation or insinuation.
# Calling someone a [[racist]] if he criticizes a someone who happens to have a different skin color.
# Demonizing [[conservative]]s and pretending they don't care about regular people.
# If you don't like it (something offensive on [[television]]), don't watch it (but they don't seem to go for ''if you don't like [[whale]]s being killed, don't watch them being killed'').
# Believing the poor are blameless because they have nothing and the rich are to blame because they have everything.
# Accusing conservatives of libel, but forgetting that truth is the perfect defense against libel.
# In discounting other point of views, [[liberals]] use comparisons of other known "wrong actions" to justify their supposed correct stance. <ref>http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/07/hanson-earth-at-crisis-point/ , AFP Hansen, Earth At A Crisis Point, April 7, 2008</ref>
# Inserting false information, usually lewd into a respected work or group of works.
# Defending the assuration that democrats.com is not affiliated with the [[Democratic]] party. (We are told as an independent website, Democrats do not control the views of democrats.com.)
# Claiming expertise beyond one's area of expertise, as in a "Dr." or professor implying that he is an expert in an area beyond his specialty<ref>Liberals often cited physicists who had no training or expertise in engineering for their baseless, illogical criticisms of [[SDI]].</ref>
# Pretending an honorary degree does not give someone the right to be called "Doctor".
# Pretending [[affirmative action]] is the best way to fill positions, including [[Affirmative action president|President of the U.S.]]
# Fearing the wrath of voters this election cycle, Democrats have decided not to block offshore drilling bans renewed each October. After the election, [[Americans]] get sucker-punched because restoring the ban on new offshore [[oil drilling]] leases “will be a top priority for discussion next year.” <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36268 Democrat Leader: Restoring Offshore Drilling Ban a ‘Top Priority’ for Next Year] CNSNews, September 24, 2008</ref>
# Saying "If you believe that abortion is murder, don't have one!" as if abortion isn't undisputably the murder of a human being.
# Supporting classlessness while pretending to care about the preservation of world culture.
# Finding a diverse individual to be appealing or “cool” until they learn that the individual does not conform to their liberal agenda.
# Claiming open-mindedness as a disguise for immorality. Such is a typical liberal claim regarding drug/alcohol abuse, promiscuity, etc.
# Defending the lives of heinous criminals (by opposing capital punishment) while encouraging murder of unborn children (by supporting infanticide, known today as abortion).
# Justifying sinful [[lie|lying]] by saying "what they don't know can't hurt them."
# Twisting news stories so they reflect a false liberal view rather than present facts properly.

(please add to the list)

== Example ==

Here is an example of an actual attempt at [[liberal tricks]] that was posted on this very page:

{{QuoteBox|This article, and many others on a similar line, are a sad demonstration of incipient mental illness. Andrew Schlafly appears to be an educated man - after all, he edited a legal journal which was later edited by [[Barack Obama]] (I assume that Andy's tenure wasn't a result of [[affirmative action]] in favour of the narrow minded and the bigoted) - yet his denunciations of 'liberalism' get ever wilder and more paranoid as his definition of that beknighted state become ever more encompassing.}}

The above example (by a non-American) attempts to smear a [[conservative]] by implying that he has a mental illness, reflecting '''liberal trick''' #17 above. To someone unfamiliar with '''liberal tricks''', this can be upsetting and intimidating. But once one realizes that this is a basic trick from the [[liberal]] playbook, its silliness and ineffectiveness becomes obvious. The [[liberal]]'s foolish tactic is then revealed for what it really is.

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

{{liberalism}}