Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-23T21:22:46Z

RobertBobkins: /* Wow */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

==False Citation==

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

==Religious Views==
Is "reared a Baptist" accurate? Was he born and raised Baptist? Did he attend Christian church while going to Indonesian public schools? He talks of no religion and of finding religion in his book, I think (didn't read). reared?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do. We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of [[placement bias]], where it leads with [[liberal fluff]] and buries or omits informative truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: LOL! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 07:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Yesaliberal indeed. Where reason fails, resort to infantile mockery. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Point taken. As I said, the criticisms and his misrepresentations should be included by all means. I'm a firm believer in the "warts and all principle." It's the differences between the layouts of the articles of say Obama and G.W. Bush which introduce the bias that you accuse Wikipedia of. Wouldn't it be unbiased to include criticisms of Bush at the same relative position as Obama, such as the WMDs issue in Iraq? Surely war criticism must rank at least as highly as the "57" issue mentioned in Obama's article, particularly since this is perhaps a case of mis-speaking on Obama's part. Bush is almost legendary for his oratory stumbling. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

Well, look. Any black person who competes with any white person for anything in America has the benefit of white guilt and preferential treatment. That's because the liberals run everything. This in turn means that any time you see a black person in a good job you can say, "That just proves black people are inferior, because he wouldn't be there without affirmative action." This seems to be the subtext here, anyway. And not to put too fine a point on it, it's as racist as a burning cross.

ASchlafly: Is it inconvenient to be so transparent? Do people, like, see you digesting your breakfast and stuff? [[User:Archer070]]

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Complaint ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

::: Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]

::::: You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. [[User:Hindublog|Hindublog]] 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

If I could propose another track, the whole discussion about Obama's "professorship" is based on everyone's different idea of what a professor is. Some say a professor has to be the research/paper-publishing/tenured kind while others say it's up to the employer. How about actually using Conservapedia's definition of [[professor]] to decide whether or not he is one? Given this is an encyclopedia after all, I would think that's the most logical (conservatively or liberally) definition to use.

The current definition stands as ''"based on peer review of the scholar's work, and a process of election by his peers as specified by the rules of each college or university"''. I suggest everyone base their arguments on this definition, or alternatively work to improve the rather skimpy Professor article instead of waging an edit war here.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 22:19, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

: Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::I also removed the picture from the McCain article.
I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::Why don't you do it? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
::::::::::The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Page does exist: [http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_Campaign]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== The Senior Lecturer Reference ==

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam." ==

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
: It's wrong to say he went to an Islamic school. He did not, and there is no evidence that there is. Conservatism is about a set of ideals, not fudging the truth. {{unsigned|Impm}}

== 57 Islamic states... ==

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::here is the full quote.
::''"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."''
::It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Oh right. And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!

: Face it, guys. Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number. Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience. Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge. No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that. If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name. This brings him to 47. He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47. There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Tim, that makes a lot of sense. I was puzzled when reviewing the YouTube speech, because he said "fifty ... seven" (where the ellipse indicates a kind of dragging out or pause, where he have begun to be aware of his verbal slip. It makes sense if he meant to say forty-seven because
:::#He went on to say that he was not going to visit Alaska or Hawaii (50 - 2 - 48)
:::#He said he had one state to go (48 - 1 - 47)

:::It might be good for us to contact his campaign HQ and ask for a clarification. Does he stand by fifty-seven, or did he mean forty-seven? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

According to this site http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp the senator poked fun at himself for saying 57 when he meant 47. It seems like just a verbal slip up to me. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:29, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Drug use==
Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:Please provide a cite. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/]. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/ Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it.] Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it. How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page. Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms. I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there. We had the same thing on the McCain page. A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it. What do you think? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::I agree. I think the lead should only include major biographical information. Everything else belongs further down. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one. Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 13 June 2
::::No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you say. several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict. You are very close to being blocked. As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Since you've decided... ==

Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.

The (hopefully) Gone,

JMarks.

bravo

==Political Views==

My quote below keeps getting (citation needed) put after it. I am glad to site this except I think yellow belly liberals are messing with me. Since when do we need to citations for 'often refers' or 'frequently refuses'? Common, every week occurances don't need citations.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

quote
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him just 'George Bush'.

There needs to be a citation, because you can't just say that he does something without proof. Also, when the article says he has 'no executive experience', what does that refer to? Executive as in 'Presidential'? [[WillD]]

OK. I'll make the necessary citations--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Christians==

Any reason why he doesn't belong in this category? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain. Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: As often occurs here, detractors like yourself insist on the possibility of an exception rather than accepting a general rule. Obama doesn't simply disagree with "someone", he disagrees with the vast majority of Christians about [[abortion]]. Also, he never changed his Muslim name, while most Christians would upon any real conversion, just as Christians change to Muslim names when the conversion is in the opposite direction (e.g., Cassius Clay -> Muhammad Ali). So numerous indications weight against insisting that Obama must be a Christian. Conservapedia is not fooled by political expedience that can distort the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I would have no problem with Obama being excluded from this category if there were consistency in how it is used, but it seems there isn't. I believe we've never had a non-Christian president, yet several are not in that category (apparently more Democrats than Republicans, which isn't surprising, but excluding George W Bush and Reagan, which is). There are many liberal Christians, so I don't see political position being the deciding factor. As for his name, well, how many people change their name upon conversion to Christianity? (You mention Saul, but are there examples from the past 1900 years to back up your case?) In fact, changing one's name seems to be a Muslim trait (Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Yusef Islam aka Cat Stevens). And is his name a Muslim name, or just a foreign one? Is Fugimori a "Shinto Name"? What is the criteria for being Christian enough to be in the category? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 22:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Christians and Abortion===
[http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Here are some poll results about Americans and abortion]. [http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19771020&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8 Here are some poll results specific to Americans who self-identify as Christians]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 17:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why Wouldn't he Change his Name?===
If he were trying to fake his Christianity, he would certainly change his name '''unless the name "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." had some meaning greater that his political ambition.''' How could we not conclude that the name is a reminder to him of his true loyalties? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why would he change his name? Hussein is not by any means a Muslim name, but rather than Arabic name. You're confusing race with religion here... [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 20:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==57 states, again==

Sorry to say, but that line just seems ignorant. At the time Obama left grade school in 1971, the OIC had 30 members. One of its members, Albania, was officially atheist, while Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Mozambique and Suriname ''did not even exist'' as independent countries. (Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the year he left Indonesia, but in any case didn't join the OIC until 1974.) So the notion that he "learned in grade school" about "57 Islamic states" is absurd on its face. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 12:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: The article doesn't claim Obama learned about "57 Islamic states" in grade school. It does make clear why Obama did not learn about "50 states" in grade school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::1. He had from, say, 1965 to 1967, from 1971 to 2008, and for that matter from 1967 to 1971 to learn that the US has 50 states. In all likelihood we're talking about a slip of the tongue from someone who's made other gaffes (not unsurprising in a grueling primary fight with a loaded schedule and reporters recording his every word). Moreover, if you take the 50 states and add DC, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad - all of which had nominating contests - you get to 56.
::2. Even if his remark has some significance (which it doesn't), a serious biography doesn't mention, in its lead section, a remark barely noticed by anyone. You talk about his background, his education, his accomplishments (such as they are), the campaign - but don't veer into speculation on the basis of what is most likely a verbal slip. I don't like the man myself, but some pretense of objectivity should be kept when discussing him. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 14:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It may be a slip of a tongue, just as a racist or other offensive remark can be. But slips of the tongue can cry out for explanation, as this "57 states" slip does. You can bet if any Republican candidate had a "slip of the tongue" that was racial in nature, then liberals would run him out of the contest.

::: I've never heard any American say, as a slip of the tongue, that there are more than 50 states. So Obama's remarks are significant and do cry out for explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Is it appropriate to list all the gaffes of George W. Bush or John McCain as well? He could've read the number fifty seven in something he read before the speech and just slipped up. Surely you've misspoke before? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your explanation is implausible. Yes, of course, we all make mistakes. Dan Quayle made one once, and [[liberals]] hounded him out of politics for it. The point is not that Obama made a mistake, but why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::"He read a piece of information" is a more implausible explanation for misspeaking than "He's a Muslim manchurian candidate who compromised his mission to take over the US and give it to the Muslims"? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats true but G.W.Bush once said he never stopped thinking of ways to harm his country. We dont wonder why he slipped there.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Karl Rove has advised conservatives not to imply that Obama is connected to Islam because it might do more damage to McCain than Obama. I wonder if he might have a point. Christians, after all, did not demand that David Livingstone change his name when he went on a mission trip to Africa. A name is something personal and I would not change my name if I went abroad. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Does Conservapedia avoid telling the truth because it is politically incorrect? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

this conversation is pointless, the idea of whether or not Obama is Islamic has been debated and settled by the media, the conservatives, everyone, sometime ago. Lets do some work not debating about a moot point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp Snopes takes apologist stance on Obama's ignorance of number of US states] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

== More on changing his name ==

I'm starting a new section because it's hard to know where to put this, given that this matter has been touched on a few places above.

AdenJ earned a month-long block for removing the part of the following text that I've italicised:
{{QuoteBox|Obama has declared himself to be a [[Christian]]'', yet never replaced his Muslim name with a Christian one as many do.<nowiki><ref></nowiki>For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]].<nowiki></ref></nowiki>''}}
I don't consider the lack of a name change to be of much significance, and the supporting reason in the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags don't hold up or support the point.
* The evidence seems to be that Saul ''didn't'' change his name to Paul when he became a Christian.[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XOH_jfr5jSYC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=how+saul+became+paul&source=web&ots=Sf3Ox9lJfT&sig=u4VhlygigMQPFiMnzPkuk5hd_mw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA2,M1][http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99746.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim][http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/paul.html].
** Rather, he already had both Jewish (Saul) and Roman (Paul) names
** Although it seems that he changed to favouring the Roman one, this was not done at conversion
** There's apparently no good evidence that it was because of his conversion.
** "Paul" being a ''Roman'' name, you can't argue that he changed his name to a ''Christian'' name anyway.
* The text says "as many do", which is an implicit admission that not all do, so an individual not doing so means little.
* Evidence of a "Christian" changing his name upon conversion to Islam is ''not'' evidence that people with Muslim names normally change their name to a Christian one.
So the supporting evidence doesn't support the claim, the claim is questionable, it's removal was justifiable, and AdenJ's block, to the extent that it was due to this edit, was not warranted. And as for it being his ninth block, at least some of the earlier eight do not appear to have been warranted.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: There were additional reasons for AdenJ's block, including numerous prior blocks by many other Sysops, [[last wordism]] on my talk page after being warned, and what I considered to be deception in his claims about partnerships/marriage in New Zealand ([[Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative]]).

: AdenJ's outright deletion of the name issue without improving it was simply censorship. Philip, you've identified some room for improvement in the entry and those are always welcome. Censorship is not. If someone keeps a Muslim name and, with obviously [[political benefits]], claims to be a Christian, or vice-versa, the name is plainly reason to be skeptical about the self-serving political claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I've already answered the point about his other blocks, which were by ''three'' other sysops, hardly "''many'' other Sysops". I see no sign of ''deception'' on that talk page. The only fault I can see is in implying a generalisation based on anecdotal evidence. As for his "last wordism", he had made a total of ''one'' prior post in that conversation, and his final post was merely trying to explain himself, not continue that particular discussion. It's hardly a good case of "last wordism". Sometimes outright deletion ''is'' improvement, and hardly constitutes censorship unless, perhaps, the deletion is enforced, which he was and is unable to do. As for it being "plainly a reason", I've already provided reasons why, at the very least, it is not ''plain'', and likely not even a reason. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::A small point here, as it's been brought up many times. Muhammed Ali did ''not'' change his name because of his conversion to Islam. He changed his name because Cassius Clay was a "slave name." In other words, his name was a continuation of a name given to an ancestor when his family was enslaved. His name changing was simply part of a larger trend going on in that time period. I won't disagree that what he changed to wasn't religiously motivated, but the change itself was to free himself of what he considered to be a denigrating name, not because of his religious conversion. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 15:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: You'll have to explain thousands, or millions, of similar name changes if you are unwilling to acknowledge that a fundamental change in belief does cause most to change their name away from what they reject. To take another high-profile example, Robert Earl Moore changed his name to Ahmad Rashād.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Thousands or millions? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it is common when people convert ''to'' Islam (it might be a specific tenet of Islam), but is it to religions other than Islam, or is it just a requirement for Muslims? Does anybody with more knowledge of Islam know? It doesn't seem to be common when people convert to Christianity, so that might explain it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is a requirement for Muslims. Christianity has no similar requirement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Some Christian churches do require it. In fact, I think the largest does. Moreover, nearly all evangelical Christians would be uncomfortable keeping a Muslim name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: What church are you referring to? And is it a formal requirement, or just a convention? If the former, can you point me to the requirement? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I think most, perhaps all, churches that authorize [[baptism]] require a Christian name for it. For example, I think the Catholic Church requires a Christian name for baptism. I would expect the Anglican Church to require likewise, and expect that virtually all evangelicals reject continued use of a Muslim name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::An interesting point. However, that brings up some questions. Is this true of Obama's church? And what exactly is meant by a "Christian name"? In some usage it is a synonym for a first name, which he obviously has. "Barack" is a derivative of "Baruch" an apocryphal Biblical name preceding the foundation of Islam by over a thousand years. I admit I don't know much out baptismal names, but do they have to be "Christian" in the sense that they appear in the New Testament? When someone baptizes their child with one of those trendy new names like "Dakota" or "MacKenzie" do they have separate baptismal names, and if so, do they ever actually use them? If "Bruce" converts in his adulthood and is baptized, does he take a new more distictly Christian name that he then uses regularly? There has been a bit of a backlash recently against changing names, as a response to having "American" names forced upon immigrants at Ellis Island in years past. And I'm still not sure his name is "Islamic" so much as foreign. It's not as if his name is "Barack Muhammad Allah Akbar Hijra Abu Bakr" or anything. [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 11:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama is not an evangelical, however, nor is he answerable to evangelical conventions. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your comment begs the question of what Obama really believes. There's precious little objective evidence that he's a Christian, and much to suggest otherwise. His politically self-serving claim that his Muslim father was a "confirmed atheist" has less than a 1% chance of being true, and that implausibility casts doubt over Obama's other religious claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

If you have trouble believing that he is actually a Christian, then why would you have trouble believing that he is not an evangelical? Also, what evidence are you referring to that he is not really a Christian? Does this have something to do with the "Freudian slip" that no "real" American could possibly have ever made regarding the number of states in the Union?

As for the prevalence of atheism in Kenya, is it not possible that many people deny being atheists because of anxieties regarding cultural perceptions of atheism? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it really surprising anyone that CP has hopped on the right-wing "Obama is a secret Muslim" bandwagon? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Well, I'm not so sure that it's a secret. The evidence may not be perfect, but it is evidence nonetheless. I think he protests too much. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 17:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Is it really surprising that liberals believe Obama's implausible myth that he is a committed Christian? His own brother says he was a Muslim, and there is precious little evidence he ever gave it up. He's been caught in a blatant lie about his past beliefs, there's less than a 1% chance he's telling the truth about his father's beliefs, and less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity, so there's a less than .01% chance he's been telling the truth about him and his father. But, of course, for people who believe we evolved from monkeys when even if it were possible would be a trillions to one chance, .01% seems probable. People should go to Wikipedia if they want a glowing article on Obama that he could have written himself. We're interested in the ''truth'' here. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::Response to an earlier post:Mr. Schlafly, My comment had nothing to do with debating whether or not all muslims change their names. I was simply stating that Ali's change was not for religious reasons, it was for slavery/cultural reasons '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 19:11, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Ya know what? Now that I think of it, why should it matter what religion he follows? Do people think that there is something inherently wrong with Muslims that makes them unfit for public office? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 19:40, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, there is a problem with the religion he follows. Christians don't kill people, but Muslims kill lots of people all the time. THAT is why it is important.--[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 19:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Actually, it goes like this: ''Moderate'' Christians and Muslims don't kill people. ''Radical'' Christians and Muslims do kill people. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 21:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: If that's true, then there must be relatively few radical Christians, and relatively many radical Muslims, as the latter do a lot more killing than the former. But disagreeing with AdmiralNelson's specific reason, because it doesn't follow that a particular individual is going to be killing just because he's a Muslim, the reason that the religion of a president is important is because a worldview/religion is what shapes one's values and standards, and these ''will'' affect decisions that he will make. So the religion of a president is a very relevant matter to voters. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::::"Christians don't kill people"? Last I checked, the military was full of Christians, often evangelical. Killing people is a big part of what they do, is it not? Sure you don't want to modify that statement? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 08:12, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The discussion was clearly about people doing it ''because they were Christian'' or Muslim, so we weren't talking about self-defence, wars, or legal executions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If you're implying that radical Muslims kill more often than radical Christians, you're suffering from media/selection bias. Groups like the Army of God and the KKK pridefully kill in the name of Christianity.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:00, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, I'm suffering from truth bias. The KKK is hardly Christian, and the Army of God is an exception to the rule. Besides, how many have those groups killed compared to Muslim killings? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: According to the [http://www.kukluxklan.bz/faq.html KKK FAQ] (on requirements to join):
:::::::#You must be be a free white male or female of European descent, at least 18 years of age.
:::::::#You must be able to profess faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior.
:::::::It's unfortunate, but yes, they are Christian extremists.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:44, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) For me, part of what I look into is what do the texts of the religion say, in this case the Bible and the Koran, with the Koran also having follow up material compiled in the same time period that is revered by Islam as well. I've found it's not a coincidence that extremism is common to Islam as it is much easier to follow based on the writings themselves. In Christianity, it is far more difficult, and so the 'extremists' generally have to bend reality. Where in the Bible does it talk about the need to be a white European as if that is somehow associated with Jesus? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:45, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: Spot on, Learn together. Anybody can ''call themselves'' "Christian", but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Therefore you need to look at whether their actions and beliefs are consistent with what the Bible teaches. The KKK doesn't qualify. The KKK does not have the support of most of the Christian community. In contrast, I've often noticed tacit if not explicit support for Muslim "extremists" by large sections of the Muslim population. If the rest of the Muslim population condemned the actions of the "extremists", I'd be happy to say that Islam doesn't do much killing either (only people ''calling themselves'' "Muslim"), but that appears to not be the case [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

== Muslims that kept Semitic or Islamic names ==

[http://www.hesavedme.com/story.htm Hussain Andaryas] kept his semitic name, as did [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1918728/The-Rt-Rev-Hassan-Dehqani-Tafti.html the Rt Rev Hassan Dehqani-Tafti], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CExvHJxJnY this convert (who kept the name "Mohammed")], and [http://www.farsinet.com/dibaj/ the Christian martyr Mehdi Dibaj]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 19:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Is it possible these people were baptized with Christian names, but chose not to use them as their everyday names? I know Jews often do something similar. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:06, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==Islam==
Please upload the picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaDrudge.jpg -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

==He's Gay Too==

Since we're largely using the interview of one person to show that Obama is Islamic, perhaps we should add that [http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/i-had-sex-with-obama/2008/06/19/1213770824274.html he's gay] as well. I'm sure there are some slips of the tongue that will support it as well. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:A couple of our usual sources agree, the evidence is mounting: [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/03/02/obama_americas_first_gay_president][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-gurvitz/rnc-obama-busted-in-gay_b_87221.html] [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
::From what I read, it's nothing beyond an allegation. Until absolute, irrefutable proof shows up, we cannot state that he is gay...because if he is not, then it's libel. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Then report on the allegation, there is more than enough evidence to warrant its inclusion in the article, and opens the possibility of an alterior motive behind Obama's support for gay marriage. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:03, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: So, Karajou, on that basis we should also not claim that he's not a Christian, until "absolute, irrefutable proof shows up"? I'm glad you agree. So would you mind removing that part that questions his Christianity? Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::My statement here had to do with allegations that he was gay, '''NOT''' about his Christianity. Don't you ever put words in my mouth again. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:33, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I know that your statement was about homosexuality. But you were rejecting putting that in the article on the basis of a ''principle'', so I merely applied ''your <s>principal</s>principle'' to a different case. Or is there some reason that different principles apply in the different cases? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::That's ''your conversation'' and ''your principle''. Deal with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:43, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Apart from the typo, that was ''your'' principle (although I basically agree with it). You didn't explain why the same principle doesn't apply in the other case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::These accusations should be in the article. We won't say he is gay, just that a credible source has publicly accused him of it, and he makes a convincing case. People deserve to know that if they vote for Obama, there is a chance they are voting for a homo. We're not making anything up here. It's reliably sourced. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Tony, "sourced" and "reliably sourced" are not the same thing. I can put up a webpage that says John McCain is gay, and then post it here and say it's "sourced". Does that mean it is reliable or in any way accurate? Absolutely not. The Townhall article states that he would be the first "gay" president, and compare it to Clinton being the first "black" president. They're not saying he's gay, but rather that he will fight for gay rights. The second article, from Huffington Post, repeats conservative smears that a picture showing Obama greeting another male is a sign that he's "gay". I've greeted many friends and co-workers in the same manner as the photo portrays, and I'm sure many on this site have made the same greeting as well, without being labeled gay. It's the most flimsy accusation I've ever seen. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it true. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:20, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::Read the ''first'' article: "Larry Sinclair, a gay man from Minnesota who alleges he snorted cocaine and had sex with the Democratic nominee." This is a man giving a first hand account of a homosexual experience with Obama. We have absolutely no reason to believe that he is making it up. The liberal media is eager to smear Larry Craig as gay merely because an overzealous cop decided tapping his foot was the same as propositioning someone for sex. But someone, damaging his own reputation, admits he had a sexual relationship with Obama and there's a huge whitewash. We don't have to say the accusation is true (though it would explain a lot) but it is a disservice to ignore it. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:33, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The Huffington Post was a piece of satire! The RNC never said that at all, the picture is actually of Barack Obama giving a hug to John Edwards, and it was made grainy on purpose as part of the joke. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 10:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks! It looked so ridiculous, but couldn't see someplace where they stated it was just a joke. I wouldn't put it past the RNC to stoop that low, though, so I had to at least consider that it may be real. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually Tony, there are some good reasons to seriously doubt Larry Sinclair's story. Starting with him failing the polygraph test and his '27-year criminal career which includes convictions for fraud, forging cheques, and stealing credit card numbers'. Then add in his arrest for an outstanding warrant after his press conference and he does not come across as the most credible of sources. There are enough actual problems with Obama that the American people should be focusing on and not getting side tracked by gossip. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 12:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Like the problem of him quite possibly being Muslim or strongly influenced by Islam? That would certainly be an actual problem - hence its inclusion in this article. Do you not think Obama being gay would be an actual problem as well, and lead to a strong pro-homosexuality bias? Anyway, I basically agree with StatsMsn on this matter - and as with the Muslim issue, tthere are sources, and we're not making statements, only relaying the words of others on this controversy. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

The problem with the whole gay thing is that the only source for that is VERY non-credible (Larry Sinclair). The Townhall article wasn't postulating that Obama is in fact a homosexual, but would be the first 'gay' President like Clinton was said to be the first 'black' President, as someone who is believed to strongly advocate for that community and is very much accepted by that community WITHOUT actually being a member. The Huffington Post was a bit of satire and not a serious article. I think that how Islam has influenced Obama is a legitimate topic and should be discussed but by engaging in gossip (Obama is gay) it takes away from the legitimacy of actual concerns that may (and should) be expressed about him. --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 16:41, June 21 2008 (EDT)

==Unlock For Update==
In Senate section, this needs to be included in the GI Bill or the following sentence needs removed. ''"Taxes of those earning... for ten years."''

''Add-'' Democrats dropped a provision to pay for the GI college benefits by imposing a half-percentage point income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $500,000 for singles and incomes over $1 million earned by married couples<ref>[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1], http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1 , AP Bipartisan accord reached on war funding bill, June 19, 2008</ref>--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Religious affiliations==

These include the statements "God ....". I am starting to have seconds thoughts about seeing this posted here. It is just such an outlandish amount of disrespect to God, that maybe it shouldn't be repeated, thoughts(name in Vein)?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

== Examples of "non-charisma" ==

I saw this in the encyclopedia page ("Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a teleprompter. 'Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.'[62] The New York Times noted that 'Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.'[63] When Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being like Annie Oakley, it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.[64]") and was wonderng if someone could direct me to a audio file or website that has an example of one of his bad speeches

== Speculation vs Fact ==

I'm still relatively new here but would like to clarify something (at the risk of beating a dead horse). For the paragraph "Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation. Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors." should "presumably" be allowed in the article? It seems that the statement becomes speculation rather than an established fact. Also the citation attached to it does not make that claim either.

I don't have the rights to do an edit to the main article so I'm writing it here. Hope it doesn't count against my 90/10 thing.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:41, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh and on an unrelated note, there's a space missing in "thePennsylvania".--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:43, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm being anal here but the following need minor corrections 
"president of the United States" - Capitalization 
"office of the presidency" - should be "Office of the President" 
"Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book <s>and</s> ''or'' community organizing."--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:56, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

: I don't see your typos there any more. Were they fixed?

: As to pointing out how Obama has catered to anti-military donors, that can hardly be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Hard to be disputed when dispute is not allowed or called "violation of 90/10 rule; talk, talk, talk". --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:01, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Hmm I still see the typos after refreshing the page. Specifically "thePennsylvania" is in paragraph 4, "president" in paragraph 2, "office..." in paragraph 7 under Presidential Campaign and "either/or" in the last paragraph under "Positions and Qualifications".

:: Perhaps Obama's pandering is obvious, but the current phrasing of "presumably" indicates speculation. But I guess the main concern I had was that the citation #15 isn't relevant to the statement since the main gist of the article is that Obama's actions have "frustrated some anti-war figures" rather than pandered to them. And the action it refers to is his voting record and not his lapel pin.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 23:13, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Corrected "thePennsylvania", but don't see a lowercase "p" in "president" as an error. The trend is towards using more lowercase, and the Economist uses a lowercase "p" for "president".

::: The "presumably" point can hardly be disputed or doubted, and I don't agree with the proposition that "presumably" is never appropriate in an encyclopedia. The citation is helpful because it shows that anti-military support was not guaranteed for Obama, and some pandering was required to obtain that. Of course, improvements in citations are always welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:19, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

== Article Locked ==

If the article is locked by a sysop, wouldn't that constitute [[last wordism]]? Obviously only sysops can then decide what may or may not be put in the article, becoming the final arbiters on any discussions. It doesn't seem very egalitarian. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wow ==
Take a look at this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=363195 article's last edit] before he won the Iowa caucus and compare it to the coat rack of half-truths and insinuations that it has become. It saddens me; I was hoping that Conservapedia would develop into a worthy competitor to Wikipedia and that the competition would inspire both sites to improve their content. Alas.

Unfortunately, this article now seems to be attempting to fulfill a political agenda instead of act as an encyclopedia. Of the myriad goals this article sets out to accomplish, the attempt to paint Obama as an anti-American secret Muslim is the most disgusting. Sure, he made a mistake and said 57 states. I look at that statement and think, "So he said fifty instead of forty." But instead of ignoring an obvious mistake and focusing on actual political issues, they assume his mind was wandering to the membership number of the Organization of Islamic States. That's not a remotely logical jump; perhaps a more reasonable one would be Interstate 57, which bisects his home state of Illinois? Personally, I just think the man was a tad tired - he was, after all, campaigning non-stop for six months straight.

Furthermore, the Muslim misdirection seems to me to be a direct attempt to play on people's fears. People are afraid of what's different, so the goal is to make him as different as possible. Hillary tried the same tactic; she, with ten times his earnings, managed to convince Pennsylvania that a biracial man abandoned by his father and raised by a single mom was an "elitist". But it's not enough, so we stack on the Muslim accusations and criticize his foreign sounding name (which, in my opinion, is not as weird as "Millard Fillmore") just to drive the point home. It's disgusting that we use such tactics in what is supposed to be a democracy, where problems are solved by our collective wisdom and not by beating the opposition into submission.

But perhaps most indicative of all, this article is also written from the approach of automatically assuming Obama to be a liar. He says his father was an atheist, but you assume he's lying. He finds Christ and goes to church (and what a church...) for years, but you call it "politically self-serving? ''Have we, as a nation, become so cynical and skeptical than we doubt one's conversion to Christ?''

Now, one of two things will happen. One, you'll read what I wrote and maybe take some - not all - into consideration. You'll tone it down a bit and focus on substantiative criticism (since I hardly expect, and would be disappointed by, a full rewrite into a bright shiny happy piece about him) of Obama, such as his opposition to Petraeus' plans that are clearly working or his refusal to tap America's natural resources to relieve our pain at the pump. Or two, you'll see the five paragraphs I've written and ignore it as too long and do nothing, and the article will continue to be burdened by lies, accusations and insinuations, and if I'm not banned I'll still probably leave in disgust. I hope that we, as Americans, can come together to fix the more egregious errors and better our democracy through substantiative debate about the issues that we all hold so dear going into this critical election. Thank you for reading. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well that article doesn't go so far as to mention his last name is similar to Osama. Hussein in his middle name is Saddam Hussein's last name. And Barack rhyms with Iraq. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 17:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2008-06-23T20:25:23Z

RobertBobkins: /* Original research */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

== Additions ==

Great additions, Ed! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==British English==

'''NO LONGER BANNED'''

We non US English speakers now have freedom to speak
:Freedom! Freedom! --[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==General questions==
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authoritative Source==
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Its not so much that "''Wikipedia''" ''improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion'' but that a particular ''editor'' did. That could happen here too. Such edits remain until another ''editor'' changes them. The more popular the article the quicker questionable edits are likely to be changed.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 04:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Original research==
Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So if I come up with my own theory of how the universe was created, I could post it here as OR without the need to cite any sources? And the admins won't be allowed to delete it, although it shows a complete lack of backing by anybody? ...thank you. :D --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know Mr. Schlafly, as I said I can see the value of original works to a certain extent, but as more and more of the [[George Hammond]]'s of the world find this site you may be innudated with original research that is nothing but a detractor and a nuisance. There are many, many individuals on the internet with all kinds of crazy ideas and all of them would love a place to post them where they will get views. The questions becomes do you want your site to be a repository for all the crazy theories of the internet? If not there needs to be some sort of qualification, restriction or clarification. However, that being said we are not at the moment being innudated with such entries. This policy may work for now, its just something to keep in mind. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: If properly labeled, then I don't see a problem. We'll see. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of entries of pure junk, such as terms invented for rap songs. Wikipedia's complete ban on original work seems a bit contrived and limiting to me. We shouldn't be stuck in the past and act like nothing new is good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that some original work should be allowed, letting any and all OR into Conservapedia articles would create a terrible mess. Somebody could come and claim "Moses and Jesus fought a boxing match in heaven", and nobody would be able to argue. Perhaps we should merely allow inflections and commentary, based off of what can be gathered in a source? Wikipedia doesn't allow this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: The presentation of new ideas is perfectly acceptable, but a freely editable encyclopedia is not the correct venue for this. Protecting your ownership of these original ideas is very difficult when both the statement of the idea and developer of it can be changed by anyone with a free account. Additionally, users shouldn't be given the perception that new ideas are widely accepted, when in most cases they are not accepted until they are no longer considered 'new'. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:Such commentary might border on opinions and unencyclopedic language, though. (Funny thing is that Conservapedia doesn't even ''have'' a rule about encyclopedic tone...) Or will we allow "49.9% of the population" to be changed to "less than half the population" and "50.1%" to "the majority"? It's certainly not wrong, but it's also not what an encyclopedic article would write (Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with Wiki rules, but I think I recall a rule about using exact terms and numbers if possible.). I think Conservapedia has enough issues with being taken seriously already. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::The very existence of Conservapedia is a joke. People who disband from a freely editable encyclopedia because they believe it is biased simply don't wish to have their statements checked by people with opposing viewpoints. You're right that people aren't taking it seriously, but I doubt minor changes to the rules will make people overlook that constant, unfounded criticism of Wikipedia that runs rampant in so many articles here. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:::(chuckles) I agree with you, but I still think that it may have a chance of becoming a bit... more accepted (as more than a source of endless entertainment at least =P). Thus, I support "minor" changes to the rules when they have the potential of making a difference in the way people apply them.
:::Broadly allowing all forms of OR can lead to chaos, and a change of the rules later on is tied to much clean-up work. If the rule stays, then there should at least be some clarification, for example in the form Hojimachong suggested. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

: You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::: Which Wikipedia rule forbids gossip??? Show me and let's enforce it against what, about 100,000 entries there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wikipedia refers to it as NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The full explanation of where and when opinions (including gossip/second-hand opinions) may be used is located here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial] --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:24, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::::: OK, I went to your link and searched on the word "gossip". It doesn't appear. '''Wikipedia has no rule against gossip'''. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You have to dig a little bit further into the policies to see it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources stated] - "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: A simple text search for the word gossip returns no hits, however gossip fits into the larger category of opinion. The citation of opinions on Wikipedia is permitted, but under specific guidelines. Show just one of these 100,000 entries that use gossip and cite it as fact, and I'll find five pages that enforced this regulation. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Gossip is different from "opinion". Come on, let's not pretend that we don't know what gossip is. The "fact" that John Tower's ex-wife refused to accept flowers from him as she was dying in the hospital is gossip. Wikipedia allows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: That statement doesn't appear on Wikipedia. Not all opinions are gossip, but gossip is wholly contained in the realm of opinion. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:40, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Really, has Wikipedia deleted it? If so, then it was only after criticism here. Check out the entry on Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia and more gossip greets the reader. It's pervasive. By the way, facts often qualify as gossip, so your definition is not correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Don't you think you're giving yourself a little bit too much credit there? You make it sound as if all of Wikipedia scans your massively important list for things to correct. The probability of somebody reading your list and then editing it is quite small, compared to people getting to the page through other ways and editing it in the normal Wiki process. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Criticizing a 1.5 million-page wiki based on a few of its worst pages isn't fair, especially when they clearly go against the wiki's policy. (much like Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia isn't really fair for picking out a few of the worst articles here, articles that are likely to be improved up within a few weeks or months) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you've given examples of gossip, but if we could come up with an actual definition to follow, that would be helpful. Gossip is in the eye of the beholder.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is this: '''Personal websites may not be used as an article's reference.''' If we put that into force we will save ourselves enormous amounts of difficulty. Gossip is always personal opinion. Personal websites abound in gossip. And, it is often presented as part of a larger page that has some attention getting element. An example is in the [[Scientology]] article where Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal site, xenu.net is cited [http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/latey.html] for his hand typed representation of a court document. But also appearing on the page are his evaluations and criticisms and bias about the court document and surrounding issues. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:For further exposition on "personal websites" interested editors should review this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References discussion]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, your definition of gossip seems to be information that sheds negative light on a person or idea that you support. Please correct me with an explicit definition? --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::Isn't saying that wikipedia deleted something because of your criticism a form of gossip? What proof do you have that it was your criticism that caused the edit? Wikipedia is under constant ''internal'' scrutiny from a large population of editors. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think the only instance when a Wiki edit was actually (quasi-)proven to originate here was the issue of "elementary proof" or whatever the name was. And that was a case of "...well, you could've created the entry yourself in the time you spent writing the criticism". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention Wikipedia actively discourages anything like [[debate topics]], let alone links to it from the sidebar. Gossip indeed. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, I'm not going to debate the pervasive gossip in Wikipedia with you further. At the rate you're going, you might also claim the National Enquirer doesn't have gossip! Actually, I suppose its employees might claim that. If you think Wikipedia is free of gossip, then so be it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Gossip is a very vague word, what is one (wo)man's gossip is another's hard facts! So before the term "gossip" gets thrown about too much we ought to have a concrete definition of it. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 01:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I asked above for a definition of gossip so that the rules can be followed clearly. I have no interest in debating Wikipedia...it's irrelevant. But, I would like a definition of gossip if it is going to stay a commandment. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==

''7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts...'' - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, we don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean? Sounds like some kind of hippy, commie relativism to me! Facts are facts. --[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:: this is all sour grapes from a disgruntled former editor of wikipedia. it is not to be taken seriously. Ashlafly is simply a member of the radical right disguising himself, albeit poorly, as a conservative. Do not take him seriously. He is baised against anythnig that doesn't support his ideosyncratic agenda. 20:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean?" I agree, what does it mean? How can a fact be of different political alignments? You can check it the [[Wiktionary:fact|definition]]. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
: They're ''special'' facts. Y'know, the ones that are so obviously true, they don't even need citations. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

''"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "''

This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is [[Intercourse|Sex]]. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067000/sexual-intercourse|Sexual Intercourse]. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.

I shall return. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That is a very good point. The fact that the sex article has been censored on this site is a bit odd. There is no need to get into the depth that Wikipedia goes into about human sexualit, sex positions, etc. But some acknowledgment or treatment of the way that nearly all multi-cellular organisms come to be seems to be something that shoudl be included in anything claiming to be "encyclopedic".--[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive ==

and are not applied to actual pages. if we're going to state these rules they should ve consistent and supportable. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
* I assume 7 is referring to Andrew's lectures ([[Economics Lectures]], [[World History Lectures]])? If so, perhaps Conservapedia may eventually have something like Wikinews' [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting original reporting] policy, which allows original work, as long as it's labeled as being authored by an identifiable person. (and Wikinews' policy would make point 7 invalid as well) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: it would lend much needed credibility to this project if editorials and opinion were labeled as such. As it is it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. not that it seems to matter here, as intellectual seems to be a bad word. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Name Change==
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "Differences from wikipedia" or "How Conservapedia is different from Wikipedia"? "Differences with wikipedia" sounds awkward. If you want to take a good idea from wikipedia, you might make a "What conservapedia is not" page.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral to the facts? ==

What facts are these that justify a daily bible comment on the front page?

Honestly, I have no problem with the Bible quote. It has nothing to do with any controversy about facts. It is simply a quotation that the founders of this site wish to share.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Surely what or what isn't a ''[[Terrorism|terrorist group]]'' group depends on the definintion used and the perspective of the definer.
::''If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.''
:What definition is being used here - and wouldn't that be an opinion likely to controvene no. 2?
:Admittedly that only states that the ''opinions of journalists'' are unacceptable. Are other opinions acceptable? Though I can only assume they are also subject to ''authoritative support''. Who is the authority on what or what isn't a ''terrorist group''? It there also an authority on [[fact]]s?
:A real encyclopedia would [[Conservapedia:Attribution|attribute]] claims that a particular group is terrorist to those doing the claiming?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Restrictions ==

5. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.

In what way? how? This means nothing on it's own. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Users here have been unable to grasp wikipedia's copyright, so they've determined it is 'cumbersome' whereas conservapedia's apparent founder has said something like "anybody can copy our stuff until we object" . . . it's pretty clear, given the dishonest and unacademic tone of the rest of this site, how that should be parsed. More evidence that this site is a platform for radicals and zealots, dishonest ones at that, rather than actual conservatives or, heaven help us, Christians. I more than half suspect this site is some sort of joke intended to make average good hearted Christian-Americans look like fascists and nut-cases. But perhaps thats just because it is apparently run by misguided high school students.[[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Copyright differences ==

The page currently reads "By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material, and cannot copy your own material elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions." That's incorrect... Wikipedia contributors are required to license their contributions under the GFDL, but under the law, the contributor still owns the copyright to the work* and may license the contribution under other additional licenses. Wikipedia even encourages this sometimes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain#Advice_for_users_of_our_content]

GFDL is just a normal license that is used outside of Wikipedia, and it has no clauses akin to "transfer the copyright ownership to the site I post it on". I can write a poem by myself, license it under the GFDL, and post it on Geocities, but I'm still the copyright holder. Same goes with Wikipedia --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I've clarified point one, and responded on [[Conservapedia talk:Copyright]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you very much, the factual bits are correct now at least. And there are a number of people who criticize copyleft licenses for being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Is_copyleft_.22viral.22.3F "viral"], so that sentiment isn't too far out of the mainstream (though I think personally think there are good reasons for some of the restrictions... it ensures that the community, rather than Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation, will forever own and control the content... there have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB#History unfortunate incidents] in the past where a community contributes under the belief that their work will always be freely available, but it's later closed off and used only for commercial gain). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 19:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== stubs ==

''12. We do not encourage the insertion of distracting "stubs" in entries. Wikipedia has numerous distracting stubs on entries.''

In Wikipedia, a "stub" is a short article, like a [[Conservapedia:Very Short Article]]. In fact Conservapedia has a template called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> that puts a large box at the top of the article noting that it is a Very Short Article and placing it in [[:Category:Articles needing major improvement]]. This category is still manageable here with less than 1000 articles in it. As Wikipedia is so much larger, the stub categories are further divided so that editors can find stub articles they have the interest or knowledge to expand. Wikipedia stub tags are a line or two of italic text at the bottom of an article (often with a small image next to them), less visually intrusive than the large blue box at the top of articles here.

This point should be either deleted or clarified to explain what difference is actually highlighted. Perhaps "Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top. Both markings invite readers to extend the article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*As you might have been noticing, there is more of a push on here to discourage their placement, in favor of short, factual and concise entries, over verbose and lenghty ones. Templates are most certainly not encouraged here, and when found on questionable articles, removed. I actually see the ability to place templates on articles restricted here, to Sysop's and above soon. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia places stubs on almost anything that is short. But concise entries are ''better'' than the wordy, overly verbose entries that dominate Wikipedia. it seems that a high percentage of entries on Wikipedia have "stubs" placed on them. Who wants to be distracted by that? It's silly and, as TK says, we don't want them here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Stub articles can serve a legitimate purpose if there are very few of them, to alert us of the real problems (i.e. when Germany was one paragraph long). I suspect that was the original intent. Obviously, this isn't happening. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: I take the stub notices out whenever I see them now, unless truly deserved. Also, let's warn and, if necessary, block editors who are inserting lots of stub notices. Thanks and a good Easter to you, MountainDew!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about this? "12. Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, very short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top, but these markings are discouraged. Both markings invite readers to extend the article, however a typical "complete" Conservapedia article is generally much shorter than a "complete" Wikipedia article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I'm not that long out of College to remember what a pain it was, those overly long, verbose entries, when trying to fact-check, and research! Scott, I agree, we could site the two examples, and play-up our penchant for ''concise'' over wordy articles, for the sake of wordiness. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**Neither website (nor a paper encyclopaedia) is an appropriate source for tertiary-level research. Most of Wikipedia's Good and Featured articles have extensive reference lists which might be useful, but you're still relying on someone else's literature search with no idea if it's complete. Wikipedia tends to cite online and free (as in beer) articles rather than paper or paid sources as they are more accessible to the majority of editors. That is also a bias problem for serious research, and I haven't noticed a significant difference in that area at Conservapedia, which in general has a lot less references. World Book Encyclopaedia's short/concise articles give a quick and simple overview. Encyclopaedia Britannica has longer articles that give a fair amount of detail, like Wikipedia. True research means go and find your own sources. (Disclaimer: I graduated before the Internet existed). Should we have a guideline here that articles are aimed for the attention span and reading level of a 12-year old (i.e. like World Book)? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is kind of snobbish, no? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**My last sentence? Possibly, but Aschlafly can move the number up or down, a guideline like that would help to clarify vague terms like "concise", "family-friendly" etc. The problem with Conservapedia is that it is trying to be too many things - an alternative to Wikipedia that presents items from a conservative POV instead of a Neutral POV should aim to carry informative and deep articles on the main items where conservatives differ from both liberals and moderates. However many of these articles are censored or hijacked due to the second goal of being a family-friendly and safe resource for home-schooled children. This goal is hard because family-friendly for an eight-year-old is different to family-friendly for a sixteen-year old. Articles on subjects like sex and families need to present different stuff, or at least one group will be looking elsewhere for information. The latest idea is that Conservapedia might be a [[think tank]]. Yet another goal, with yet another set of competing criteria to do it well. If these three or four goals were in separate websites or separate namespaces each linked from the front page, editors and readers could choose which they want to be involved in, and perhaps some of the complaints about sysop control would be addressed by people recognising different rules in different spaces. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 05:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "distracting stubs" meant that placing the {{tl|stub}} template was presenting a distraction. Both Mr. Schafly and [[User:Conservative]] IIRC have criticized its application. No one is objecting to well-written articles that simply happen to be short.
*A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. [William Strunk, Jr.] http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/02-TeachingResources/readingwriting/05c-essy.htm

Wikipedia suffers from stylistic strictures. It has a prejudice against concise writing and favors "blather" over cohesion. All articles must be created by a process of accretion, as if 100 monkeys at a typewriter could eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. (MUST I point out this use of [[hyperbole]]? That link being a red one, I guess I must. ;-)

At some future date, I may write an article on [[military communications]] which will expose the weaknesses of traditional [[command and control]] ideas, based on the insights of retired Marine Corps General [[Paul van Riper]]. Here's a taste:
*"We would not get caught up in any of these mechanistic processes. We would use the wisdom, the experience, and the good judgment of the people we had." (Page 118 of [[Malcolm Gladwell]]'s ''[[blink]]''.)

Van Riper's Red Team beat the Pentagon's best and brightest in a military exercise called the [[Millennium Challenge]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, I suspect you are right what is ''intended'' by point 12. It is not what it ''says''. I have made two attempts in this talk page section to propose rephrased sentences that I think say what is meant. I'm not allowed to edit the actual page, so can only discuss proposed changes here, leading to interesting tangents if no sysop actually picks up the changes quickly. The "wiki way" (not just Wikipedia) is that I would make a change, and others would improve it in the page itself and eventually we would reach an improved consensus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 07:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::#I didn't write item #12.
::#You can ask the protecting sysop to unprotect the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Scott, I don't think the site owners care about the "wiki way" very much, neither do I, for a Conservapedia, that gives full credit to Conservative values, and Christian thinking. Consensus reached with those who don't think too highly of non-PC thoughts, and Conservative values isn't consensus, but watering down, IMO. How could it be otherwise? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is verging away from stubs and into a discussion of the relative merits of [[conservatism]] and [[liberalism]]. Continuing on this tangent, I will agree with Terry and run the ball a bit further.

::Conservatives want to preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have. This doesn't mean their minds are closed to new ideas which are also good. We're not sending letters by pony express here but using a [[wiki]] on the [[Internet]]. Just because Al Gore invented it, doesn't mean it's evil <wink>.

::I just think that C's are less close-minded than L's. Read ''[[Closing of the American Mind]]'' for a lengthy essay which argues that liberal "open-mindedness" actually leads to mental impoverishment and destruction. Do Liberals consciously desire poverty and chaos? Hardly. But the problem remains unsolved. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::[[User:Aschlafly|The protecting sysop]] has responded in this thread, but did not change the article, or unprotect it. This appears to be the usual Conservapedia attitude to "...preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have." At least I haven't been reverted for deleting information about Tanzania from [[Tonga]] or Laos from [[Fiji]]. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Tonga? Laos? *head is spinning --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 12:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
**A couple of editors a month ago appear to have had a ''very'' spotty understanding of world geography, and got several countries mixed up. I removed material from articles it was not about. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I'm not sure what you want me to respond to. We discourage defacing concise articles here with ugly "stub" banners. Here we encourage conciseness. At Wikipedia, the culture seems to think more words are better. Not so.

: Also, we favor concise rules. We're not going to have thousands and thousands of words about rules here. God covered all of life with Ten Commandments, and many of them were just a few words long. We're going to have fewer here. If you like bureaucracy, then you might prefer Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed has now corrected the most obvious problem with the point - thanks. The issue appeared to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. The new version is close enough I wouldn't have commented. I have no problem with conciseness, but short-and-wrong is not as good as long-enough-and-right. I continue to contribute to Wikipedia as well, and do not come here with the chip on my shoulder that everything about Wikipedia is wrong, unlike some people here. If we are to criticise Wikipedia, the criticism should be fair and true. Both stubs and VSAs allow a project to extend its breadth quickly, and hopefully others will come behind to increase the depth of coverage. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== User names? ==

Yep, names like "Conservative", "CoulterMan", etc., aren't ''at all'' like those mentioned. Are you guys aware that "Nearly Headless Nick" is the name of a character from a book? --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'd shy away from bashing user names, if you want a lot of creative people coming in to edit you're bound to get creative user names. Also, the fact that we have a user who goes by the name of [[User:MountainDew| MountainDew]], (which, at best, is a euphemism of illicit neutral grain spirit and at worst a trademark violation) who is not an ordinary registered user but a sysop, would be like shooting a gun with a "U" shaped barrel. MOO [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
No offense, but your name is a racial slur. I don't think you have any room to complain about my name. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ahem? Is it now too offensive to enjoy saltine crackers, or similary culinary treats? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, he's accusing my name of being a reference to moonshine, so that's just as logical. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Mountain Dew is right; this has been just one more of an army of provocateurs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hacker, please refrain, as you know I will do something about it, starting with those whose name is the very epitome of vandalism, eh? I am so glad we could all reason together. Aren't you? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Hacker, as I clearly stated, my objection to "Nearly Headless Nick" (and "The Ostrich") is that they are anti-intellectual. I notices how you omitted the fact that it is a character from a CHILDREN'S book.

Wikipedia is an anti-intellectual movement. The anti-intellectual names add to this fundamental defect. Wikipedia is the internet version of the Cultural Revolution, causing a generation of students to throw out real encyclopedias and look for quick, easy and heavily biased answers by anti-intellectual editors.

As TK points out, Hacker, your pen name is hardly commendable either for an online project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT) 

:I find it irrelevant that it's a children's book. However, I apologize for the PAs.

:Now, as to my username: please read the explanation I have placed on my userpage, in anticipation of such an issue. Then please proceed to read [[hacker]], Hacking for Christ[http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/][http://www.gerv.net/hacking/why-hacking-for-christ.html], the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker hacker], [http://www.userfriendly.org/ User Friendly], the Jargon File entry on [http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html hacker], [http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How To Become A Hacker], etc. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 18:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

TO:[[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] point taken...as this is only my sig name I will amend the signature to me real name, thusly: [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 16:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Hacker, my point was, it was a pot calling the kettle black kind of comment. Yours. Since you surely don't expect all users should be required to read your user page, do you? I repeat, why the bother in making such comments, when most of your work is superior? Is everyone that bored? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Move ==

I'll be moving this to the Conservapedia: namespace, as it is not encyclopedic, and violates commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

*Really? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==#11==
I have issues with this one. A user's talk page is a place for discussion and debate. This rule/difference makes it very easy for a sysop to decide he doesn't like being told he's wrong and block any offending users instead of confronting the argument. The user page is what should be controlled as that is their personal space. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:54, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: You can tell the Sysop once, and you can tell other Sysops. You cannot pester or attempt to bully someone on his own talk page. Conservatives respect a man's home as his castle. Ditto for one's own talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::PF Fox, don't post any more to my User talk page. See #11 in Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you.--Aschlafly 16:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::LOL! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==#16 - "anti-intellectual"?==

What makes names like "The Ostrich" anti-intellectual, exactly? I know it's sooper-dooper fun to sit around being preoccupied with stuff like this, because it provides Christians/conservatives with some "cause" to partake in that doesn't involve "inconveniences" like sending money to Africa or helping out at soup kitchens, but honestly---God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being beyond all impeachment. Do you honestly think he cares whether rinky-dink little humans are squabbling about the biography of William Donald Schaefer? That's doubtful. I mean, seriously. The universe that he has created for us is a lot more interesting than bickering about axioms and abstract concepts like 'Conservative' and 'Liberal', right? I can't imagine anything more 'conservative' than conserving all the energy, time, manpower, and effort we've wasted on this endless debate. As for the "Liberals"? Let God sort them out on the other side of the curtain, eh? {{unsigned|Refugee621}}

: I couldn't follow your entire message, other than to observe that an ostrich hides his head in the sand. That has anti-intellectual connotations. Try applying for a graduate program by saying how much you'd like to be like an ostrich, and then let us know much that impresses the professors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Should it be clearly expressed in the Commandments, Guidelines or Manual of Style? Or is there already a requirement? [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Um, usernames are just that- usernames. They aren't generally meant to have deep symbolism or referrences to cliches of what some animals represent. Claiming that Wikipedians' usernames are somehow anti-intellectual frankly makes Conservapedia look silly. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::: JoshuaZ, if you agree that comments can be anti-intellectual, then surely usernames can be anti-intellectual also. Usernames can convey a message or POV, and if anti-intellectualism exists, then a username can convey that POV. As Wikipedia so perfectly describes in one of its finest entries, "duh"! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: It might be possible for some extreme examples of usernames to be anti-intellectual (such as maybe [[User:BooksRfun2Burn]]) but the notion that having a username of a certain animal is anti-intellectual simply because there exists a certain cliche about that animal is laughable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Wikipedia editor "The Ostrich" has made a total of ten edits since the end of July 2004.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Ostrich] Not really an example of a typical Wikipedia editor these days. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n]] and [[User:Wikinterpreter]] for example at Conservapedia have far more edits than that, with just as silly user names. There are three people with the surname "Ostric" in the White Pages in New South Wales - "The Ostrich" would meet the Conservapedia requirement for being derived from a person's name for these people. The silly names comparison should go. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bad English ==

Surely the title of the article should be '''Differences from Wikipedia'''. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 08:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your contribution. But I think differences "with" is correct when comparing characteristics or views of members in of the same group. For example, "President Bush has had some differences with (not from) Vice President Cheney recently."

: But I'm open-minded about this. Can you explain your position more fully? Welcome, and Lord bless you for your efforts here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think "differences from" is correct either, but neither do I think "differences with" is any better. I think I'd go for "differences to", but I'm not certain that's correct either, plus there might be a difference between what's "correct" in Australian English vs. American English. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Differences with" retrieves 1.59 million Google links, suggesting that it is common usage, Philip. But I'm open to improvements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:41, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I probably have my Google settings differently (e.g. only English pages returned). I get 1.25 million hits for "differences with", 1.24 million hits for "differences from", and 1.21 million hits for "differences to". At this level, this indicates that all are roughly equally used. The next step would be to try and determine if they are being used in the same context. For example, I think "differences with" might tend to be used for something that has changed, so you are talking about "difference with" the product compared to the older version, for example. But I'm not sure on this. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think that counting the number of Google hits is a valid way of determining correct usage. It just shows that there are a lot of ill-educated people publishing on the internet. However, I appreciate the distinction between ''differences with'' (as applied to arguments) and ''differences from'' (comparison). ''Different to'' is always wrong (according to my old English grammar teacher). In the context of the article I would have thought that the comparison term was the correct application. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 13:13, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Catherine, you may be right and I greatly appreciate the feedback. However, I find it very awkward to say, "I have differences from Jim." It just sounds wrong to me. It sounds much better to me to say, "I have differences with Jim." Ditto for Conservapedia and Wikipedia, each of which is really a collection of editors and a respective approach. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:00, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Catherine may well be right about "to", but thinking more about this, I wonder if "differences with Wikipedia" is really saying how ''Wikipedia'' is different from something else (earlier version of Wikipedia, normal encyclopedias, Conservapedia, or whatever), whereas what this article is trying to say is how ''Conservapedia'' is different from Wikipedia.
::Maybe the solution is to change the title to, for example, "Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::That sounds better, or maybe "How Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia". [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 05:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia sounds good, or Catherine's suggestion. I have called this thread to Andy's attention as it's his baby. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"Difference to" is everyday language form, "difference from" or "difference between" are commonly used good English. Talking about personal difference should have different preposition but this not that kind of case. (Let's google also "different xxx" - not only "difference xxx") --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much, Catherine!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== #4? ==

"4. We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts."

If this is, in fact, the case, then why is there an '<nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>' keyword not only available, but used by editors here? Does this not implicitly encourage long-winded, verbose entries? To avoid slipping into hypocrisy, I would advise that Conservapedia either stops making such an allegation against Wikipedia or cease all used of this practice be it called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> or "cleverly" disguised as <nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>. --[[User:TokenModerate|TokenModerate]] 14:10, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Journalistic sources? ==

Difference #6 states:
<blockquote>We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.</blockquote>

I am not doubting the research done in [[Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco]] and [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot]] (I believe there is a strong bias only showing one side of the story - but that is another matter and a battle I know is a losing one) but I am curious as to how an articles that are purely drawn from journalist accounts meshes with this difference.

Personally, I believe that journalistic sources are good and necessary to have as they are often primary sources of information rather than an abstraction later. This keeps Conservapedia a secondary source of information rather than a third or fourth level source. But if difference #6 is to be maintained, then a critical look at those two articles and future articles that depend upon journalistic sources needs to be made. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Anti-intellectual names"? ==

What the heck? [[User:The Ostrich|The Ostrich]] 19:51, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed. Do you attend school or go to your place of employment and insist on being called "The Ostrich"? No, because you would never be taken seriously.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:09, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

**Online, pseudonymity is key for many people. What can they do otherwise for a unique identifier? Are you suggesting that a substantial privacy risk should be taken? I don't mind using my name, people think I'm joking, but what should people seeking a unique, memorable, and private identity name themselves online? your two-letter combination can't serve the Internet's millions - we'd run out after 262. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 00:06, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: Would you give someone your resume if it was printed in unreadable non-standard font that also substituted letters from non-english alphabets for the the standard ones? How is that different, .....--? Oh, you think it's cute so IT IS different. [[User:Mandrew|Mandrew]] 07:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you think no one takes R.USirius (our however it is spelled) seriously? [[User:Mandrew|Mandrew]] 08:01, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Drive to improve this page - your help is desired ==

I am reviewing this section both for edits, clarification, and for possible new entries to the list. Improvements, suggestions, or constructive criticism are welcome. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:37, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

== numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, ==

#Number 1 is either obviously wrong or critically misleading: the GDFL is specifically designed to allow users to retain ownership of their contributions while allowing free redistribution. You do not lose any rights whatsoever to what you contribute when you contribute under a GDFL license, since you still own the original version. Your only restriction is once another person edits an article - then, ''the article'' is no longer yours, but your original content still belongs to you. Further, it allows you to prevent mirrors from claiming that they are the creators of your content - you can file a DMCA takedown notice based on your copyright, whereas public domain content is, well, public domain.
#While I remain puzzled as to what is meant by "entries and discussions which are anti-intellectual in nature" (I see no "nerds, you suck" pages on Wikipedia, and the assertion itself seems unfounded (examples, please?)), Wikipedia has merely chosen to separate its lectures, guides, et cetera into separate projects (Wikiversity, Wikisource, Wikibooks) to concentrate on a core goal of creating an encyclopedia. Number 2 thus seems grossly misleading - it is not that Wikipedia is lacking, it is that Conservapedia's content is jumbled together (which may or may not be a good thing :) ).
#While Jimbo Wales did co-found Wikia, it is noted repeatedly as being otherwise unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Further, what search engine is associated with Wikipedia?!? Number 3 seems almost ridiculously unhinged.
#
#Gossip isn't exactly allowed on Wikipedia either. I hear they have a really strict [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biography_of_living_persons policy about unreferenced material on living people]. Perhaps number 5 could use a fact-checking tune-up?
#
#
#Neutral to the facts? Conservapedia freely admits being highly pro-Christian, pro-Conservative, and pro-US. The last time I heard that called neutral... there wasn't a last time. Further, what's wrong with using the word "militant"? They mean virtually the same thing, and "militant" isn't politically charged, as "terrorist" is. Number 8 seems to be missing the point: what's wrong with trying to be neutral? Besides, organizations widely recognized as being terrorist in nature are usually labelled as such regardless.
#It's a wiki: anyone can change anything. If your content is supported by consensus, backed up by references, and bolstered by not presenting a lopsided view of the situation in question, it's unlikely that any user, even a sysop, could get away with censoring content. just as I assume is the case on Conservapedia. Got a case in point? I'd like to hear about it. Number 9. Turn me on, dead man.
#Excluding original research makes any reference more reliable. While Conservapedia may think that this "promotes a more intellectual atmosphere", any trained scientist will know that a single experiment, original research, is in and of itself unreliable. Until results are confirmed by multiple parties, which is unlikely to happen, the information obtained should not be trusted. Number 10 marks double digits of shame.
#Do you have a case in point? I recall seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Wikipedia's talk page guidelines], and it seems to me that users have a pretty wide latitude on their own user pages, as long as they aren't disrupting everyone else (in which case, as a misbehaving child might, it is obvious for them to lose some privileges).
#
#Perhaps Wikipedia has exacting rules, but it has been my experience that users are blocked because they make an edit which annoys a sysop on Conservapedia, for example [[User:NeutralParty]] who was blocked for asking about a series of indefinite IP range blocks. Wikipedia's rules would seem preferable to the apparant mob here. I was once blocked for an inappropriate username, with the summary "choose a different username" while having my IP blocked from creating accounts. If I am blocked for posting this, you merely prove my point - Conservapedia needs better blocking rules. Oh well.
#But you have no system for recognizing which people are experts, so your policy is just as bad - you simply treat all new users as... new users - which doesn't seem to be any different from Wikipedia. Unless, again, you can think of a case in point?
#Case in point? Someone being blocked for blog posts obviously was causing a real problem to be blocked. Your statement lacks both context and clarity for the instance.
#And what is your alternative to pseudonymity? Users who have inappropriate usernames are immediately and indefinitely blocked with invitation to choose a better name immediately. Further, I fail to see how usernames are inherently "anti-intellectual" - it's the contributions that matter, not the name.

::I have a bit of a problem with these "differences", and I have outlined my problems with them above. I don't mean to be an annoyance, but were someone to point out the holes in these differences, it might look like you were arbitrarily smearing Wikipedia. Which you aren't, right? I'd like to see some improvement here. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:53, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I read as far as your implication that Wikipedia does not have gossip. Surely you're joking. Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet. Or perhaps you don't think the National Enquirer has gossip either????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not joking. My problem is that I don't see the evidence to support that claim which you make. While anonymous users add stuff all the time, the metaphorical chaff is quickly separated from the similarly metaphorical wheat, with most unproductive or nonsensical edits being reverted. Further, while Wikipedia may contain some gossip (I certainly imagine that it is quite difficult to police nearly 2m pages simultaneously with only volunteers), it isn't exactly ''allowed'', as the statement implied. Either point me to something on Wikipedia saying that gossip is allowed, or if there is gossip, point it out and some loyal Wikipedian will notice and remove the offending text within a few hours. Simply saying "Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet" is a meaningless smear if one cannot provide a valid justification for the comparison. It's not so much what is right - it is the respectability of being able to back up an otherwise questionable claim. I assume Conservapedia wishes to be respectable. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 08:02, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please remove #3 immediately, it is just plain ridiculous. Who ever wrote that was probably reading news articles with headlines such as "Wikipedia to launch search engine", many of those news articles were so inaccurate that they were not even revised, but taken off the web. I understand that you are referring to Wikia Search when you say search engine, but as one of three Wikia Search sysops I know that the biggest myth about it is that it is in some way connected with Wikipedia. We are constantly fighting this myth. Please make your site more credible by removing this factual inaccuracy off of it. Thanks! [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:07, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: INTregued, your comments are an example of how a [[liberal]] can make an absurd argument with a straight face. Countless articles on Wikipedia are filled with gossip and it's obvious that the gossip attracts visitors, just as the National Enquirer does. This is not vandalism. Do you think the National Enquirer is vandalized before publication??? To take just one example, check out Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia. I'll let you find the gossip. There are thousands of examples like that, and it is not vandalism. Conservapedia has a rule against gossip. Wikipedia does not. More examples are at [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Mschel, learn how to spell "ridiculous" for starters. Then figure out how Wikipedia leaders were able to raise millions for their search engine project. It was due to the actual and expected preferences in directing Wikipedia traffic to the search engine. It's remarkable how many Wikipedia volunteers are fooled by this. Perhaps you're one of them. How about volunteering to work for Microsoft next?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::You are still making the same mistake as these guys from the press who have no idea what they are talking about. As one of the three admins on Wikia Search, if something like that was going on I think I would know about it. As for working for Microsoft, I object, I do not have one single piece of Microsoft software on my computer, and I have been using Linux for years. :D [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I'm glad you fixed your spelling of "ridiculous". Now perhaps you can tell us how many millions the for-profit Wikia search engine has raised from investors, which Wikipedia admins control and benefit from that for-profit endeavor, and how Wikipedia is and will be being manipulated to give it an advantage. You tell us the details if you know so much. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::O my! Someone has been reading too much CNN. [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 11:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Aschafly, Wikipedia ''does'' have rules against gossip. Perhaps one of the sentences from one of the core policies (Verifiability) will make this clear: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Further, you attempt to discount my argument as absurd by calling me a liberal. This would only be an effective retort were I a liberal. I'm afraid that I only skimmed through the article on Bertrand Russell, but I don't see the gossip right away. Could you point me to a specific section or sections? Or has any gossip been appropriately removed? Further, I'm afraid it is not obvious that Wikipedia's "gossip" is the primary attraction to visitors. Also, would you mind reading some of the other complaints? Specifically, number 1 is, IMHO, the worst problem of the lot.
:And regarding Wikipedia admins, they aren't paid. The only connections that Wikia has to Wikipedia are Jimbo Wales and the occasional donation from Wikia, which help keep Wikipedia running - if Wikipedia itself were for-profit, it might have better servers rather than the lag-prone arrays currently responding to the flood of traffic. Further, I'm pretty sure that the great majority of Wikipedia end-users are not even aware of the Wikia Search page, or of any but the most popular Wikia-based sites. Even further than that, I mean no offense, but your last comment sounds somewhat like something from your Enquirer. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 12:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: INTregued, you're clueless. Look up gossip in the dictionary and read a copy of the National Enquirer so that you can learn what "gossip" is. Then reread Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia and see the gossip. Read [[Bias in Wikipedia]] for other examples. Wikipedia is filled with gossip, perhaps even more than the National Enquirer is. I'm not going to spend my afternoon teaching you what everyone else knows: the meaning of the term "gossip". I'm not going to respond to you further about this until you admit the obvious, and admit that Wikipedia does not prohibit or even discourage gossip. It welcomes it.

: Your second point also misses the obvious, and I'm not going to dwell on that with you either. Wikipedia generates traffic on the backs of volunteers, and a privileged few have raised millions in a for-profit venture to exploit that traffic. In the terminology of another silly Wikipedia entry, duh.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: In the various talk pages about atheism there is a question about who the burden of proof is upon for making a claim. In this case, I believe the burden is upon you. You have stated that there is gossip in the Bertrand Russell page on Wikipedia and yet you leave the evidence as left up to the reader who doesn't necessarily agree with you? Could you please point to specific items to show to others where that gossip is to prove your point? Making vague claims and then leaving it up to the other side to prove or disprove your claims will not win any points in a debate team. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Is the point of this site to be a better alternative to Wikipedia, or to bash it? When I joined I I was under the former impression, I am now leaning towards the latter. For example, if you go to the article about Wikipedia, you don't learn that it is a wiki, all you see is that it's an online encyclopedia, and section after section of mud-slinging. Would someone please explain this to me? [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 13:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

*Mschel, you are yet another common troll. You cannot even post here with openly and with integrity without using proxies to disguise yourself. More Liberal [[deceit]]. Bye. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, Rutm's comment was what I planned to say - have you any good argument besides "it's obvious" that Wikipedia contains and, more ridiculously, encourages gossip? I don't plan on continually pushing against an ''ad hoc'' "it's obvious" argument, or vague references to long articles which might contain only a small percentage of "gossip" left over because the article is not policed strongly enough. Further, Wikimedia routinely publishes third-party audits publicly [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf], which doesn't quite seem in line with the dark for-profit agenda you allege they follow. I'm not counting on you responding, and less on acting (fixing the mistakes quoted), but you might do well if you can recognize that smears without context, references, and/or proof merely damage your credibility. How is this "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if it cannot write about ideas, for example, Wikipedia's use of the GDFL, without misdirection? I'd like to see this fixed. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Monitor blogs ==

I know that, I wrote a blog about 3 days after they banned me about getting people together to get Wikipedia Shut Down and within 2 hours it was cross posted on Wikipedia and now every one on Wikipedia except a few editors have a negative view on me.--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  19:01, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:How would you react if a group of people were getting together to shut Conservapedia down? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know about FC16, but I wouldn't give a rat's behind for two reasons: (1) it wouldn't be the least bit surprising and (2) it wouldn't have a chance of succeeding. Wikipedia and many of its users are hyper-sensitive to criticism and certain editors make sure any off-WP criticism is quickly and permanently attached to the editors who criticize. This is done to try to smear and discredit said editors. I do not see that happening here (mainly because the critics discredit themselves with their edits). CP does not monitor off-site comments that I've seen. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Wikipedia million dollar investments==
What's the source of the idea that Wikipedia attracts million dollar investments? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Original research==
Does Conservapedia really allow original research? That's very dangerous. Suppose I was to write (taking an untrue and entirely made up example) "I met Ann Coulter in a restaurant, she was blind drunk and told me she was addicted to cocaine but had managed to keep it from the media". Am I allowed to add that to the article about her? It's based on personal experience, so by the rules of Conservapedia is should be allowed. Is it? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Well technically a no originally research rule excludes your own videotapes. So you could interview Ann Coulter, videotape it yourself, and then there is proof and it is also original research. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 16:25, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Opinion==
"Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion". Any actual examples of this? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

2008-06-23T20:24:57Z

RobertBobkins: /* Original research */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

== Additions ==

Great additions, Ed! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==British English==

'''NO LONGER BANNED'''

We non US English speakers now have freedom to speak
:Freedom! Freedom! --[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==General questions==
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authoritative Source==
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Its not so much that "''Wikipedia''" ''improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion'' but that a particular ''editor'' did. That could happen here too. Such edits remain until another ''editor'' changes them. The more popular the article the quicker questionable edits are likely to be changed.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 04:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Original research==
Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So if I come up with my own theory of how the universe was created, I could post it here as OR without the need to cite any sources? And the admins won't be allowed to delete it, although it shows a complete lack of backing by anybody? ...thank you. :D --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know Mr. Schlafly, as I said I can see the value of original works to a certain extent, but as more and more of the [[George Hammond]]'s of the world find this site you may be innudated with original research that is nothing but a detractor and a nuisance. There are many, many individuals on the internet with all kinds of crazy ideas and all of them would love a place to post them where they will get views. The questions becomes do you want your site to be a repository for all the crazy theories of the internet? If not there needs to be some sort of qualification, restriction or clarification. However, that being said we are not at the moment being innudated with such entries. This policy may work for now, its just something to keep in mind. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: If properly labeled, then I don't see a problem. We'll see. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of entries of pure junk, such as terms invented for rap songs. Wikipedia's complete ban on original work seems a bit contrived and limiting to me. We shouldn't be stuck in the past and act like nothing new is good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that some original work should be allowed, letting any and all OR into Conservapedia articles would create a terrible mess. Somebody could come and claim "Moses and Jesus fought a boxing match in heaven", and nobody would be able to argue. Perhaps we should merely allow inflections and commentary, based off of what can be gathered in a source? Wikipedia doesn't allow this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: The presentation of new ideas is perfectly acceptable, but a freely editable encyclopedia is not the correct venue for this. Protecting your ownership of these original ideas is very difficult when both the statement of the idea and developer of it can be changed by anyone with a free account. Additionally, users shouldn't be given the perception that new ideas are widely accepted, when in most cases they are not accepted until they are no longer considered 'new'. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:Such commentary might border on opinions and unencyclopedic language, though. (Funny thing is that Conservapedia doesn't even ''have'' a rule about encyclopedic tone...) Or will we allow "49.9% of the population" to be changed to "less than half the population" and "50.1%" to "the majority"? It's certainly not wrong, but it's also not what an encyclopedic article would write (Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with Wiki rules, but I think I recall a rule about using exact terms and numbers if possible.). I think Conservapedia has enough issues with being taken seriously already. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::The very existence of Conservapedia is a joke. People who disband from a freely editable encyclopedia because they believe it is biased simply don't wish to have their statements checked by people with opposing viewpoints. You're right that people aren't taking it seriously, but I doubt minor changes to the rules will make people overlook that constant, unfounded criticism of Wikipedia that runs rampant in so many articles here. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 18:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:::(chuckles) I agree with you, but I still think that it may have a chance of becoming a bit... more accepted (as more than a source of endless entertainment at least =P). Thus, I support "minor" changes to the rules when they have the potential of making a difference in the way people apply them.
:::Broadly allowing all forms of OR can lead to chaos, and a change of the rules later on is tied to much clean-up work. If the rule stays, then there should at least be some clarification, for example in the form Hojimachong suggested. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

: You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::: Which Wikipedia rule forbids gossip??? Show me and let's enforce it against what, about 100,000 entries there?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wikipedia refers to it as NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The full explanation of where and when opinions (including gossip/second-hand opinions) may be used is located here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial] --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:24, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::::: OK, I went to your link and searched on the word "gossip". It doesn't appear. '''Wikipedia has no rule against gossip'''. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You have to dig a little bit further into the policies to see it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources stated] - "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: A simple text search for the word gossip returns no hits, however gossip fits into the larger category of opinion. The citation of opinions on Wikipedia is permitted, but under specific guidelines. Show just one of these 100,000 entries that use gossip and cite it as fact, and I'll find five pages that enforced this regulation. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Gossip is different from "opinion". Come on, let's not pretend that we don't know what gossip is. The "fact" that John Tower's ex-wife refused to accept flowers from him as she was dying in the hospital is gossip. Wikipedia allows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: That statement doesn't appear on Wikipedia. Not all opinions are gossip, but gossip is wholly contained in the realm of opinion. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:40, 21 March 2007 (CST)

:::: Really, has Wikipedia deleted it? If so, then it was only after criticism here. Check out the entry on Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia and more gossip greets the reader. It's pervasive. By the way, facts often qualify as gossip, so your definition is not correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Don't you think you're giving yourself a little bit too much credit there? You make it sound as if all of Wikipedia scans your massively important list for things to correct. The probability of somebody reading your list and then editing it is quite small, compared to people getting to the page through other ways and editing it in the normal Wiki process. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Criticizing a 1.5 million-page wiki based on a few of its worst pages isn't fair, especially when they clearly go against the wiki's policy. (much like Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia isn't really fair for picking out a few of the worst articles here, articles that are likely to be improved up within a few weeks or months) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Andy, you've given examples of gossip, but if we could come up with an actual definition to follow, that would be helpful. Gossip is in the eye of the beholder.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is this: '''Personal websites may not be used as an article's reference.''' If we put that into force we will save ourselves enormous amounts of difficulty. Gossip is always personal opinion. Personal websites abound in gossip. And, it is often presented as part of a larger page that has some attention getting element. An example is in the [[Scientology]] article where Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal site, xenu.net is cited [http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/latey.html] for his hand typed representation of a court document. But also appearing on the page are his evaluations and criticisms and bias about the court document and surrounding issues. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:For further exposition on "personal websites" interested editors should review this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References discussion]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, your definition of gossip seems to be information that sheds negative light on a person or idea that you support. Please correct me with an explicit definition? --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:50, 21 March 2007 (CST)

::Isn't saying that wikipedia deleted something because of your criticism a form of gossip? What proof do you have that it was your criticism that caused the edit? Wikipedia is under constant ''internal'' scrutiny from a large population of editors. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think the only instance when a Wiki edit was actually (quasi-)proven to originate here was the issue of "elementary proof" or whatever the name was. And that was a case of "...well, you could've created the entry yourself in the time you spent writing the criticism". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention Wikipedia actively discourages anything like [[debate topics]], let alone links to it from the sidebar. Gossip indeed. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, I'm not going to debate the pervasive gossip in Wikipedia with you further. At the rate you're going, you might also claim the National Enquirer doesn't have gossip! Actually, I suppose its employees might claim that. If you think Wikipedia is free of gossip, then so be it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Gossip is a very vague word, what is one (wo)man's gossip is another's hard facts! So before the term "gossip" gets thrown about too much we ought to have a concrete definition of it. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] 01:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I asked above for a definition of gossip so that the rules can be followed clearly. I have no interest in debating Wikipedia...it's irrelevant. But, I would like a definition of gossip if it is going to stay a commandment. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==

''7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts...'' - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, we don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean? Sounds like some kind of hippy, commie relativism to me! Facts are facts. --[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
:: this is all sour grapes from a disgruntled former editor of wikipedia. it is not to be taken seriously. Ashlafly is simply a member of the radical right disguising himself, albeit poorly, as a conservative. Do not take him seriously. He is baised against anythnig that doesn't support his ideosyncratic agenda. 20:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean?" I agree, what does it mean? How can a fact be of different political alignments? You can check it the [[Wiktionary:fact|definition]]. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 16:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
: They're ''special'' facts. Y'know, the ones that are so obviously true, they don't even need citations. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

== Neutral? Censorship? ==

''"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "''

This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is [[Intercourse|Sex]]. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067000/sexual-intercourse|Sexual Intercourse]. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.

I shall return. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That is a very good point. The fact that the sex article has been censored on this site is a bit odd. There is no need to get into the depth that Wikipedia goes into about human sexualit, sex positions, etc. But some acknowledgment or treatment of the way that nearly all multi-cellular organisms come to be seems to be something that shoudl be included in anything claiming to be "encyclopedic".--[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 12:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive ==

and are not applied to actual pages. if we're going to state these rules they should ve consistent and supportable. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 20:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
* I assume 7 is referring to Andrew's lectures ([[Economics Lectures]], [[World History Lectures]])? If so, perhaps Conservapedia may eventually have something like Wikinews' [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting original reporting] policy, which allows original work, as long as it's labeled as being authored by an identifiable person. (and Wikinews' policy would make point 7 invalid as well) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:: it would lend much needed credibility to this project if editorials and opinion were labeled as such. As it is it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. not that it seems to matter here, as intellectual seems to be a bad word. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Name Change==
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "Differences from wikipedia" or "How Conservapedia is different from Wikipedia"? "Differences with wikipedia" sounds awkward. If you want to take a good idea from wikipedia, you might make a "What conservapedia is not" page.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Neutral to the facts? ==

What facts are these that justify a daily bible comment on the front page?

Honestly, I have no problem with the Bible quote. It has nothing to do with any controversy about facts. It is simply a quotation that the founders of this site wish to share.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 18:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Surely what or what isn't a ''[[Terrorism|terrorist group]]'' group depends on the definintion used and the perspective of the definer.
::''If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.''
:What definition is being used here - and wouldn't that be an opinion likely to controvene no. 2?
:Admittedly that only states that the ''opinions of journalists'' are unacceptable. Are other opinions acceptable? Though I can only assume they are also subject to ''authoritative support''. Who is the authority on what or what isn't a ''terrorist group''? It there also an authority on [[fact]]s?
:A real encyclopedia would [[Conservapedia:Attribution|attribute]] claims that a particular group is terrorist to those doing the claiming?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Restrictions ==

5. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.

In what way? how? This means nothing on it's own. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 11:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Users here have been unable to grasp wikipedia's copyright, so they've determined it is 'cumbersome' whereas conservapedia's apparent founder has said something like "anybody can copy our stuff until we object" . . . it's pretty clear, given the dishonest and unacademic tone of the rest of this site, how that should be parsed. More evidence that this site is a platform for radicals and zealots, dishonest ones at that, rather than actual conservatives or, heaven help us, Christians. I more than half suspect this site is some sort of joke intended to make average good hearted Christian-Americans look like fascists and nut-cases. But perhaps thats just because it is apparently run by misguided high school students.[[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Copyright differences ==

The page currently reads "By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material, and cannot copy your own material elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions." That's incorrect... Wikipedia contributors are required to license their contributions under the GFDL, but under the law, the contributor still owns the copyright to the work* and may license the contribution under other additional licenses. Wikipedia even encourages this sometimes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain#Advice_for_users_of_our_content]

GFDL is just a normal license that is used outside of Wikipedia, and it has no clauses akin to "transfer the copyright ownership to the site I post it on". I can write a poem by myself, license it under the GFDL, and post it on Geocities, but I'm still the copyright holder. Same goes with Wikipedia --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I've clarified point one, and responded on [[Conservapedia talk:Copyright]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you very much, the factual bits are correct now at least. And there are a number of people who criticize copyleft licenses for being [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Is_copyleft_.22viral.22.3F "viral"], so that sentiment isn't too far out of the mainstream (though I think personally think there are good reasons for some of the restrictions... it ensures that the community, rather than Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation, will forever own and control the content... there have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB#History unfortunate incidents] in the past where a community contributes under the belief that their work will always be freely available, but it's later closed off and used only for commercial gain). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 19:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== stubs ==

''12. We do not encourage the insertion of distracting "stubs" in entries. Wikipedia has numerous distracting stubs on entries.''

In Wikipedia, a "stub" is a short article, like a [[Conservapedia:Very Short Article]]. In fact Conservapedia has a template called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> that puts a large box at the top of the article noting that it is a Very Short Article and placing it in [[:Category:Articles needing major improvement]]. This category is still manageable here with less than 1000 articles in it. As Wikipedia is so much larger, the stub categories are further divided so that editors can find stub articles they have the interest or knowledge to expand. Wikipedia stub tags are a line or two of italic text at the bottom of an article (often with a small image next to them), less visually intrusive than the large blue box at the top of articles here.

This point should be either deleted or clarified to explain what difference is actually highlighted. Perhaps "Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top. Both markings invite readers to extend the article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*As you might have been noticing, there is more of a push on here to discourage their placement, in favor of short, factual and concise entries, over verbose and lenghty ones. Templates are most certainly not encouraged here, and when found on questionable articles, removed. I actually see the ability to place templates on articles restricted here, to Sysop's and above soon. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia places stubs on almost anything that is short. But concise entries are ''better'' than the wordy, overly verbose entries that dominate Wikipedia. it seems that a high percentage of entries on Wikipedia have "stubs" placed on them. Who wants to be distracted by that? It's silly and, as TK says, we don't want them here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Stub articles can serve a legitimate purpose if there are very few of them, to alert us of the real problems (i.e. when Germany was one paragraph long). I suspect that was the original intent. Obviously, this isn't happening. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: I take the stub notices out whenever I see them now, unless truly deserved. Also, let's warn and, if necessary, block editors who are inserting lots of stub notices. Thanks and a good Easter to you, MountainDew!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about this? "12. Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, very short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top, but these markings are discouraged. Both markings invite readers to extend the article, however a typical "complete" Conservapedia article is generally much shorter than a "complete" Wikipedia article." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I'm not that long out of College to remember what a pain it was, those overly long, verbose entries, when trying to fact-check, and research! Scott, I agree, we could site the two examples, and play-up our penchant for ''concise'' over wordy articles, for the sake of wordiness. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**Neither website (nor a paper encyclopaedia) is an appropriate source for tertiary-level research. Most of Wikipedia's Good and Featured articles have extensive reference lists which might be useful, but you're still relying on someone else's literature search with no idea if it's complete. Wikipedia tends to cite online and free (as in beer) articles rather than paper or paid sources as they are more accessible to the majority of editors. That is also a bias problem for serious research, and I haven't noticed a significant difference in that area at Conservapedia, which in general has a lot less references. World Book Encyclopaedia's short/concise articles give a quick and simple overview. Encyclopaedia Britannica has longer articles that give a fair amount of detail, like Wikipedia. True research means go and find your own sources. (Disclaimer: I graduated before the Internet existed). Should we have a guideline here that articles are aimed for the attention span and reading level of a 12-year old (i.e. like World Book)? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*That is kind of snobbish, no? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

**My last sentence? Possibly, but Aschlafly can move the number up or down, a guideline like that would help to clarify vague terms like "concise", "family-friendly" etc. The problem with Conservapedia is that it is trying to be too many things - an alternative to Wikipedia that presents items from a conservative POV instead of a Neutral POV should aim to carry informative and deep articles on the main items where conservatives differ from both liberals and moderates. However many of these articles are censored or hijacked due to the second goal of being a family-friendly and safe resource for home-schooled children. This goal is hard because family-friendly for an eight-year-old is different to family-friendly for a sixteen-year old. Articles on subjects like sex and families need to present different stuff, or at least one group will be looking elsewhere for information. The latest idea is that Conservapedia might be a [[think tank]]. Yet another goal, with yet another set of competing criteria to do it well. If these three or four goals were in separate websites or separate namespaces each linked from the front page, editors and readers could choose which they want to be involved in, and perhaps some of the complaints about sysop control would be addressed by people recognising different rules in different spaces. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 05:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "distracting stubs" meant that placing the {{tl|stub}} template was presenting a distraction. Both Mr. Schafly and [[User:Conservative]] IIRC have criticized its application. No one is objecting to well-written articles that simply happen to be short.
*A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. [William Strunk, Jr.] http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/02-TeachingResources/readingwriting/05c-essy.htm

Wikipedia suffers from stylistic strictures. It has a prejudice against concise writing and favors "blather" over cohesion. All articles must be created by a process of accretion, as if 100 monkeys at a typewriter could eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. (MUST I point out this use of [[hyperbole]]? That link being a red one, I guess I must. ;-)

At some future date, I may write an article on [[military communications]] which will expose the weaknesses of traditional [[command and control]] ideas, based on the insights of retired Marine Corps General [[Paul van Riper]]. Here's a taste:
*"We would not get caught up in any of these mechanistic processes. We would use the wisdom, the experience, and the good judgment of the people we had." (Page 118 of [[Malcolm Gladwell]]'s ''[[blink]]''.)

Van Riper's Red Team beat the Pentagon's best and brightest in a military exercise called the [[Millennium Challenge]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, I suspect you are right what is ''intended'' by point 12. It is not what it ''says''. I have made two attempts in this talk page section to propose rephrased sentences that I think say what is meant. I'm not allowed to edit the actual page, so can only discuss proposed changes here, leading to interesting tangents if no sysop actually picks up the changes quickly. The "wiki way" (not just Wikipedia) is that I would make a change, and others would improve it in the page itself and eventually we would reach an improved consensus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 07:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::#I didn't write item #12.
::#You can ask the protecting sysop to unprotect the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Scott, I don't think the site owners care about the "wiki way" very much, neither do I, for a Conservapedia, that gives full credit to Conservative values, and Christian thinking. Consensus reached with those who don't think too highly of non-PC thoughts, and Conservative values isn't consensus, but watering down, IMO. How could it be otherwise? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is verging away from stubs and into a discussion of the relative merits of [[conservatism]] and [[liberalism]]. Continuing on this tangent, I will agree with Terry and run the ball a bit further.

::Conservatives want to preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have. This doesn't mean their minds are closed to new ideas which are also good. We're not sending letters by pony express here but using a [[wiki]] on the [[Internet]]. Just because Al Gore invented it, doesn't mean it's evil <wink>.

::I just think that C's are less close-minded than L's. Read ''[[Closing of the American Mind]]'' for a lengthy essay which argues that liberal "open-mindedness" actually leads to mental impoverishment and destruction. Do Liberals consciously desire poverty and chaos? Hardly. But the problem remains unsolved. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::[[User:Aschlafly|The protecting sysop]] has responded in this thread, but did not change the article, or unprotect it. This appears to be the usual Conservapedia attitude to "...preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have." At least I haven't been reverted for deleting information about Tanzania from [[Tonga]] or Laos from [[Fiji]]. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Tonga? Laos? *head is spinning --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 12:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
**A couple of editors a month ago appear to have had a ''very'' spotty understanding of world geography, and got several countries mixed up. I removed material from articles it was not about. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I'm not sure what you want me to respond to. We discourage defacing concise articles here with ugly "stub" banners. Here we encourage conciseness. At Wikipedia, the culture seems to think more words are better. Not so.

: Also, we favor concise rules. We're not going to have thousands and thousands of words about rules here. God covered all of life with Ten Commandments, and many of them were just a few words long. We're going to have fewer here. If you like bureaucracy, then you might prefer Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ed has now corrected the most obvious problem with the point - thanks. The issue appeared to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. The new version is close enough I wouldn't have commented. I have no problem with conciseness, but short-and-wrong is not as good as long-enough-and-right. I continue to contribute to Wikipedia as well, and do not come here with the chip on my shoulder that everything about Wikipedia is wrong, unlike some people here. If we are to criticise Wikipedia, the criticism should be fair and true. Both stubs and VSAs allow a project to extend its breadth quickly, and hopefully others will come behind to increase the depth of coverage. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== User names? ==

Yep, names like "Conservative", "CoulterMan", etc., aren't ''at all'' like those mentioned. Are you guys aware that "Nearly Headless Nick" is the name of a character from a book? --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'd shy away from bashing user names, if you want a lot of creative people coming in to edit you're bound to get creative user names. Also, the fact that we have a user who goes by the name of [[User:MountainDew| MountainDew]], (which, at best, is a euphemism of illicit neutral grain spirit and at worst a trademark violation) who is not an ordinary registered user but a sysop, would be like shooting a gun with a "U" shaped barrel. MOO [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
No offense, but your name is a racial slur. I don't think you have any room to complain about my name. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ahem? Is it now too offensive to enjoy saltine crackers, or similary culinary treats? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, he's accusing my name of being a reference to moonshine, so that's just as logical. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Mountain Dew is right; this has been just one more of an army of provocateurs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hacker, please refrain, as you know I will do something about it, starting with those whose name is the very epitome of vandalism, eh? I am so glad we could all reason together. Aren't you? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Hacker, as I clearly stated, my objection to "Nearly Headless Nick" (and "The Ostrich") is that they are anti-intellectual. I notices how you omitted the fact that it is a character from a CHILDREN'S book.

Wikipedia is an anti-intellectual movement. The anti-intellectual names add to this fundamental defect. Wikipedia is the internet version of the Cultural Revolution, causing a generation of students to throw out real encyclopedias and look for quick, easy and heavily biased answers by anti-intellectual editors.

As TK points out, Hacker, your pen name is hardly commendable either for an online project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT) 

:I find it irrelevant that it's a children's book. However, I apologize for the PAs.

:Now, as to my username: please read the explanation I have placed on my userpage, in anticipation of such an issue. Then please proceed to read [[hacker]], Hacking for Christ[http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/][http://www.gerv.net/hacking/why-hacking-for-christ.html], the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker hacker], [http://www.userfriendly.org/ User Friendly], the Jargon File entry on [http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html hacker], [http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html How To Become A Hacker], etc. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 18:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

TO:[[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] point taken...as this is only my sig name I will amend the signature to me real name, thusly: [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 16:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Hacker, my point was, it was a pot calling the kettle black kind of comment. Yours. Since you surely don't expect all users should be required to read your user page, do you? I repeat, why the bother in making such comments, when most of your work is superior? Is everyone that bored? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Move ==

I'll be moving this to the Conservapedia: namespace, as it is not encyclopedic, and violates commandment 3. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

*Really? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==#11==
I have issues with this one. A user's talk page is a place for discussion and debate. This rule/difference makes it very easy for a sysop to decide he doesn't like being told he's wrong and block any offending users instead of confronting the argument. The user page is what should be controlled as that is their personal space. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:54, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: You can tell the Sysop once, and you can tell other Sysops. You cannot pester or attempt to bully someone on his own talk page. Conservatives respect a man's home as his castle. Ditto for one's own talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::PF Fox, don't post any more to my User talk page. See #11 in Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you.--Aschlafly 16:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::LOL! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==#16 - "anti-intellectual"?==

What makes names like "The Ostrich" anti-intellectual, exactly? I know it's sooper-dooper fun to sit around being preoccupied with stuff like this, because it provides Christians/conservatives with some "cause" to partake in that doesn't involve "inconveniences" like sending money to Africa or helping out at soup kitchens, but honestly---God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being beyond all impeachment. Do you honestly think he cares whether rinky-dink little humans are squabbling about the biography of William Donald Schaefer? That's doubtful. I mean, seriously. The universe that he has created for us is a lot more interesting than bickering about axioms and abstract concepts like 'Conservative' and 'Liberal', right? I can't imagine anything more 'conservative' than conserving all the energy, time, manpower, and effort we've wasted on this endless debate. As for the "Liberals"? Let God sort them out on the other side of the curtain, eh? {{unsigned|Refugee621}}

: I couldn't follow your entire message, other than to observe that an ostrich hides his head in the sand. That has anti-intellectual connotations. Try applying for a graduate program by saying how much you'd like to be like an ostrich, and then let us know much that impresses the professors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Should it be clearly expressed in the Commandments, Guidelines or Manual of Style? Or is there already a requirement? [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Um, usernames are just that- usernames. They aren't generally meant to have deep symbolism or referrences to cliches of what some animals represent. Claiming that Wikipedians' usernames are somehow anti-intellectual frankly makes Conservapedia look silly. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::: JoshuaZ, if you agree that comments can be anti-intellectual, then surely usernames can be anti-intellectual also. Usernames can convey a message or POV, and if anti-intellectualism exists, then a username can convey that POV. As Wikipedia so perfectly describes in one of its finest entries, "duh"! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: It might be possible for some extreme examples of usernames to be anti-intellectual (such as maybe [[User:BooksRfun2Burn]]) but the notion that having a username of a certain animal is anti-intellectual simply because there exists a certain cliche about that animal is laughable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:19, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Wikipedia editor "The Ostrich" has made a total of ten edits since the end of July 2004.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Ostrich] Not really an example of a typical Wikipedia editor these days. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n]] and [[User:Wikinterpreter]] for example at Conservapedia have far more edits than that, with just as silly user names. There are three people with the surname "Ostric" in the White Pages in New South Wales - "The Ostrich" would meet the Conservapedia requirement for being derived from a person's name for these people. The silly names comparison should go. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bad English ==

Surely the title of the article should be '''Differences from Wikipedia'''. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 08:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your contribution. But I think differences "with" is correct when comparing characteristics or views of members in of the same group. For example, "President Bush has had some differences with (not from) Vice President Cheney recently."

: But I'm open-minded about this. Can you explain your position more fully? Welcome, and Lord bless you for your efforts here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think "differences from" is correct either, but neither do I think "differences with" is any better. I think I'd go for "differences to", but I'm not certain that's correct either, plus there might be a difference between what's "correct" in Australian English vs. American English. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: "Differences with" retrieves 1.59 million Google links, suggesting that it is common usage, Philip. But I'm open to improvements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:41, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I probably have my Google settings differently (e.g. only English pages returned). I get 1.25 million hits for "differences with", 1.24 million hits for "differences from", and 1.21 million hits for "differences to". At this level, this indicates that all are roughly equally used. The next step would be to try and determine if they are being used in the same context. For example, I think "differences with" might tend to be used for something that has changed, so you are talking about "difference with" the product compared to the older version, for example. But I'm not sure on this. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think that counting the number of Google hits is a valid way of determining correct usage. It just shows that there are a lot of ill-educated people publishing on the internet. However, I appreciate the distinction between ''differences with'' (as applied to arguments) and ''differences from'' (comparison). ''Different to'' is always wrong (according to my old English grammar teacher). In the context of the article I would have thought that the comparison term was the correct application. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 13:13, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Catherine, you may be right and I greatly appreciate the feedback. However, I find it very awkward to say, "I have differences from Jim." It just sounds wrong to me. It sounds much better to me to say, "I have differences with Jim." Ditto for Conservapedia and Wikipedia, each of which is really a collection of editors and a respective approach. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:00, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Catherine may well be right about "to", but thinking more about this, I wonder if "differences with Wikipedia" is really saying how ''Wikipedia'' is different from something else (earlier version of Wikipedia, normal encyclopedias, Conservapedia, or whatever), whereas what this article is trying to say is how ''Conservapedia'' is different from Wikipedia.
::Maybe the solution is to change the title to, for example, "Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

:::That sounds better, or maybe "How Conservapedia differs from Wikipedia". [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] 05:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Differences between Conservapadia and Wikipedia sounds good, or Catherine's suggestion. I have called this thread to Andy's attention as it's his baby. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"Difference to" is everyday language form, "difference from" or "difference between" are commonly used good English. Talking about personal difference should have different preposition but this not that kind of case. (Let's google also "different xxx" - not only "difference xxx") --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much, Catherine!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== #4? ==

"4. We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts."

If this is, in fact, the case, then why is there an '<nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>' keyword not only available, but used by editors here? Does this not implicitly encourage long-winded, verbose entries? To avoid slipping into hypocrisy, I would advise that Conservapedia either stops making such an allegation against Wikipedia or cease all used of this practice be it called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> or "cleverly" disguised as <nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>. --[[User:TokenModerate|TokenModerate]] 14:10, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Journalistic sources? ==

Difference #6 states:
<blockquote>We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.</blockquote>

I am not doubting the research done in [[Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco]] and [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot]] (I believe there is a strong bias only showing one side of the story - but that is another matter and a battle I know is a losing one) but I am curious as to how an articles that are purely drawn from journalist accounts meshes with this difference.

Personally, I believe that journalistic sources are good and necessary to have as they are often primary sources of information rather than an abstraction later. This keeps Conservapedia a secondary source of information rather than a third or fourth level source. But if difference #6 is to be maintained, then a critical look at those two articles and future articles that depend upon journalistic sources needs to be made. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Anti-intellectual names"? ==

What the heck? [[User:The Ostrich|The Ostrich]] 19:51, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed. Do you attend school or go to your place of employment and insist on being called "The Ostrich"? No, because you would never be taken seriously.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:09, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

**Online, pseudonymity is key for many people. What can they do otherwise for a unique identifier? Are you suggesting that a substantial privacy risk should be taken? I don't mind using my name, people think I'm joking, but what should people seeking a unique, memorable, and private identity name themselves online? your two-letter combination can't serve the Internet's millions - we'd run out after 262. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 00:06, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: Would you give someone your resume if it was printed in unreadable non-standard font that also substituted letters from non-english alphabets for the the standard ones? How is that different, .....--? Oh, you think it's cute so IT IS different. [[User:Mandrew|Mandrew]] 07:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::: Do you think no one takes R.USirius (our however it is spelled) seriously? [[User:Mandrew|Mandrew]] 08:01, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Drive to improve this page - your help is desired ==

I am reviewing this section both for edits, clarification, and for possible new entries to the list. Improvements, suggestions, or constructive criticism are welcome. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:37, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

== numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, ==

#Number 1 is either obviously wrong or critically misleading: the GDFL is specifically designed to allow users to retain ownership of their contributions while allowing free redistribution. You do not lose any rights whatsoever to what you contribute when you contribute under a GDFL license, since you still own the original version. Your only restriction is once another person edits an article - then, ''the article'' is no longer yours, but your original content still belongs to you. Further, it allows you to prevent mirrors from claiming that they are the creators of your content - you can file a DMCA takedown notice based on your copyright, whereas public domain content is, well, public domain.
#While I remain puzzled as to what is meant by "entries and discussions which are anti-intellectual in nature" (I see no "nerds, you suck" pages on Wikipedia, and the assertion itself seems unfounded (examples, please?)), Wikipedia has merely chosen to separate its lectures, guides, et cetera into separate projects (Wikiversity, Wikisource, Wikibooks) to concentrate on a core goal of creating an encyclopedia. Number 2 thus seems grossly misleading - it is not that Wikipedia is lacking, it is that Conservapedia's content is jumbled together (which may or may not be a good thing :) ).
#While Jimbo Wales did co-found Wikia, it is noted repeatedly as being otherwise unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Further, what search engine is associated with Wikipedia?!? Number 3 seems almost ridiculously unhinged.
#
#Gossip isn't exactly allowed on Wikipedia either. I hear they have a really strict [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biography_of_living_persons policy about unreferenced material on living people]. Perhaps number 5 could use a fact-checking tune-up?
#
#
#Neutral to the facts? Conservapedia freely admits being highly pro-Christian, pro-Conservative, and pro-US. The last time I heard that called neutral... there wasn't a last time. Further, what's wrong with using the word "militant"? They mean virtually the same thing, and "militant" isn't politically charged, as "terrorist" is. Number 8 seems to be missing the point: what's wrong with trying to be neutral? Besides, organizations widely recognized as being terrorist in nature are usually labelled as such regardless.
#It's a wiki: anyone can change anything. If your content is supported by consensus, backed up by references, and bolstered by not presenting a lopsided view of the situation in question, it's unlikely that any user, even a sysop, could get away with censoring content. just as I assume is the case on Conservapedia. Got a case in point? I'd like to hear about it. Number 9. Turn me on, dead man.
#Excluding original research makes any reference more reliable. While Conservapedia may think that this "promotes a more intellectual atmosphere", any trained scientist will know that a single experiment, original research, is in and of itself unreliable. Until results are confirmed by multiple parties, which is unlikely to happen, the information obtained should not be trusted. Number 10 marks double digits of shame.
#Do you have a case in point? I recall seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Wikipedia's talk page guidelines], and it seems to me that users have a pretty wide latitude on their own user pages, as long as they aren't disrupting everyone else (in which case, as a misbehaving child might, it is obvious for them to lose some privileges).
#
#Perhaps Wikipedia has exacting rules, but it has been my experience that users are blocked because they make an edit which annoys a sysop on Conservapedia, for example [[User:NeutralParty]] who was blocked for asking about a series of indefinite IP range blocks. Wikipedia's rules would seem preferable to the apparant mob here. I was once blocked for an inappropriate username, with the summary "choose a different username" while having my IP blocked from creating accounts. If I am blocked for posting this, you merely prove my point - Conservapedia needs better blocking rules. Oh well.
#But you have no system for recognizing which people are experts, so your policy is just as bad - you simply treat all new users as... new users - which doesn't seem to be any different from Wikipedia. Unless, again, you can think of a case in point?
#Case in point? Someone being blocked for blog posts obviously was causing a real problem to be blocked. Your statement lacks both context and clarity for the instance.
#And what is your alternative to pseudonymity? Users who have inappropriate usernames are immediately and indefinitely blocked with invitation to choose a better name immediately. Further, I fail to see how usernames are inherently "anti-intellectual" - it's the contributions that matter, not the name.

::I have a bit of a problem with these "differences", and I have outlined my problems with them above. I don't mean to be an annoyance, but were someone to point out the holes in these differences, it might look like you were arbitrarily smearing Wikipedia. Which you aren't, right? I'd like to see some improvement here. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:53, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::: I read as far as your implication that Wikipedia does not have gossip. Surely you're joking. Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet. Or perhaps you don't think the National Enquirer has gossip either????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not joking. My problem is that I don't see the evidence to support that claim which you make. While anonymous users add stuff all the time, the metaphorical chaff is quickly separated from the similarly metaphorical wheat, with most unproductive or nonsensical edits being reverted. Further, while Wikipedia may contain some gossip (I certainly imagine that it is quite difficult to police nearly 2m pages simultaneously with only volunteers), it isn't exactly ''allowed'', as the statement implied. Either point me to something on Wikipedia saying that gossip is allowed, or if there is gossip, point it out and some loyal Wikipedian will notice and remove the offending text within a few hours. Simply saying "Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet" is a meaningless smear if one cannot provide a valid justification for the comparison. It's not so much what is right - it is the respectability of being able to back up an otherwise questionable claim. I assume Conservapedia wishes to be respectable. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 08:02, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please remove #3 immediately, it is just plain ridiculous. Who ever wrote that was probably reading news articles with headlines such as "Wikipedia to launch search engine", many of those news articles were so inaccurate that they were not even revised, but taken off the web. I understand that you are referring to Wikia Search when you say search engine, but as one of three Wikia Search sysops I know that the biggest myth about it is that it is in some way connected with Wikipedia. We are constantly fighting this myth. Please make your site more credible by removing this factual inaccuracy off of it. Thanks! [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:07, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: INTregued, your comments are an example of how a [[liberal]] can make an absurd argument with a straight face. Countless articles on Wikipedia are filled with gossip and it's obvious that the gossip attracts visitors, just as the National Enquirer does. This is not vandalism. Do you think the National Enquirer is vandalized before publication??? To take just one example, check out Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia. I'll let you find the gossip. There are thousands of examples like that, and it is not vandalism. Conservapedia has a rule against gossip. Wikipedia does not. More examples are at [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Mschel, learn how to spell "ridiculous" for starters. Then figure out how Wikipedia leaders were able to raise millions for their search engine project. It was due to the actual and expected preferences in directing Wikipedia traffic to the search engine. It's remarkable how many Wikipedia volunteers are fooled by this. Perhaps you're one of them. How about volunteering to work for Microsoft next?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::You are still making the same mistake as these guys from the press who have no idea what they are talking about. As one of the three admins on Wikia Search, if something like that was going on I think I would know about it. As for working for Microsoft, I object, I do not have one single piece of Microsoft software on my computer, and I have been using Linux for years. :D [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I'm glad you fixed your spelling of "ridiculous". Now perhaps you can tell us how many millions the for-profit Wikia search engine has raised from investors, which Wikipedia admins control and benefit from that for-profit endeavor, and how Wikipedia is and will be being manipulated to give it an advantage. You tell us the details if you know so much. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::O my! Someone has been reading too much CNN. [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 11:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Aschafly, Wikipedia ''does'' have rules against gossip. Perhaps one of the sentences from one of the core policies (Verifiability) will make this clear: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Further, you attempt to discount my argument as absurd by calling me a liberal. This would only be an effective retort were I a liberal. I'm afraid that I only skimmed through the article on Bertrand Russell, but I don't see the gossip right away. Could you point me to a specific section or sections? Or has any gossip been appropriately removed? Further, I'm afraid it is not obvious that Wikipedia's "gossip" is the primary attraction to visitors. Also, would you mind reading some of the other complaints? Specifically, number 1 is, IMHO, the worst problem of the lot.
:And regarding Wikipedia admins, they aren't paid. The only connections that Wikia has to Wikipedia are Jimbo Wales and the occasional donation from Wikia, which help keep Wikipedia running - if Wikipedia itself were for-profit, it might have better servers rather than the lag-prone arrays currently responding to the flood of traffic. Further, I'm pretty sure that the great majority of Wikipedia end-users are not even aware of the Wikia Search page, or of any but the most popular Wikia-based sites. Even further than that, I mean no offense, but your last comment sounds somewhat like something from your Enquirer. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 12:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: INTregued, you're clueless. Look up gossip in the dictionary and read a copy of the National Enquirer so that you can learn what "gossip" is. Then reread Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia and see the gossip. Read [[Bias in Wikipedia]] for other examples. Wikipedia is filled with gossip, perhaps even more than the National Enquirer is. I'm not going to spend my afternoon teaching you what everyone else knows: the meaning of the term "gossip". I'm not going to respond to you further about this until you admit the obvious, and admit that Wikipedia does not prohibit or even discourage gossip. It welcomes it.

: Your second point also misses the obvious, and I'm not going to dwell on that with you either. Wikipedia generates traffic on the backs of volunteers, and a privileged few have raised millions in a for-profit venture to exploit that traffic. In the terminology of another silly Wikipedia entry, duh.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: In the various talk pages about atheism there is a question about who the burden of proof is upon for making a claim. In this case, I believe the burden is upon you. You have stated that there is gossip in the Bertrand Russell page on Wikipedia and yet you leave the evidence as left up to the reader who doesn't necessarily agree with you? Could you please point to specific items to show to others where that gossip is to prove your point? Making vague claims and then leaving it up to the other side to prove or disprove your claims will not win any points in a debate team. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:39, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Is the point of this site to be a better alternative to Wikipedia, or to bash it? When I joined I I was under the former impression, I am now leaning towards the latter. For example, if you go to the article about Wikipedia, you don't learn that it is a wiki, all you see is that it's an online encyclopedia, and section after section of mud-slinging. Would someone please explain this to me? [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 13:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

*Mschel, you are yet another common troll. You cannot even post here with openly and with integrity without using proxies to disguise yourself. More Liberal [[deceit]]. Bye. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, Rutm's comment was what I planned to say - have you any good argument besides "it's obvious" that Wikipedia contains and, more ridiculously, encourages gossip? I don't plan on continually pushing against an ''ad hoc'' "it's obvious" argument, or vague references to long articles which might contain only a small percentage of "gossip" left over because the article is not policed strongly enough. Further, Wikimedia routinely publishes third-party audits publicly [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf], which doesn't quite seem in line with the dark for-profit agenda you allege they follow. I'm not counting on you responding, and less on acting (fixing the mistakes quoted), but you might do well if you can recognize that smears without context, references, and/or proof merely damage your credibility. How is this "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if it cannot write about ideas, for example, Wikipedia's use of the GDFL, without misdirection? I'd like to see this fixed. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Monitor blogs ==

I know that, I wrote a blog about 3 days after they banned me about getting people together to get Wikipedia Shut Down and within 2 hours it was cross posted on Wikipedia and now every one on Wikipedia except a few editors have a negative view on me.--  † [[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian]][[Special:Contributions/FellowChristian16|16]]  19:01, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:How would you react if a group of people were getting together to shut Conservapedia down? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

::I don't know about FC16, but I wouldn't give a rat's behind for two reasons: (1) it wouldn't be the least bit surprising and (2) it wouldn't have a chance of succeeding. Wikipedia and many of its users are hyper-sensitive to criticism and certain editors make sure any off-WP criticism is quickly and permanently attached to the editors who criticize. This is done to try to smear and discredit said editors. I do not see that happening here (mainly because the critics discredit themselves with their edits). CP does not monitor off-site comments that I've seen. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:42, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Wikipedia million dollar investments==
What's the source of the idea that Wikipedia attracts million dollar investments? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:20, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Original research==
Does Conservapedia really allow original research? That's very dangerous. Suppose I was to write (taking an untrue and entirely made up example) "I met Ann Coulter in a restaurant, she was blind drunk and told me she was addicted to cocaine but had managed to keep it from the media". Am I allowed to add that to the article about her? It's based on personal experience, so by the rules of Conservapedia is should be allowed. Is it? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:22, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well technically a no originally research rule excludes your own videotapes. So you could interview Ann Coulter, videotape it yourself, and then there is proof and it is also original research. ~

==Opinion==
"Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion". Any actual examples of this? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:24, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Age of consent

2008-06-23T19:48:45Z

RobertBobkins: Needs historical notions. currently it only has the modern liberal notions

The '''age of consent''' is a legal and moral principle. It presupposes that children and adolescents are not psychologically or morally capable of making [[free will|free choices]].

Not being competent to make moral choices absolves minors from (adult) guilt if they commit certain crimes. Either their parents will be held responsible, as in case of theft or vandalism, or the child will simply be considered "too young to know better".

Children typically cannot enter into binding contracts, are not permitted to drive cars on public roads, join the armed forces or get married. In the [[United States of America]], however, a parent may permit their 17-year-old child to join the armed forces. Various states in the U.S. differ as to what age a minor must be before their parents can permit them to marry.

When an adult has sexual intercourse with a minor, this is considered [[statutory rape]] because the child is not old enough to make such a weighty decision as to enter into a sexual relationship. The age of consent for this decision varies.

==Historically==
Historically, the age of consent was the age of Mitvah. 13 for males, Bar Mitzvah. 12 for girls, Bat Mitzvah. The Bible and Koran say nothing about age of consent. In fact, "From the age at which Hebrew maidens became marriageable, it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age. No historical document tells us how old she actually was at the time of the Nativity. " -- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm (Catholic Encyclopedia)

200 years ago in The United States, the age of consent was 10 years old and it was common for girls in farming communities to mary at that age. It was only recently that it was raised to 18.

==Age of consent in law==
In law the age of consent is the age at which a person is deemed to be competent to give consent to an activity, such as sexual intercourse or medical treatment, which would be otherwise be unlawful without [[informed consent]].

The age of consent is one of several legal principles that govern the rights and responsibilities of minors in [[common law]] systems, such as:
*The ''age of license'' is the minimum age that a person must obtain to be permitted to undertake an activity, such as driving a motor vehicle on public roads.
*The ''age of criminal responsibility'' is the age at which a person is deemed to be fully responsible for their criminal actions.
*The ''age of majority'' is the age at which a person is deemed to have the rights and responsibilities of an adult and the age at which parental rights and responsibilities cease.

==American States/Territories and their Corresponding Age of Consent==
Worldwide, the average age of consent is 16.<ref>http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm</ref>
{| width="80%" class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
![[Alabama]]
|16
![[Illinois]]
|17
![[Montana]]
|16
![[Puerto Rico]]
|??
|-
![[Alaska]]
|16
![[Indiana]]
|14
![[Nebraska]]
|17
![[Rhode Island]]
|16
|-
![[Arizona]]
|18
![[Iowa]]
|14
![[Nevada]]
|16
![[South Carolina]]
|14
|-
![[Arkansas]]
|16
![[Kansas]]
|16
![[New Hampshire]]
|16
![[South Dakota]]
|16
|-
![[California]]
|18
![[Kentucky]]
|16
![[New Jersey]]
|16
![[Tennessee]]
|18
|-
![[Colorado]]
|14
![[Louisiana]]
|17
![[New Mexico]]
|17
![[Texas]]
|17
|-
![[Connecticut]]
|16
![[Maine]]
|16
![[New York]]
|17
![[Utah]]
|16
|-
![[D.C.]]
|16
![[Maryland]]
|16
![[North Carolina]]
|16
![[Vermont]]
|16
|-
![[Delaware]]
|14
![[Massachusetts]]
|16
![[North Dakota]]
|18
![[Virginia]]
|18
|-
![[Florida]]
|14
![[Michigan]]
|16
![[Ohio]]
|16
![[Washington]]
|16
|-
![[Georgia]]
|16
![[Minnesota]]
|16
![[Oklahoma]]
|16
![[West Virginia]]
|16
|-
![[Hawaii]]
|16
![[Mississippi]]
|16
![[Oregon]]
|18
![[Wisconsin]]
|18
|-
![[Idaho]]
|14
![[Missouri]]
|14
![[Pennsylvania]]
|16
![[Wyoming]]
|16
|}

==Ages of consent for sex==

The '''age of consent for sex''' is the age at which an unmarried person is legally competent to submit to sexual intercourse. The median age for this in most countries seems to be 16 to 18, however ages ranging from 12 to 21 do exist. Some countries do not have age of consent laws but instead ban sex outside of marriage completely. To have sexual relations with someone below the age of consent is a crime (called statutory rape in some jurisdictions) because someone below the requisite age is considered, by law, incapable of consenting to the sexual act.

Age chart for selected Western countries [http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm]

{|border=3
|colspan=2| '''France''' || 16
|-
|rowspan=4| '''United Kingdom''' || '''England''' || 16
|-
| '''Wales''' || 16
|-
| '''Scotland''' || 16
|-
| '''Northern Ireland''' || 17
|-
|rowspan=3| '''USA''' || '''Indiana''' || 16
|-
| '''Texas''' || 17
|-
| '''Wisconsin''' || 18
|}

[[category:law]]

== See also ==

*[[Age of consent for sex]]
*[[Age of majority]]

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:law]]

Talk:Ron Paul

2008-06-23T19:32:06Z

RobertBobkins: /* What a glowing article! */

== I removed the following link: ==
*[http://chip91.wordpress.com/ Conservatives against Ron Paul]
I don't think a blog that criticizes a [[libertarian]] because he's not a [[conservative]] is a very relevant source for an encyclopedia article. If you absolutely think it's necessary, at least place it ''after'' the official Ron Paul sites. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:33, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Running against Paul ==

How can Dondero be running against Paul for Congress, if Paul is running not for Congress but for President? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 17:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:Err? I did some research about it. I couldn't really find much about it, but I did find [http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/05/16/eric-dondero-to-run-against-ron-paul-for-congress/ this]. As far as I can tell, he's going to run against Paul in D14 if Paul drops out of the primary race and runs for Congress again? That's as good a guess as I can figure. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
::He's running for both president and congress. Many politicians do so. It's not a conflict because the presidential election process tends to give you a pretty good idea pretty early on if you're going to get your party's nomination, and as such would still have several months to organize your congressional campaign if your presidential campaign falls through. And he has done a little campaigning in Texas, if I'm not mistaken. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 10:53, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Thank you! That's what I figured, but he obviously is only talking about the Presidential race right now. Thanks for clarifying it for us. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 10:58, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

==Conservatives against Ron Paul link==
On the [[Mitt Romney]] article there is a "conservatives against Romney link." So why can't there be a conservatives against Ron Paul link here? {{unsigned|Chippeterson}}

:See above for why I removed it. There is nothing wrong with links of conservatives who are against Ron Paul, though I will reiterate that the specific site you chose isn't a great one. (Thanks for putting it below the official links though). That site's main concern with Ron Paul is that he is not a conservative; but he never pretends to be a conservative. That would be like me placing a site on [[Barack Obama]]'s page complaining that he's not a conservative. I left the link up anyway, but I wouldn't mind keeping it only as a placeholder until we find a better one. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:Oh man I just took another look at the site. What I thought was the first page of posts was in fact the only page of posts. And if the name gives us a clue, it's your own site, Chippeterson. I now think there's no reason to keep this on an encyclopedia article. Feel free to find a more established blog, or better yet a news source or something to that effect. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

If somebody really wanted to post something against Ron Paul, they could post this. [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/06/15/the_conservative_case_against_ron_paul] I'm not saying I agree with all this; I disagree with this author's opinion on an Iraq pullout, but this would be more "legitimate". [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:25, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I would also like to go on record as supporting the removal of the aforementioned blog. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

It's much more then just one page. On top of the blog you find pages about Ron Paul's voting record and how it differs from what he says his political views are. It should have stayed on and I would put it back up if I thought it wouldn't result in me be being blocked from writing here on conservapedia. {{unsigned|Chippeterson}}

:Ah you are correct, I didn't see those tabs at the top. Still, there are only 6 posts to the blog (it is correct to say it's your personal blog, right?). It's not the content that makes me feel this is an unacceptable source, but the authority. The blog's only two days old and it has 0 comments. It also has no credited author. I'm sure you would like your blog to be on here, but it just isn't right for an encyclopedia. (Also, it doesn't bother me, but some people around here get miffed if you don't sign your post. You can do this by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:55, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I think that this article should mention that Ron Paul is a traditional conservative, as opposed to a neo-conservative. [[User:anticommie|anticommie]]

== Dates ==

Since this is now protected, could someone please dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:49, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Introducing new legislation ==

Is there any evidence to support the claim that Ron Paul introduced lots of legislation "probably more than any other single member of Congress." Seems like speculation to me. [[User:TRipp|TRipp]] 15:06, 16 December 2007 (EST)

== libertarian? ==

I'm not comfortable calling Ron Paul a "libertarian". He left the Libertarian Party over a decade ago and has been serving in Congress as a conservative Republican. His voting record is 100% conservative and he does not endorse libertarian positions such as legalized drugs. Why should be be called a "libertarian"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 30 December 2007 (EST)

:He used to endorse the legalization of drugs, although he personally detests their use. [[http://youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k&feature=related|Here]] -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

:: "Used to" means he doesn't anymore, which is why I said a "former libertarian."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 30 December 2007 (EST)

:::It seems that he ''used'' to endorse legalization and still does today [http://cannabisnews.com/news/13/thread13529.shtml]. That Youtube clip only shows his views in 1988, and I don't think they've changed all that much. I think he (like me) is ''personally'' a conservative, but doesn't believe in the government pushing his personal views. u8
:::When asked why he's a libertarian running as a Republican he usually responds something to the effect of "I'm the only true conservative running." [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:45, 31 December 2007 (EST)

== What a glowing article! ==

Why, you'd think it was directly from his own website(s). Why, in fact, you'd be right. See [http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/ here] and [http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml here]. (Among other things, the "Congressional Record" list and the line about being "proud parents" were dead giveaways, particularly with their lack of citation.) A lot of this also appears to be copied from a defunct version of his Wikipedia article. I think Conservapedia can do a little better than this. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:18, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:The article isn't locked. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:35, 8 January 2008 (EST)

::I know. I also know what will happen if I try to change anything. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:10, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:::(Sorry about the delay) What is it you think will happen? You are allowed to make factual, sourced edits. If you never had the intent of changing anything, then what's the point of complaining? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:36, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::::What will happen is that even with factual, sourced, original edits, it will end up degenerating into an edit war with the Paul supporters. I don't want to get anywhere near that action. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::I don't see the point in complaining if you know what's wrong and know how to fix it. If Paul reporters rever facts then they are in the wrong. What is it you want to post that's so controversial? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

I believe Ron Paul is technically actually more conservative than the mainstream conservatives as wanting to get rid of things like the federal resrerve, FBI, etc. and return much of the country to the way the country was when it was founded is conservatism. He also has a very old view of a less power to the federal government and more power to the states that was a big argument when the country was founded and then the argument eventually just went away and it seemed both democrats and republicans agreed on having an overly authoritative federal government. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:32, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

File talk:Ronpaul.jpg

2008-06-23T19:28:13Z

RobertBobkins: New page: I believe this picture is about 10 years old or more. Recent photos of him have him as having all gray hair. A date on this picture would be good. ~~~~

I believe this picture is about 10 years old or more. Recent photos of him have him as having all gray hair. A date on this picture would be good. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:28, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-06-23T19:17:53Z

RobertBobkins: /* There were some notable incidents in the media */

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
{| 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]]
|}



==Religious affiliation of Wikipedians==
I edited several wikipedian user templates so that templates identifying one with religion a or atheism etc. will result in you being put in that category for example several atheist wikipedian user templates now put the user in the category Category:Atheist Wikipedians, if he/she puts the template on their userpage, revealing our current estimated amount of atheist/ and others is greatly underestimated there is 1722 atheist Wikipedians of which 17 are objectivist. Also we forgot agnostics there is 515 of them numbering about as much as the christian sample of wikipedia alone. There should be a part on the picture where it reveals the sample size. that means there is 2222 atheist or agnostics out of our sample wow! Way more than the sample for christians Please update the picture showing religious affiliation of Wikipedians--[[User:Java7837|Java7837]] 16:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I'd like to know where that graph came from in the first place. It was put there by [[user:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]], but I've not seen any explanation of where the figures came from. Unless Wahrheit can explain that, I think the graph should be removed as possibly bogus. And by the way, the graph ''does'' include agnostics, and how does 515 <s>outnumber</s> mean "about as much as" 789, the figure shown for Christians? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::As there has been no explanation of the origin or basis of that graph, I will remove it as I suggested above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]" ==

I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:Isn't the National Enquirer the National Enquirer of the internet? Seems a bit like saying "The Beatles are the Rolling Stones of music." [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 01:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. ==

Is it just me, or are there more people of faith on wikipedia than atheists?

The graph shows that the number of people claiming a faith = 2179 whilst the number of atheists = 1508.

That's 60% believes, versus 40% disbelieves.

Is wikipedia in fact "faithist"?

It makes me wonder if we have any statistics regarding the number of atheists on Conserapedia versus the numbers from the faith groups?

I really hope that Conservapedia (unlike wikipedia) is not bias to any one faith group.

It would be a sorry day for "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" if it was dominated by any one faith group; would that be health, surely we wouldn’t want any one group’s view to dominate the others …

Well lets hope not ...

{{unsigned|Qgobo}}

:Conservapedia is a conservative Christian resource primarily, I believe. That is the main viewpoint espoused, and I think the stated purpose.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Tom, isn't that rather the point, wikipedia isn't a "Christian resource primarily", and thus it should be allowed to express a view other than the one seen here. If bias means subscribing to primarily one doctrine, then wikipedia is less bias than conservapedia. Wouldn't a better title for this page be "Where and how Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia"? However, perhaps your broader point is that no one here is receptive to my point of view so I should gently move on. [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

[[Faith]] is a uniquely Christian concept. It is being used incorrectly above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jews, Hindus, Muslims would be interested to know that. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Aschlafly - please read "people of faith" in the above comments to mean "non-atheists". {{unsigned|Qgobo}}

::: That's a meaningless category. It's like making a category of all voters whose last name begins with "A". They disagree among themselves.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not true - this article is about how atheists bias wikipedia. Thus, comparison with the group “Non-atheist” is not arbitrary selection at all. It is the logical selection of the group of people on wikipedia who are not atheists i.e. the opposite group to the atheist group.

:::: I believe what you really dislike about my point is that christians have been lumped-in with the other faith groups! If this is your point then forget the atheist and focus on the “non-christians” on wikipedia as a group, then you can see the christians are sorely out-numbered and that wikipedia is blatantly anti-christian website (despite being the largest <s>faith</s> {non- atheists} group on it).

:::: Also, if you do not view the “other faith groups” as proper “faith groups” why are they even on your chart? Why not have “christians vs atheist” or “christians vs non-christians” . Either of these would seem more logical based on your statements above. - [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The meaning of "faith" is something on which I disagree with Andy. So my answer is that you can't divide the groups into "faith" and "non-faith". They ''all'' have faith: Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.

Further, the group "non-Atheist" is just as arbitrary as "non-Christian", "non-Muslim", "non-Jewish", etc.

The claim that "wikipedia is less bias[ed] than conservapedia" is a very doubtful one, given that it treats the atheistic view of origins as fact and the biblical view as pseudoscience.

Qgobo's comment that we don't want the encyclopedia dominated by one faith falsely presumes that the one faith is not the correct one.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Philip, without conceding your broader definition of [[faith]]. Your observation is insightful given your broader definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis.[11]

doesn't this seem like a moot point simply because of the number difference does the wikipedia article mention that in the more atheistic countries it's the opposite?

== People for the American Way ==

Granted that Wikipedia does not use the word "liberal" when describing People for the American Way, but it also does not use the word "conservative" when describing the National Right to Life Committee. Wikipedia's conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: That does look biased. Good catch, except realize Wikipedia editors think "conservative" is pejorative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::Good thing this site shows it's better by not simply inverting that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Why some of these problems don't count==
Biases such as a lack of Biography on conservatives, here is the soltion. ADD THEM! An expert (presumably a conservative) has to write the article. There are more bios on Liberals because there are more people writing about them. Seperating to another website will not encourage what you believe to be true! It means that conservatives and Liberals stay wrong about things. Go and add the Bio, don't write it here!

Number 50. Dismisses the banner saying that an article doesn't represent a world view, and you argue that there is no world view. By your own admission, there is no one view that represents all people of the world. Due to this, it would be necessary to tell people when something is Western centric, or American Centric. An article on Gun law, for example, could not be reliable from an American view because (unlike many countries) guns are supported in the constitution. 50 isa contradiction.

{{unsigned|Margheritapizza}}

: No, you're wrong. Adding a biography on a conservative can result in its deletion or redirect by the [[Wikipedia police]], even though [[Wikipedia]] has thousands of entries about obscure liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::I've read your article on the wikipedia police, and I wonder why there isn't an article on the conservapedia police because it seems like there are around 5 people on conservapedia who do everything. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==WP: Sexist?==
Wh...what? How does that prove anything? Then again, it IS pretty much on-par with the rest of the petty claims on the page... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Reversion==
I looked up WPs Hamas article, and it describes them as a militant organization, with the rider that the US state dept etc etc as per the linked claim. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Partially true; to quote the article: "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." More to the point, Wikipedia's article on Al-Qaeda directly calls it a terrorist organization with no peddle-footing around. Therefore, the cited quote is still false in that it specifically says Wikipedia does not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. The quote is false and should be removed. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::Scratch that. The "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin" quote was just added by an IP address today and could possibly be reverted. However, the Isreali Media quote is still wrong due to the Al-Qaeda issue, as much as I agree of Wikipedia's bias. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I removed the article again today. If someone were to look up Wikipedia's Al-Qaeda article and discover that we were perpetuating false information, it would damage our credibility. The truth alone is an incredibly strong case against Wikipedia, so we don't need to give anyone reason to believe otherwise. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 22:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: You deleted an accurate quotation of an observation that is substantially true. In the Al-Qaeda entry on Wikipedia that you cite as a counter-example, Wikipedia uses the term "militant" repeatedly to describe the organization and only uses the term "terrorist" in the context of official government descriptions of the organization.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Respectfully, the first sentence of wikipedia's article is ''"Al Qaeda is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations founded in 1988."'' Then, yes, it goes on to list the nations that consider it a terrorist organization. It should also be noted that it describes its attacks as "terrorist attacks". [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 17:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==43==
Ad hominem against atheists on Number 43. And don't attack me as being a devil worshipper/satanist/atheist: I'm catholic. [[User:Mwaetht|Mwaetht]] 13:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
P.S. On 49: Ever hear of Project Steve?
: How is No. 33 an ''ad hominem'' argument? An ''ad hominem'' argument is where you attack the person rather than their argument. No. 43 is not attacking atheists; it's attacking Wikipedia's treatment of atheism.
: And "Ever hear of Project Steve?" (yes I have; so what?) is not a refutation of anything.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Smoking example ==

I'm confused about the smoking example that you just added. Is the implication meant to be that smoking isn't dangerous? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, I take it from Ted's edit that Wikipedia wants to downplay the dangers of smoking. Could be tobacco industry types editing on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Moved from being inappropriately put in a user's personal talk page ==

== Question ==

Hello. I'm a long time wikipedia editor, and as such am fairly insulted at your harsh criticism of wikipeda. On the allegations of bias...since conservapedia openly admits being conservatively biased, doesn't that make it even worse than wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia is biased...how can an encyclopedia anyone can edit be biased? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

And as far as your criticisms of Wikipedia's scope and content...isn't having a larger scope better? Also, you criticized it for having pornographic images and articles. That is true, but isn't it better to have articles that describe things such as pornography and other non-child friendly things in an accurate way? Or is it better to pretend they don't exist? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: My [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes part way to answering your questions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:36, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I still vehemently disagree about Wikipedia's bias. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, and thus, as long as the change is not biased, it will not be reverted. There is no "ruling class" on Wikipedia--all editors are equal to the others. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:From personal experience, I can vouch for that not being the case. For example, see the Intelligent Design article (my comments relate to around January/February 2007, which I last seriously looked at it). It was not an article ''about'' Intelligent Design, but an article about why Intelligent Design was wrong. And ''numerous'' editors either tried changing it or discussing changes on the talk pages, only to have their changes reversed, their discussions shouted down, themselves called trolls and various other names, and generally grilled and harassed to the point that they either left or blew their stack, giving the controlling editors, which included sysops, the excuse to block them. It truly was a mobocracy. I found similar control existed over all articles to do with creationism. I was never blocked on Wikipedia, but I left active editing because of the oppressive regime active in those sorts of articles. See my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment Wikipedia user page] for more detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, remember what neutrality is. Neutrality does '''not''' mean "give both sides equal weight", it means "give both sides equal weight according to the strength of their argument". [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: In other words, if a majority of editors consider that the strength of the anti-ID argument is greater than the strength of the pro-ID argument, then an article supposedly ''about'' Intelligent Design can have an anti-ID stance. In which case, it comes down to the number of anti-ID editors vs. the number of pro-ID editors, which is ''not'' neutrality, but majority rule. Secondly, your definition is self-contradictory. "according to the strength of their argument" means "give the side with the stronger argument more weight", which is the opposite of "give both sides equal weight". And finally, giving the stronger argument more weight may (in principle) be ''fair'', but it's hardly ''neutral''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that the article takes a critical look at ID because of the overwhelming number of qualified scientists who are opposed to it, compared to those who favor it. In this case, neutrality does not mean give both sides equal weight in the article, it means give the side that has more reliable sources supporting it the greater coverage. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 11:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: There is no evidence that "overwhelming number of qualified scientists ... are opposed" to ID. Moreover, it's a meaningless statistic anyway; 30 years ago an "overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space. By relying on this approach, you have illustrated an example of point 11 of [[liberal style]]: overreliance on [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Most scientists believed there was life in outer space? Have any proof for that statement? Sounds like you are being a good liberal and relying on hearsay!--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless. Please stick around here and learn some things '''with an open mind'''. It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space. See, e.g., [[Exobiology]]. Rest assured I was not ''relying'' on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed. You are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:40, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::No, my friend, I am far from clueless. You made the claim that an ""overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space." Can you provide any cites proving that this statement is correct?--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Life in space has been neither proven nor disproven; and for that matter, it can't be disproven since the universe is theoretically (or at least practically) infinite in size. It could only be proven, and only then by finding life in space. But that is besides the point. Any encyclopedia should strive to provide its readers with the most accurate and up-to-date information from people who actually know what they're talking about. As such, Wikipedia is right in down-playing the supporters of ID...because there are very few reputable ones. if you have any examples of reputable supporters of ID, please tell me. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 12:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, I'm not going to allow the repetition of [[liberal]] falsehoods on my own talk page. Please illustrate point 11 of [[liberal style]] somewhere else. In response to Mathewson above, I did provide a cite, and am not confident he read it with an open mind.

: Further attempts at [[liberal]] [[last wordism]] on my personal talk page may result in a short block of the offending account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Translation: "It's my website, so I get the last word." (Go ahead and reply to this one, Andy. I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy here.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5, you're clueless also. We've always had a policy of respect on Conservapedia for everyone's talk page, in contrast with [[Wikipedia]]. See point 11 in [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Insist on [[last wordism]] on my talk page and you'll then see an example of an account being blocked for violating this principle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware I was trying to get the last word, I thought we were having a conversation. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 16:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Maths, anyone? ==

''"Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[76] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[77] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.[78] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that."''

700 out of 500,000 expressed as a percentage is 0.0014%. That is, by your figures, 99.9986% - more than the much maligned estimate gave. Can someone please tell me what the point of the '700 scientists' comment was, if it only serves to destroy your own arguments?

Also, the figures are more closer to 7% religious.

- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

--[[User:Tommy|Tommy]] 21:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Tommy, your objection is not clear and you seem to be missing the flaw in Wikipedia's biased claim. Your point about the religious seems completely unrelated to your other point. Be clear, and I'll respond, but demonstrate that understand the flaw in Wikipedia's analysis or else I may not waste my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Obvious bias in liberal page ==
Did anybody else notice that in the "See Also" section for [[Liberal]], there are a ton of links, with most of them being negative (to the point of extremity and nitpickiness such as [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Liberal Myths]]), while the same section for [[Conservative]] has only three links, none of them which are remotely negative?

--[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 21:13, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Administrator names? Huh?==

This article makes the claim that Wikipedia harbors an anti-intellectual bias because of the fact that the site has many users with "silly administrator names", uhm, excuse me, but it also makes the claim all over this page that there are far too many examples of pages being "complicated" or information about people being "buried" within lengthy articles. I don't have any problem with this page at all, and I appreciate ''what'' it's trying to say, but I have to take issue with ''how'' its said. It's irresponsible and misleading to say that the little tags accompanying edits on Wikipedia are somehow a vanguard of idiocy but then to say that Wikipedia is being deceptive because it doesn't follow (or, speaking chronologically, because it didn't ''create'') the Conservapedia model of referring to politicians in cherry-picked Fortune Cookie-size snippets according to subjective information and some stray quote. It's hardly a stretch to say that a Congressman or activist or other such notable figure being referred to as being "...a [[liberal]] [[Socialist]] [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] who once referred to [[Christianity]] as a charade" (or some other such marginalization) would be difficult to find on Conservapedia. Basically, if this articles going to attack Wikipedia for being a flip-flopping, contradictory, biased Gemorrah, then let's please not turn around and do these EXACT same things on very page where we claim these things about them. Just a thought (as with most things here...). [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I concur. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: Replying to Linus above, there is nothing contradictory about:

* criticizing anti-intellectual user names
* criticizing long-winded, wordy entries filled with trivial and weak on substance

: That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. It tells you everything except what you need to know, just like the National Enquirer. And Wikipedia gives that juice from the hands of anti-intellectual contributors who think it's funny to be dumb.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:33, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:Huh?--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Peter Singer==
New to this site. Check out the article on Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer, particularly well known for his belief in infanticide. The article makes little mention of his views, and the section purporting to include the ideas reads like an advertisement for his book. An excerpt from one of his books can be found at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm [[User:Egd|Egd]] 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

* Quotes such as '''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person''' were ''removed'' as being POV

:Wikipedia policy: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Deleted_content] But this is disregarded by POV-pushers. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question of Logic ==

The underlying grammar of this page (at least) is "wikipedia this" and "wikipedia that" as if it were a hive mind, monolithic and single-minded. While the examination of the religion templates of registered Wikipedia users ("Wikipedians", whatever) approaches laudability, the conscious choice to treat it, its articles, and its users as a single static unit rather than one made up of self-selecting communities (with particular categories of articles dominated by particular communities of users) does nothing for your credibility among those who disagree with this website or, ultimately, its political goals. Self-isolation and the creation of an "us vs. them" mentality (among other approaches of this site) just make this //look// like its users are stereotypically smug, self-righteous, hypocritical conservatives working on a "propaganda source" instead of an honestly self-critical attempt at a no-nonsense examination of the world. 
 
To be clear, I am neither conservative nor liberal (my views on foreign policy tend to agree more with 'hawks', my economics more technical than political, my social/civil views classically liberal, and my historical/teleological views loosely extropian). I agree there is some degree of 'liberal' (as nebulous as that word is) bias among Wikipedia's editing communities, but I also think '''this''' community's notion of 'balance' is ridiculous. As well, I believe it is politically ineffective beyond 1) preaching to the proverbial choir and 2) reinforcing stereotypes of conservatives - how 'they' think and view others. If those are truly the goals of Conservapedians, then good luck and happy editing. [[User:Zebu1911|Zebu1911]] 23:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Creation "myth" ==
Im only going to say this from a neutral standpoint all stories of creation are myth this is the definition of myth {{unsigned|Cal05000}}

: Wikipedia is redefining words to advance its [[liberal]] agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::What does wikipedia define myth as, and what is myth defined as? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 18:02, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia does specify that the definition of "myth" is just a traditional story with no implications of truth or un-truth. I can confirm definition this in several dictionaries. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 20:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The word "myth" plainly connotes falsity, which is what the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia want to connote about [[creation]]. See [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth Webster definition]. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::::: Aschlafly you should sign your posts. And if you read the beginning of the article you can see that the author of the article goes out of their way to define myth. The article is about creation stories, including every major religion. Not just christianity. I fail to see your problem with this. But realizing no matter what I say you will never change your opinion, or for that matter admit you were wrong. So feel free to not comment back. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

You are both right. "Myth" does not imply truth or falsity ''when used in a scholarly sense''. The Merriam-Webster definition 1 (see Aschlafly's link) reflects this. But when used in an everyday sense, it implies something that is not true, as per Merriam-Webster definitions 2b and 3. Wikipedia uses the first definition as an excuse to tar creation accounts as unreliable, but contrary to your claim about "every major religion. Not just christianity", does not include atheism and apply the term to its origins account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Great points, Philip. In sum, Wikipedia's [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]] bias is demonstrated by how it applies the term "myth" to [[creation]] but not to [[evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I completely agree that the word "myth" carries connotations of falsity, and for a while I was of the opinion that the title in question was not NPOV, but after reading the arguments on Wikipedia, there are several definitions of the word which do not define a myth as either true or false, which describe the topic in hand far more accurately than something like "story" or "belief". Here are some examples of the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 dictionary websites I found:

::*''"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."'' ([http://www.dictionary.com])
::*''"an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts"'' ([http://dictionary.cambridge.org])
::*''"a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"'' ([http://www.merriam-webster.com])
::*''"ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior"'' ([http://encarta.msn.com])

::In my opinion, the definition of the word "myth" is perfectly inline with the definition of Creationism, while it doesn't describe recent scientific theories like the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The fact that the article clearly explains that it is using the strictly academic definition of the word makes it an acceptable title, and I don't think a more vague, politically correct word is needed. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 22:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::: [[Wikipedia]] is a good home for you then. You selectively quote from the dictionary definitions about myth and then, once you settle on a misleading meaning, you apply it in a biased way against creation but not evolution. You've illustrated and embraced the bias at Wikipedia well. Enjoy it there. We don't allow such bias here on our content pages.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I did not selectively quote dictionary definitions, I clearly stated that I chose the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 (and, in fact, only) dictionary websites that I looked at (typed "dictionary" into google and chose from the first page of results). I acknowledged that "myth" carries negative connotations, and that at first I felt that the title did need to be changed. However, I felt after consideration, that due to word (or at least the primary definition of the word) being far more descriptive of the topic at hand than other potential replacements, along with the definition of the word within the article itself, it was better to keep the title than to change it because of the connotations it carries. This is of course my opinion, and is based on my view of how negative the word "myth" is. Others are likely to have different perceptions, and thus disagree with me.

::::The other main definition of "myth" seems to be ''"false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief"'' (encarta). Both Evolution and Creationism could fall under this description, depending on your POV/bias. Evolution however, in my opinion, does not fall under the other definition, as it is in no way "traditional", "supernatural", "historical" or has anything to do with "deities", whereas Creationism does (if you disagree I would be happy to hear your points).

::::I do not support any form of bias in this context, and agree with Conservapedia that there is significant bias throughout Wikipedia that needs to be amended. I hope that I have cleared up my views on the matter. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 00:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: Evolution wasn't invented by Darwin. He merely popularised it by giving it a pseudo-scientific explanation. The general idea of evolution is ancient, so it ''does'' fit some of the definitions you provided (note that reference to a deity was not in all definitions, and not a requirement in others). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia obviously cant say it isnt a myth either so how you put it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Philip you make a good point, but you have one flaw in your logic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is the present factual information based on the official definitions. Yes, popular and actual definitions are often at odds, but encylopedias present the actual definition. I disagree that a evolutionist/atheistic view of creation should be added. The page is about religious creation myths, and it does include a link to the article on evolution. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 13:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not aware that anyone has decreed that encyclopedias can only use "official" definitions.
: If the page is about ''religious'' creation myths, then why exclude the "creation myth" of atheistic religions? This is part of the atheist agenda: Label everyone else's worldviews/beliefs as "religious", but their own as "non-religious" or "rational" or whatever, and label everyone else's beliefs about origins as "creation myths" but their own as "scientific". Such artificial self-serving distinctions are not accepted on Conservapedia. Granted, Wikipedia does define how it is using the term "myth" in that particular article, but, as pointed out, does not include the atheistic origins myth. Further, at the top of the page are links to "scientific" views, a non-so-subtle inference that the "creation myths" are not scientific.
: And the only link to evolution ''per se'' is buried within the "Hermeticism" section half way through the page.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

While that may be so Philip I think it prudent to mention that many links on this website either redirect to another conservapedia page, are missing altogether or are linked to a page that says nothing in regards to the intended point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm sorry, but I have no idea how that relates to the discussion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you said the only link to evolution in wikipedia when discussing the 'creation myth' was buried ''per se'' (in what I gather) rather obscurely. I was pointing out that many CP links demonstrate this also, if not worse.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: My ''criticism'' was that Wikipedia treats creation but not evolution as a "myth". My reference to an evolution link was simply a reply to your claim that the Wikipedia article did link to evolution. It does, but not in any way that could be construed as including evolution as a "creation myth". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Has anyone else noticed the further evidence of systemic bias in the Wikipedia Creation myth page? "Some Jews and Christians believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Every other subsection starts without such a qualifier:
* "The Aztec narrative describing creation proceeds with..."
* "In the beginning, there was just water..." (Cherokee)
* "The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean..." (Shinto)
* "The Voluspa opens with the Norse account of the creation of the present universe :"
Wikipedia insists on qualifying every statement regarding Christianity to suggest that those who believe in the Bible, or in this case that Genesis is the Christian story of creation, are offshoots of the mainstream. [[User:Egd|Egd]] 10:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Right. The hostility and bias on Wikipedia against Christianity are undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, I've seen that sort of thing before, although probably not that particular example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Also wikipedia has a categories for alleged Christian mythology and Jewish mythology -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I just removed a 'bias' example regarding the Wikipedia article "Creation myth" because it talks about myths from all sorts of religions and cultures. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Categorization ==

Would anyone object to an effort to categorize the examples in different sections, such as Wikipedia attacks on religion, Wikipedia pro-liberal bias, examples that have been corrected and so on? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: That's OK, provided it does not dilute the entry or introduce [[placement bias]] by moving stronger and more recent points lower in the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== #12: Ron Paul smear ==

As a huge Ron Paul supporter, #12 sent me to straight to wikipedia in hopes of setting things straight, only to find that the article clearly shows that the comments were not made by Ron Paul. I fail to see the smear here. -[[User:Crimson30|Crimson30]] 14:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why is the smear so extensive on Ron Paul's entry given that, as you say, he did not author the comments? When the entry is about a [[liberal]], Wikipedia does not smear the person in such a manner. Hence this illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:: How is the entry in the Wikipedia article a smear? It's responsible of the article to mention the controversy over the newsletters given the widespread coverage it has in anti-Paul propaganda online, and the article clearly states that Ron Paul is not the source of those comments and that they are not his beliefs. If there was a Wikipedia article about you, and there was a widespread story on the internet that falsely attributed Holocaust denial remarks to you, would you think Wikipedia worse for noting this story and refuting it? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia is like the National Enquirer, then, in simply repeating smears about people without any educational value.

::: But the reason the point is here, as I said, is because Wikipedia does NOT smear liberals as it smears conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: But it *does* have educational value - it informs people that Ron Paul did not write those things, does not believe those things and that he finds what was written morally reprehensible. It's not a smear, because it presents the facts of the matter. And if it's not a smear, the point has to be made with a different article. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 17:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Wandering", it obviously is a smear. If you can't admit that, then this discussion is a waste of time. Ron Paul's opponents used that information to attack and smear him. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: They cannot use that information to smear him, because the information directly indicates that it is not smear-worthy material. The information clearly shows that Ron Paul did not write and in fact repudiates the controversial content from the newsletters. I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read that portion of the article word-for-word, instead of just skimming it. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Points #1, #4 ==

I do not see how the image of the minuteman statue is presented as "proof" (although the caption is admittedly quite poor). On the point of the two articles concerning religious terrorism, "body" seems somewhat of a misnomer, since the articles are not essays. Regardless, reference link 6 is broken. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Defamatory material in American Family Association article ==

Wikipedia's article for the group includes numerous defamatory assertions which are either unsupported or poorly supported (e.g. with biased references). For example, the article claims the AFA supports "the criminalization of homosexuality," yet neither source supports such a blanket assertion (one of the sources actually says the AFA supports criminalizing ''public displays'' of homosexuality). Another example, the article states, "The March 2005 issue of the AFA's Journal contained an article which insinuated that raising children as Jews would lead to criminal lifestyles, and that it required a conversion to Christianity in order to make them productive members of society," yet the article in question makes absolutely no such insinuation. Wikipedia also categorizes the article under "Homophobia" even though phobias are disorders requiring a clinical diagnosis to identify. Attempts to correct material within the article are met with vicious and unrelenting opposition by homosexual and pro-homosexual editors. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:03, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
:Check out the recent edit history. WP editor (who is gay, unsurprisingly enough) is reverting my properly rationalized edits for no good reason. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The Wikipedia entry does misrepresent what the [[American Family Association]] article says, probably in a misguided attempt to smear the [[American Family Association]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Family_Association&diff=216091906&oldid=216091846] Let's see how long Wikipedia persists in its misrepresentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to admit that there was a show of bias on the part of WP editors, or to be more precise two of them. If you follow guidelines like I did and initiate discussion rather than just engaging in all out edit wars you will find that the greater community is more than willing to listen. Try doing that next time, the talk page is there for a reason. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:59, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't see any improvement. Illustrating its bias, [[Wikipedia]] simply reverted or overwrote the corrections in order to continue to smear the [[American Family Association]]. The [[Wikipedia]] entry even resorts to smearing the [[American Family Association]] for something it did not even write in one of the widely read textbooks of all time. Contrast that with how [[Wikipedia]] does not criticize John Scopes and the [[ACLU]] for defending the [[racist]] textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Look closer, if you have any problems with the current article perhaps you could list them here and we could see if we can try to fix them. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:07, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It's essentially the same as when I (and Jinxmchue) complained. The Wikipedia entry is a complete hatchet job. No, I'm not going to waste all night on this. The [[anti-conservatives]] running [[Wikipedia]] will revert any corrections to this entry. This is a determined smear by Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Well the thing is Jinx didn't complain, he engaged in an edit war. Just list a couple of things here and we'll see if we can't get them changed. If they aren't then that's that, if they are then we can start working on other problems with the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:19, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Edit war. Mm-hmm. Yeah, no one else there was involved in any edit war. Nope. They can revert edits they don't like without any sort of attempt to address issues, get their friends involved to subvert the three revert rule, but they aren't ever accused of starting edit wars. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:29, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::I didn't say the others weren't also involved in an edit war, obviously you would need two sides to do it. However, if you observe what I did (discussed, rather than continually revert and get blocked for it) you will see that I achieved my goal (as stated on the article's talk page). Now, give me something else wrong with the article and we will see if we can change it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:31, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If you want to see what I did, check the edit history for AFA's article over there. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for my edits being reverted. There's just a couple of AFA-hating gay editors who want the article to be a hit piece. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:32, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

<- Yes there were a couple of anti-AFA editors who chose to revert the article, and if you look closely they also got blocked for it (one has since left). If you did what I did and tried to initiate discussion on the article's talk page you would not have gotten blocked, and others would have come to your assistance, as they came to mine. The AFA article has also been reported to ANI/NPOV for further assessment of bias against the organisation. Now, if you or Andy would care to give me another problem with the article then we will see if we can get that changed too. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:36, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: We did. See the first and fifth paragraphs above. Those smears are still in the Wikipedia entry about the [[American Family Association]] despite the high-level review that you apparently initiated, and despite Wikipedia not smearing liberals like that. If AFA supported the [[homosexual agenda]] rather than opposing it, then you can be sure that Wikipedia would have a very different and favorable entry about it. So, the bottom line is clear: this is yet another example of bias at Wikipedia, and it's not likely to change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:I am making some corrections now. We will see if the one remaining gay editor who wants to control the page will leave them be. I doubt it, but then years of experience with such people have turned me into a cynic. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::My cynicism was well-founded. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Point #44 re: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ==

The reader who submitted this comment claims that it was "guilt by association" to repeat "a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS."

However, the factual basis for associating AAPS with the John Birch Society is much stronger than a mere "newspaper claim". For example: in the early 1960's, the AAPS Board of Directors included Dr. Granville Knight (a JBS National Council member), Dr. Charles W. Pavey (a JBS member),Dr. James L. Doenges (a JBS endorser) and Dr. George J. Hess (a JBS member who was AAPS President in 1962).

Furthermore, AAPS annual conventions featured speakers and exhibitors which were recommended by the the JBS in its own literature. In fact, the exhibitors often were organizations that were created or led by JBS members, endorsers and sympathizers -- including, for example, Southern States Industrial Council, National Education Program, National Committee For Economic Freedom, and American Opinion magazine (the JBS magazine!). AAPS described these organizations as "freedom organizations". Speakers at AAPS conventions included prominent JBS members and sympathizers such as JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver.

Incidentally, senior FBI officials (including Director J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Division Chiefs, and Supervisors within its Domestic Intelligence Division) routinely referred to the JBS in FBI memos as "irrational", "extremist",
"irresponsible", "fanatics", and "lunatic fringe". They did not describe the JBS as a "freedom organization".

{{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

: Your 40-year-old [[gossip]] is silly and unsupported. Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc., also belong to numerous organizations. Smearing through use of guilt-by-association is criticized by [[liberals]] and against official Wikipedia policy. So why this reliance on 40-year-old gossip against this organization? This selective smearing illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The recent edits by [[User:Dnotice]] had an egregiously misspelled word, several inappropriate edits, and did not recognize that some Wikipedia improvements were after (and probably the result of) criticisms here. Some of the edits reverted had some value if presented properly. We welcome proper update of the points edited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Egregiously misspelled"? "Inappropriate edits"? Which are you referring to? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Dnotice, you have this backwards. Please fix your own misspelling, and don't make as many potentially objectionable edits without discussing them here. OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The whole idea of a Wikipedia-style website is that if a mistake is noticed, e.g. spelling, then the next user amends that error, instead of removing all of the previous user's edits on that page. Anyway, you didn't answer my question, which parts of my edits are are you specifically referring to? If I know which are incorrect or "potentially objectionable" on this site, I can ensure that future edits don't fall into that category. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::As you've made amendments to my further edits, any chance of a response to my questions? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 05:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Dnotice, you have to try harder first. Sorry, I wish I had the time to correct your mistakes, but I don't. In addition to an egregious misspelling, your edit to the point about Conservapedia being supportive of YEC was improper as it does not properly reference the prior version of the Wikipedia entry that illustrated the bias, and does not note how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Unless you fix your edit yourself, I will probably revert it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is Conservapedia supportive of YEC? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: StatsMan, please read the relevant points in the entry first before asking questions that distract from the issue at hand, and then stick to the issue of how Wikipedia falsely portrayed Conservapedia in order to try to smear it in front of the Wikipedia audience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You didn't answer his question. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::My edit took a direct quote from the link that was already in place. Anyway, it's odd that you've now decided to keep in my effective re-instatement of your deletion of this point... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 11:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, I'm hoping you'll fix your edit to reflect how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Will you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::How could I show that? Especially when you don't deny what I said about my edit reflecting the what the quote actually said. With all respect, the previous edit was guilty of [[Quote mining|quote-mining]] as the Wikipedia article (even at that particular time) had a lot more than what this site portrayed it did. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==Criticism of Conservapedia "rare or non-existent"==
Your suggestion that criticism of Conseravpedia "are rare or non-existent" seems blind to the day-to-day reality of Conservapedia. Criticism of your articles here features loudly on many, many Talk pages, much of it vandalism, yes, but much of it also well founded, well reasoned and intelligent criticism. And this is not just criticism based on ideology - this is often criticism of factual inaccuracy and misleading information. I think it's only fair to point this out in the interest of Fair Balance. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

: You misunderstood what your quote refers to, and falsely stated that the quote applies to all criticism. Of course many people who do not like the truth are going to criticize the truth, but that is not what the quote refers to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:07, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Correct me if I'm confused, but were you not referring to the sentence in the WP article which states "The site has come upon much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies and bias"? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, but there are few or no criticisms of Conservapedia for "factual inaccuracies." The citation by Wikipedia for its claim is to a New York Times article that actually criticizes Wikipedia for harping on such a claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

==Belfast Agreement==
Although both 'Belfast Agreement' and 'Good Friday Agreement' are used almost interchangeably, it has become common for Irish and UK people to refer to this agreement as 'Belfast Agreement'. Some references from major Irish news sources are listed here - [http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0527/breaking59.html], [http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0408/north.html], [http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dissecting-north-agreement--for-all-its-worth-363083.html]. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:27, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:But it is better known as "Good Friday Agreement" elsewhere. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I am British and would say that use of 'the Good Friday Agreement' is far more common, in Great Britain at any rate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Where is the 'elsewhere' you refer to WilliamH? Even the Northern Ireland Office refers to it as both [http://www.nio.gov.uk/the-agreement]. I am Irish and would say 'Belfast Agreement' is much more commonly used on our island. I'm mostly curious to know why Wikipedia's use of one term over the other is considered 'bias' here? It reeks of grasping at straws, as it's perfectly appropriate to use either term. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::'Elsewhere' as in everywhere else outside Ireland or the UK. (I might have forgotten a few places or two, but the point stands.) [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 20:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, I've removed the reference from the article, because while facts usually contain a 'liberal bias', I don't believe they're geographically biased. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 21:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Google shows that uses of "Good Friday Agreement" outnumber "Belfast Agreement" '''by more than a 3:1 ratio.''' It's irrelevant that Ireland newspapers prefer "Belfast Agreement" because Wikipedia does not ordinarily defer to an Irish point-of-view!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The popularity of a term "on Google" is simply not a metric on which to base an encyclopedia - if you go down the road of determining 'fact' based on Google cites, you're in deep trouble. The simple fact is, to those for whom the Agreement matters, both terms are interchangeable, and in fact Belfast Agreement is probably more commonly used. Finally, to use the choice of one term over the other as implying 'bias in Wikipeida' is to invent controversy where there is none, and in itself, biased - in this case, against Wikipedia, the editors of which can fairly choose to use whichever term they want. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: An illustration of bias is how decisions that could go one way or the other (i.e., "interchangeable) are, in fact, always decided one way. In Wikipedia's case, that bias is against religion. Wikipedia censors religious references every time it can, and insisting on the unfamiliar "Belfast Agreement" rather that the more popular "Good Friday Agreement" is merely one of many examples. Alone it may not be significant, but with numerous other examples it reinforces the existence of the bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: You are guilty of trying to foist a conspiracy theory into on an 'encyclopedia' article. Have you considered that those who would be most knowledgeable about the Belfast Agreement might, in fact, be from Ireland? And that therefore the Wikipedia articles may well be written by Irish editors? And that they may simply be using the term that is most familiar to them? And that the choice to not use the term containing a religious holiday reflects no "conspiracy against religion" as you have invented? Not everyone in the world is American, you know - in fact, Americans barely make up 5% of the world's population. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Maybe there are more non-Americans in the world than Americans, but there definitely are more Americans in Wikipedia than Irishmen (plus, all the other english-speaking nationalities that don't call it 'Belfast Agreement') so bias is the most plausible explanation. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 23:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: I take it you are certain that the proportion of Irish editors on the Wikipedia article is no higher than on, for example, an article about Alabama? [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 00:00, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: Some protestant groups in Northern Ireland do not celebrate Good Friday, preferring to observe the crucifixion on Wednesday, so the neutral term 'Belfast Agreement' gained favour in diplomatic circles in order to avoid suggestions of anti-protestant bias. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 23:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Exactly, Jalapeno. Thank you for pointing out the political sensitivities that those of us on this island take for granted, and foreigners are clueless about. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Walter, you protest far too much, and now you have the fringe below even siding with you. Wikipedia editors are predominantly American and British, far more than Irish.

:::::::::::::: By more than a 3:1 margin the term "Good Friday Agreement" is used by the public. The fact that some Irish newspapers, which are themselves more liberal than the Irish public, use the term "Belfast Agreement" is an awfully weak rationale. There is no sign that the decision at Wikipedia was made by Irishmen. Odds are that this decision was made by the typically liberal editors there who seek to censor Christian. Many other points in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] illustrate the same bias at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::WP's bias is shown by it using the document's official name? (See WaltherPPK's link to the Northern Ireland Office) [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 19:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I protest because I know I am right and that you are wrong. First, I note you continue to assert the Google-sourced 3:1 ratio - except you now claim it's "the public". If Google is equal to "the public", I'll be damned. Please don't try and pull the wool over people's eyes - the world exists beyond the confines of Google, you know. Secondly, you clearly know ''nothing'' about the Irish media landscape (and, in fairness, I wouldn't expect you to), and you obviously haven't read any of my supporting references. Two are from newspapers - one being slightly left-of-centre (Irish Times), and one being right-of-centre (Independent). The third reference was a TV channel. They represent the non-tabloid news sources in the country. The other non-tabloid newspaper is to the right of these, and is only published on Sundays. Given your lack of knowledge of the Irish media scene, how you "know" that Irish newspapers are more liberal than the Irish public, I'd be interested to know. Are you an expert on every country in the world? Finally, you have obviously not looked at the Northern Ireland Office (of the UK Government) document on the Agreement (which I referenced above), which states "The Agreement (also known as the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement) was reached in Belfast on Friday, April 10 1998". Re-read Jalapeno's comments above as to the reason WHY politicans and public figures in Ireland PREFER the term 'Belfast Agreement to Good Friday Agreement. While your ignorance of the world may be appealing to an uneducated Amero-centric reader base, rest assured those of us from other nations will not lie down and let YOU tell US how we name our institutions, offices, or policy. Good day to you Sir. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:19, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Walter, your ranting is getting out of control. I do know quite a bit about the Irish press, Ireland, and Wikipedia. In fact, I've been quoted in the past in the Irish newspapers. Yes, they are more liberal than the Irish public, and Irishmen have relatively little influence at Wikipedia. The British and American influence, by liberals, is far stronger. It's absurd, frankly, for you to claim that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press.

::::::::::::::::: Want to rely on the Northern Ireland Office? Fine. It provides the "Good Friday Agreement" as the first choice, even though alphabetically it would come second. Use it and please stop pretending that the atheists at Wikipedia lack bias. Read the scores of other examples of the same [[Bias in Wikipedia]] and end your [[liberal denial]]. Godspeed. I expect you will insist on [[last wordism]] now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, Where did I claim "that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press"? We're trying to make you understand the sensitivities of Northern Irish politics - re-read Japaleno's comment above please as to why "Belfast Agreement" is actually the '''preferred''' term - you should be especially sensitive to the fact that the reason it's ''not'' named "Good Friday Agreement" is '''for''' religious reasons. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

===References===
Here's [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=361&docID=219&COMMAND=PRINTER the document itself], which shows that ''technically'', its title is '''The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement'''. (''All other names are therefore colloquial terms''). Here are some references from official Irish government websites showing many different terms used for the Agreement: [http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=135&docID=507], [http://www.citizensinformation.ie/References/legislative/legislative-background-to-irish-citizenship], [http://ombudsman.gov.ie/en/Legislation/TheOmbudsmanAct1980/], [http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=176&lang=eng], or [http://www.ga.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAY102655 this one, wherein it is referred to as "The Belfast Agreement of Good Friday"]. A brief scan of any of these will show you that any term is equally usable, and that 'Good Friday Agreement' is simply one of them. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Could someone move [[Camp David Accords]] to [[Constitution Day Agreement]] or [[Saint Lambert Agreement]]? It just happens that September 17th (the day the accord was signed) is a a political holiday in North America and it should be named accordingly. Alternatively, September 17th is also the feast of Saint Lambert and it is disappointing that people are not recognizing the religious significance of the date and instead using the more widely known, secular, place name. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this mean that CP has an anti-Christian and/or anti-American bias? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 18:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
----
Google may not be the same as the public, but it's likely to be fairly close, and is about the best idea of public usage that we have readily available. So Andy's correct point that the term "Good Friday Agreement" is more common that "Belfast Agreement" holds up, pending better evidence to the contrary.

However, I don't think it's a good entry to have in the list, unless we have some evidence of Wikipedia using the Belfast name for (anti-)religious reasons. That may be a plausible explanation (Wikipedia does tend to be anti-Christian), but in this case using the Good Friday name hardly advances Christianity at all, so Wikipedia would have little motive to change it on that basis. So although the argument ''may'' be correct, it would be better to not use this example and stick with just having stronger examples.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Philip, a few points. 1) The specific words written by ASchlafly which I objected to and removed from the article described the term "Belfast Agreement" as "ambiguous and unfamiliar", not 'less popular'. The copious evidence I have provided has shown that the term is neither officially nor colloquially considered "ambiguous and unfamiliar", but is in regular, everyday use in the community where it is most often discussed by both of the Governments concerned and amongst the press and general public; 2) Not only that, but others have explained that there is actually an underlying reason why, for obvious reasons of religious sensitivity to all communities, religious terms are generally ''avoided'' in political debate in Northern Ireland; 3) It seems Mr.Schlafly's Amero-centric view of the world and his ignorance of Irish affairs led him to presume guilt on behalf of the Wikipedia editors where there was none; 4) Finally, I note that the Wikipedia article on the Agreement '''very clearly''' lists the term 'Good Friday Agreement' as "alternatively and widely known" in the opening sentence of their article, and the term Good Friday Agreement redirects to the article as one would expect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement]. In short, not only was the assumption wrong, the facts were wrong, and the case didn't even exist. I notice you too are sometimes upset when foreigners presume to know about Antipodean affairs, so I thank you for your analysis of this mistaken example. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 12:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) I agree. I was responding to comments on this page, not to the wording in the article.
:: 2) This seems to be supporting that Wikipedia's choice of label ''was'' chosen for religious reasons.
:: 3) I can't see what US-centricity has to do with this particular case.
:: 4) I can't see that this is any sort of rebuttal. The fact is that Wikipedia has chosen to not use (as the article title) the official name of the agreement, but what appears to be the lesser-used of the two most-commonly-used unofficial titles. And by the way, I Googled the two unofficial names on all English-language pages, on .au pages, and on .uk pages, and in all three cases, the Good Friday name was the most popular by a significant margin. So it's not as though one is more popular in American and the other in Britain, for example. So although it's unknown why Wikipedia has gone for the lesser-used title, I don't think that it's safe to jump to the conclusion that it's for anti-Christian reasons, although neither should that reason be ruled out.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Walther, Wikipedia has chosen the less popular, but more secular, name. As Philip observes, you now seem to be saying that Wikipedia did do this for religious reasons after all. Maybe what is needed is for Wikipedia to explain its decision. Perhaps the edit history can be checked, and the person responsible can be asked. I'm confident that Irish newspapers had nothing to do with the decision.

::: There may even be a formal Wikipedia policy favoring secular names rather than religious ones. Guess what? I just typed in "Saint Valentine's Day," and Wikipedia redirects me to the secular form, "Valentine's Day." I could repeat that exercise with other examples and I'm confident the same pro-secular result would be obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The edit history shows that the Wikipedia article was started in 2001 as 'Belfast Agreement'. There was a proposal to move the article to 'Good Friday Agreement' in 2005 that failed due to lack of consensus. There is a long and ignoble history of naming disputes in Northern Ireland (e.g. [[Londonderry#Nomenclature]]) and those of us who are familiar with this part of the world know will appreciate that if there is a workable neutral term available then it's almost always best to stick to that rather than risk stirring up sectarian passions. Of course Conservapedia, as an explicitly pro-US site, is free to ignore political subtleties in other parts of the world. Interestingly Conservapedia has ''separate'' articles on [[Belfast Agreement]] and [[Good Friday Agreement]] -- what should we make of that! [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Oh no, we have entries for each! :-) Thanks for pointing that out. What do you suggest we do about it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I'm not really part of this argument, but I suggest they be merged, under whatever name you prefer, with the other redirecting to it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 09:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Given the far greater usage, familiarity and descriptiveness of the term "Good Friday Agreement," I think that is the obvious choice. Wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not sure that "Good Friday Agreement" is more descriptive, but I agree that it appears to be more common. However, rather than take sides on this, why not go with the ''official'' title given above (assuming that's correct; I haven't checked it): "The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement". Both the other terms can be redirects to that. I'm not suggesting this solely to avoid taking sides (I'm happy to take sides where it's warranted), but when there is an official title and two unofficial titles, why not go with the official title? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Your suggestion is a good one, assuming that really is the official name. Let's see what others have to say here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Please create the new article as Philip suggested. It is really the only ''correct'' way to title the article, and you can finally claim to have an article that is ''more correctly named'' than Wikipedia. It is the official name for the Agreement, as evidenced by [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/NIPeaceAgreement.pdf this, the official Irish Government PDF version] of the document. All other names are colloquial terms and may be redirects to it. Thank you for finally understanding my position. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: OK, but do you agree that "Saint Valentine's Day" is the correct name for that entry and that Wikipedia is biased in claiming otherwise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::: Google shows that uses of "Valentine's Day" outnumber "Saint Valentine's Day" by '''more than a 235:1 ratio''', so I think the answer is obviously not, no. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy invited him to kick the football, but then pulled the ball away at the last minute (using incorrect data as well - try "St. Valentine's Day" too). Walther, you just refused to apply your reasoning to an analogous situation, and instead insisted on censoring the religious name a second time. To say your approach just lost credibility would be an understatement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:24, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I am using the methodology you recommended [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=465265 in your comment above] - using Google hits to determine 'truth'. As to spellings and typos, it makes little difference - "St.Valentine's Day"=563,000 hits and "Saint Valentine's Day"=176,000, a total of 739,000 hits. "Valentine's Day"=41,500,000 hits, and "Valentines Day"=19,600,000 hits, or a total of 61 million hits, giving a ratio of 82:1 in favour of the non-religious form. Thus, by your suggested methodology as above, all articles regarding the 14th Feb should be retitled "Valentine's Day", and the religious forms should be redirects. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 13:15, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: But you already emphatically rejected that methodology and, besides, "St. Valentine's Day" is unquestionably the historically correct name. "Belfast Agreement" has no historical claim to accuracy. While I was willing to compromise, you were not: you are adamant that the non-religious name be chosen in both circumstances, for contradictory reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::So let me get this right: Your methodology is using Google rankings and hits to decide whether or not to use a certain name for an article on Conservapedia. First of all, you have a go at [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] for not using your methodology and then, after using it and displaying the results, you criticize him even more for doing so? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:50, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Rather than creating a new article, one of the existing articles should be renamed. Probably the Good Friday Agreement one, given that it was started first. Of course only a sysop can do that, but there's enough of us around. Are we agreed on that course of action? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia "bias" ==

When Wikipedia says that "Obama entered Harvard Law School in fall 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition", it's because it's [http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=full sourced.] The fact that [[User:ASchlafly|you]] disagree doesn't constitute bias.{{unsigned|Tennant}}

: Surely you don't suggest that merely citing a (liberal) source makes something true and unbiased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:I think the Wikipedia sourcing is somewhat poor, but until there's evidence that he was chosen due to the quota, this "example of bias" should definitely be removed. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah yes, because no non-anglo-saxon person ever has good grades. That sounds a lot like racism on Mr. Schlafly's part. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::To my knowledge, the policy at Wikipedia is that everything must be correctly sourced - i.e., it's enough if the source is reputable, and the entry is relevant. It doesn't matter if the source is liberal, conservative, anarchist, fascist, monarchist, socialist, regionalist, communist, christian, buddhist, atheist, nationalist, chauvinist, et cetera. Thank you. --[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 17:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, the problem with your entry is that if you follow that pattern, then you should insert each and every liberal quote on Wikipedia, from ''every'' article. '''--[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 18:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)'''

:::More to the point there is nothing in the reference we supply here to indicate that Obama was selected on the basis of his race. Does Conservapedia want to have a ''lower'' standard of fact checking than Wikipedia? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Isn't this article biased as well?==
Sorry-I'm new-but isn't this article biased by saying that Wikipedia is biased? This is sort of like a personal account, depending on personal judgement. And plus this sounds like publically directing a criticism against Wikiepdia. PLus I think some of the stuff has already been changed or reverted--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia includes phony quote for over three years ==

The phony quote in question is as follows:
<blockquote>
The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'
</blockquote>
This appeared on at least three pages. Here is how the pages appeared recently before I attempted to remove the quote:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&oldid=219686529#Criticisms Phillip E. Johnson] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&oldid=219162996#The_Discovery_Institute Teach the Controversy] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&oldid=215173365#Origins_of_the_movement_and_strategy Wedge strategy]

And here's where the quote was added for each page:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=12617922 Phillip E. Johnson - April 21, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&diff=prev&oldid=12219123 Teach the Controversy - April 12, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=15250578 Wedge strategy - June 15, 2005]

There's absolutely no indication that this is anything other than a direct quote. I found that the quote was completely bogus [http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/post-4.html here] and [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson here]. According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons] policy, such false material should be removed immediately and without discussion.

This removal didn't sit well with the anti-ID crowd, however, and I came under vicious assault, particularly from one editor. I ultimately prevailed, and though the quote was not removed, it was moved and clarified as being a paraphrase. All the accusations made against me were found to be without merit, but the person making them continues to make them. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:36, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Obama's selection as editor==
This article states as if it were a fact that Obama was chosen for this position on the basis of his race. However the references don't say that - they do say that a person ''might'' be selected on the basis of affirmative action, but there is nothing to indicate that Obama's selection was on this basis. We need to fix this. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Michael Moore==
"the lying, deceitful films of Michael Moore". What, are we deliberately trying not to get taken seriously here? How can we go around accusing other people of bias and then expressing what is clearly someone's opinion as if it were fact? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it's pretty much a proven fact that Moore deceptively edits his films. Two examples in particular are his acquisition of a gun at a bank and his manipulation of statements made by Charlton Heston. Those are just two out of many that immediately come to mind. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Analysis of Claims ==

I am One For Logic (also spelled oneforlogic or Oneforlogic), a regular user and editor of Wikipedia for several years. I began reading some articles on Conservapedia a few weeks ago. This is an interesting project. I will readily admit that the quality of writing and sourcing of articles in Wikipedia is not always the highest, so in the spirit of supporting well-intentioned dissent (which is what I’m assuming this is; let me know now if I’m wrong) I’m going to check on the claims on this page and explain what I find. If I conclude that any of these claims are valid, I will discuss and attempt to edit the relevant Wikipedia articles myself. I expect many of you will want to comment on this effort; please do so in the next section. I welcome your input. Signed [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:01, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Issue 1: Liberal Criticism

I believe that any liberal bias present in Wikipedia is far less systematic than Conservapedia admins would have us believe, but I’m not going to go read every Wikipedia article to try to evaluate such a general claim. More specifically, the article on Debbie Riddle is fairly short, so the ‘free education comes from Russia’ quote will easily dominate the article until it is expanded. I highly doubt that any Wikipedia editor would object to more information on her accomplishments being added. Chuck Schumer’s article does indeed speak favorably of him at several points; there is a healthy discussion of the article’s neutrality in the discussion page. I’ll look for sources critical of the senator and add them to that discussion soon. Of course, any and all Conservapedia users are welcome to do the same.

Issue 2: Obama’s selection as an editor on the Harvard Law Review

Your own source makes this issue clear; in 1982, the Review adopted a policy that allowed editors to consider race while selecting new editors but did not provide for specific racial quotas. This source does discuss a short-lived quota-like policy, created in 1981, that was quickly replaced by the much less specific 1982 racial consideration policy. It cannot be clearly established how much this policy contributed to Obama’s selection as an editor, and as the Wikipedia article in question does not and should not focus on the specific policies of the Review, it seems acceptable to me that this article does not highlight this policy.

Issue 3: Censorship

The Wikipedia article on censorship does need to be expanded by an expert. I am not familiar with any specific cases of prayer, pro-life advertisements, or conservative newspapers being successfully censored, but I know that attempts to censor these things are made and they should be mentioned in the article. Let me know if any of you know of good sources of more detailed information on this kind of censorship. However, the article does discuss the issue of censoring discussion of creationism in public schools. The article indicates that many religious groups feel that not being allowed to teach creationism is censorship; it goes on to reference two court cases that established, first, that teaching creationism is equivalent to promoting the Christian faith and is illegal in public schools, and second, that intelligent design is a form of creationism. Regardless of your opinion on these issues, the Wikipedia article does cite and explain (in separate articles) the relevant court cases, which seems to me to be a completely legitimate way to discuss censorship of intelligent design.

I'll add more when I have time to do so.

== Reactions ==

I look forward to your feedback. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== There were some notable incidents in the media ==

One was the SlimVirgin/Linda Mack stuff. A lot of press. Then there was the Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland socking that for years he got away with using lots of sock puppets to spin biases in favor of illegal activity and anyone who tried to stop him was banned. This was in the media a lot, but not as much as the Linda Mack spy stuff. Then there was the Harsbara Fellowships, a group that hired people to insert biases into the encyclopedia and was led by one of their top administrators, Jayjg, though this doesn't have as much news article as the other two. Anyone else familiar with these? They are well known. I don't have any news articles right offhand, but could dig some up. It would help if others were familiar with this, too. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I forgot, Rachel Marsden, there were some stuff about this in one online newspaper. She had an affair with Jimbo Wales and so he let her have her way in her biography. Then when news about this got out, Jimbo broke up with her on-wiki, instead of telling her in person and she found out indirectly. So she then sold Jimbo's clothes he left at her apartment on ebay. One shirt even had a peculiar white stain on it. I forgot if Jimbo Wales also is still married, but I think he is. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-06-23T19:14:28Z

RobertBobkins: /* There were some notable incidents in the media */ new section

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
{| 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]]
|}



==Religious affiliation of Wikipedians==
I edited several wikipedian user templates so that templates identifying one with religion a or atheism etc. will result in you being put in that category for example several atheist wikipedian user templates now put the user in the category Category:Atheist Wikipedians, if he/she puts the template on their userpage, revealing our current estimated amount of atheist/ and others is greatly underestimated there is 1722 atheist Wikipedians of which 17 are objectivist. Also we forgot agnostics there is 515 of them numbering about as much as the christian sample of wikipedia alone. There should be a part on the picture where it reveals the sample size. that means there is 2222 atheist or agnostics out of our sample wow! Way more than the sample for christians Please update the picture showing religious affiliation of Wikipedians--[[User:Java7837|Java7837]] 16:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)
:Actually, I'd like to know where that graph came from in the first place. It was put there by [[user:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]], but I've not seen any explanation of where the figures came from. Unless Wahrheit can explain that, I think the graph should be removed as possibly bogus. And by the way, the graph ''does'' include agnostics, and how does 515 <s>outnumber</s> mean "about as much as" 789, the figure shown for Christians? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::As there has been no explanation of the origin or basis of that graph, I will remove it as I suggested above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]" ==

I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:Isn't the National Enquirer the National Enquirer of the internet? Seems a bit like saying "The Beatles are the Rolling Stones of music." [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 01:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. ==

Is it just me, or are there more people of faith on wikipedia than atheists?

The graph shows that the number of people claiming a faith = 2179 whilst the number of atheists = 1508.

That's 60% believes, versus 40% disbelieves.

Is wikipedia in fact "faithist"?

It makes me wonder if we have any statistics regarding the number of atheists on Conserapedia versus the numbers from the faith groups?

I really hope that Conservapedia (unlike wikipedia) is not bias to any one faith group.

It would be a sorry day for "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" if it was dominated by any one faith group; would that be health, surely we wouldn’t want any one group’s view to dominate the others …

Well lets hope not ...

{{unsigned|Qgobo}}

:Conservapedia is a conservative Christian resource primarily, I believe. That is the main viewpoint espoused, and I think the stated purpose.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Tom, isn't that rather the point, wikipedia isn't a "Christian resource primarily", and thus it should be allowed to express a view other than the one seen here. If bias means subscribing to primarily one doctrine, then wikipedia is less bias than conservapedia. Wouldn't a better title for this page be "Where and how Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia"? However, perhaps your broader point is that no one here is receptive to my point of view so I should gently move on. [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

[[Faith]] is a uniquely Christian concept. It is being used incorrectly above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Jews, Hindus, Muslims would be interested to know that. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Aschlafly - please read "people of faith" in the above comments to mean "non-atheists". {{unsigned|Qgobo}}

::: That's a meaningless category. It's like making a category of all voters whose last name begins with "A". They disagree among themselves.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Not true - this article is about how atheists bias wikipedia. Thus, comparison with the group “Non-atheist” is not arbitrary selection at all. It is the logical selection of the group of people on wikipedia who are not atheists i.e. the opposite group to the atheist group.

:::: I believe what you really dislike about my point is that christians have been lumped-in with the other faith groups! If this is your point then forget the atheist and focus on the “non-christians” on wikipedia as a group, then you can see the christians are sorely out-numbered and that wikipedia is blatantly anti-christian website (despite being the largest <s>faith</s> {non- atheists} group on it).

:::: Also, if you do not view the “other faith groups” as proper “faith groups” why are they even on your chart? Why not have “christians vs atheist” or “christians vs non-christians” . Either of these would seem more logical based on your statements above. - [[User:Qgobo|Qgobo]] 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The meaning of "faith" is something on which I disagree with Andy. So my answer is that you can't divide the groups into "faith" and "non-faith". They ''all'' have faith: Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.

Further, the group "non-Atheist" is just as arbitrary as "non-Christian", "non-Muslim", "non-Jewish", etc.

The claim that "wikipedia is less bias[ed] than conservapedia" is a very doubtful one, given that it treats the atheistic view of origins as fact and the biblical view as pseudoscience.

Qgobo's comment that we don't want the encyclopedia dominated by one faith falsely presumes that the one faith is not the correct one.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Very well put, Philip, without conceding your broader definition of [[faith]]. Your observation is insightful given your broader definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis.[11]

doesn't this seem like a moot point simply because of the number difference does the wikipedia article mention that in the more atheistic countries it's the opposite?

== People for the American Way ==

Granted that Wikipedia does not use the word "liberal" when describing People for the American Way, but it also does not use the word "conservative" when describing the National Right to Life Committee. Wikipedia's conservative bias perhaps? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: That does look biased. Good catch, except realize Wikipedia editors think "conservative" is pejorative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::Good thing this site shows it's better by not simply inverting that. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Why some of these problems don't count==
Biases such as a lack of Biography on conservatives, here is the soltion. ADD THEM! An expert (presumably a conservative) has to write the article. There are more bios on Liberals because there are more people writing about them. Seperating to another website will not encourage what you believe to be true! It means that conservatives and Liberals stay wrong about things. Go and add the Bio, don't write it here!

Number 50. Dismisses the banner saying that an article doesn't represent a world view, and you argue that there is no world view. By your own admission, there is no one view that represents all people of the world. Due to this, it would be necessary to tell people when something is Western centric, or American Centric. An article on Gun law, for example, could not be reliable from an American view because (unlike many countries) guns are supported in the constitution. 50 isa contradiction.

{{unsigned|Margheritapizza}}

: No, you're wrong. Adding a biography on a conservative can result in its deletion or redirect by the [[Wikipedia police]], even though [[Wikipedia]] has thousands of entries about obscure liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::I've read your article on the wikipedia police, and I wonder why there isn't an article on the conservapedia police because it seems like there are around 5 people on conservapedia who do everything. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==WP: Sexist?==
Wh...what? How does that prove anything? Then again, it IS pretty much on-par with the rest of the petty claims on the page... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Reversion==
I looked up WPs Hamas article, and it describes them as a militant organization, with the rider that the US state dept etc etc as per the linked claim. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Partially true; to quote the article: "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." More to the point, Wikipedia's article on Al-Qaeda directly calls it a terrorist organization with no peddle-footing around. Therefore, the cited quote is still false in that it specifically says Wikipedia does not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. The quote is false and should be removed. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::Scratch that. The "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin" quote was just added by an IP address today and could possibly be reverted. However, the Isreali Media quote is still wrong due to the Al-Qaeda issue, as much as I agree of Wikipedia's bias. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 23:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I removed the article again today. If someone were to look up Wikipedia's Al-Qaeda article and discover that we were perpetuating false information, it would damage our credibility. The truth alone is an incredibly strong case against Wikipedia, so we don't need to give anyone reason to believe otherwise. [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 22:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: You deleted an accurate quotation of an observation that is substantially true. In the Al-Qaeda entry on Wikipedia that you cite as a counter-example, Wikipedia uses the term "militant" repeatedly to describe the organization and only uses the term "terrorist" in the context of official government descriptions of the organization.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::Respectfully, the first sentence of wikipedia's article is ''"Al Qaeda is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations founded in 1988."'' Then, yes, it goes on to list the nations that consider it a terrorist organization. It should also be noted that it describes its attacks as "terrorist attacks". [[User:Deweyman|Deweyman]] 17:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==43==
Ad hominem against atheists on Number 43. And don't attack me as being a devil worshipper/satanist/atheist: I'm catholic. [[User:Mwaetht|Mwaetht]] 13:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
P.S. On 49: Ever hear of Project Steve?
: How is No. 33 an ''ad hominem'' argument? An ''ad hominem'' argument is where you attack the person rather than their argument. No. 43 is not attacking atheists; it's attacking Wikipedia's treatment of atheism.
: And "Ever hear of Project Steve?" (yes I have; so what?) is not a refutation of anything.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== Smoking example ==

I'm confused about the smoking example that you just added. Is the implication meant to be that smoking isn't dangerous? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

: Yes, I take it from Ted's edit that Wikipedia wants to downplay the dangers of smoking. Could be tobacco industry types editing on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Moved from being inappropriately put in a user's personal talk page ==

== Question ==

Hello. I'm a long time wikipedia editor, and as such am fairly insulted at your harsh criticism of wikipeda. On the allegations of bias...since conservapedia openly admits being conservatively biased, doesn't that make it even worse than wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia is biased...how can an encyclopedia anyone can edit be biased? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

And as far as your criticisms of Wikipedia's scope and content...isn't having a larger scope better? Also, you criticized it for having pornographic images and articles. That is true, but isn't it better to have articles that describe things such as pornography and other non-child friendly things in an accurate way? Or is it better to pretend they don't exist? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: My [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes part way to answering your questions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:36, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I still vehemently disagree about Wikipedia's bias. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, and thus, as long as the change is not biased, it will not be reverted. There is no "ruling class" on Wikipedia--all editors are equal to the others. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:From personal experience, I can vouch for that not being the case. For example, see the Intelligent Design article (my comments relate to around January/February 2007, which I last seriously looked at it). It was not an article ''about'' Intelligent Design, but an article about why Intelligent Design was wrong. And ''numerous'' editors either tried changing it or discussing changes on the talk pages, only to have their changes reversed, their discussions shouted down, themselves called trolls and various other names, and generally grilled and harassed to the point that they either left or blew their stack, giving the controlling editors, which included sysops, the excuse to block them. It truly was a mobocracy. I found similar control existed over all articles to do with creationism. I was never blocked on Wikipedia, but I left active editing because of the oppressive regime active in those sorts of articles. See my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment Wikipedia user page] for more detail. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:47, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, remember what neutrality is. Neutrality does '''not''' mean "give both sides equal weight", it means "give both sides equal weight according to the strength of their argument". [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
: In other words, if a majority of editors consider that the strength of the anti-ID argument is greater than the strength of the pro-ID argument, then an article supposedly ''about'' Intelligent Design can have an anti-ID stance. In which case, it comes down to the number of anti-ID editors vs. the number of pro-ID editors, which is ''not'' neutrality, but majority rule. Secondly, your definition is self-contradictory. "according to the strength of their argument" means "give the side with the stronger argument more weight", which is the opposite of "give both sides equal weight". And finally, giving the stronger argument more weight may (in principle) be ''fair'', but it's hardly ''neutral''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that the article takes a critical look at ID because of the overwhelming number of qualified scientists who are opposed to it, compared to those who favor it. In this case, neutrality does not mean give both sides equal weight in the article, it means give the side that has more reliable sources supporting it the greater coverage. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 11:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: There is no evidence that "overwhelming number of qualified scientists ... are opposed" to ID. Moreover, it's a meaningless statistic anyway; 30 years ago an "overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space. By relying on this approach, you have illustrated an example of point 11 of [[liberal style]]: overreliance on [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Most scientists believed there was life in outer space? Have any proof for that statement? Sounds like you are being a good liberal and relying on hearsay!--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless. Please stick around here and learn some things '''with an open mind'''. It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space. See, e.g., [[Exobiology]]. Rest assured I was not ''relying'' on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed. You are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:40, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::No, my friend, I am far from clueless. You made the claim that an ""overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space." Can you provide any cites proving that this statement is correct?--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 12:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Life in space has been neither proven nor disproven; and for that matter, it can't be disproven since the universe is theoretically (or at least practically) infinite in size. It could only be proven, and only then by finding life in space. But that is besides the point. Any encyclopedia should strive to provide its readers with the most accurate and up-to-date information from people who actually know what they're talking about. As such, Wikipedia is right in down-playing the supporters of ID...because there are very few reputable ones. if you have any examples of reputable supporters of ID, please tell me. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 12:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: Folks, I'm not going to allow the repetition of [[liberal]] falsehoods on my own talk page. Please illustrate point 11 of [[liberal style]] somewhere else. In response to Mathewson above, I did provide a cite, and am not confident he read it with an open mind.

: Further attempts at [[liberal]] [[last wordism]] on my personal talk page may result in a short block of the offending account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::Translation: "It's my website, so I get the last word." (Go ahead and reply to this one, Andy. I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy here.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5, you're clueless also. We've always had a policy of respect on Conservapedia for everyone's talk page, in contrast with [[Wikipedia]]. See point 11 in [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. Insist on [[last wordism]] on my talk page and you'll then see an example of an account being blocked for violating this principle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware I was trying to get the last word, I thought we were having a conversation. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 16:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Maths, anyone? ==

''"Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[76] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[77] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.[78] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that."''

700 out of 500,000 expressed as a percentage is 0.0014%. That is, by your figures, 99.9986% - more than the much maligned estimate gave. Can someone please tell me what the point of the '700 scientists' comment was, if it only serves to destroy your own arguments?

Also, the figures are more closer to 7% religious.

- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

--[[User:Tommy|Tommy]] 21:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Tommy, your objection is not clear and you seem to be missing the flaw in Wikipedia's biased claim. Your point about the religious seems completely unrelated to your other point. Be clear, and I'll respond, but demonstrate that understand the flaw in Wikipedia's analysis or else I may not waste my time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Obvious bias in liberal page ==
Did anybody else notice that in the "See Also" section for [[Liberal]], there are a ton of links, with most of them being negative (to the point of extremity and nitpickiness such as [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Liberal Myths]]), while the same section for [[Conservative]] has only three links, none of them which are remotely negative?

--[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 21:13, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Administrator names? Huh?==

This article makes the claim that Wikipedia harbors an anti-intellectual bias because of the fact that the site has many users with "silly administrator names", uhm, excuse me, but it also makes the claim all over this page that there are far too many examples of pages being "complicated" or information about people being "buried" within lengthy articles. I don't have any problem with this page at all, and I appreciate ''what'' it's trying to say, but I have to take issue with ''how'' its said. It's irresponsible and misleading to say that the little tags accompanying edits on Wikipedia are somehow a vanguard of idiocy but then to say that Wikipedia is being deceptive because it doesn't follow (or, speaking chronologically, because it didn't ''create'') the Conservapedia model of referring to politicians in cherry-picked Fortune Cookie-size snippets according to subjective information and some stray quote. It's hardly a stretch to say that a Congressman or activist or other such notable figure being referred to as being "...a [[liberal]] [[Socialist]] [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] who once referred to [[Christianity]] as a charade" (or some other such marginalization) would be difficult to find on Conservapedia. Basically, if this articles going to attack Wikipedia for being a flip-flopping, contradictory, biased Gemorrah, then let's please not turn around and do these EXACT same things on very page where we claim these things about them. Just a thought (as with most things here...). [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 14:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I concur. --[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: Replying to Linus above, there is nothing contradictory about:

* criticizing anti-intellectual user names
* criticizing long-winded, wordy entries filled with trivial and weak on substance

: That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. It tells you everything except what you need to know, just like the National Enquirer. And Wikipedia gives that juice from the hands of anti-intellectual contributors who think it's funny to be dumb.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:33, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:Huh?--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Peter Singer==
New to this site. Check out the article on Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer, particularly well known for his belief in infanticide. The article makes little mention of his views, and the section purporting to include the ideas reads like an advertisement for his book. An excerpt from one of his books can be found at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm [[User:Egd|Egd]] 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

* Quotes such as '''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person''' were ''removed'' as being POV

:Wikipedia policy: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Deleted_content] But this is disregarded by POV-pushers. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question of Logic ==

The underlying grammar of this page (at least) is "wikipedia this" and "wikipedia that" as if it were a hive mind, monolithic and single-minded. While the examination of the religion templates of registered Wikipedia users ("Wikipedians", whatever) approaches laudability, the conscious choice to treat it, its articles, and its users as a single static unit rather than one made up of self-selecting communities (with particular categories of articles dominated by particular communities of users) does nothing for your credibility among those who disagree with this website or, ultimately, its political goals. Self-isolation and the creation of an "us vs. them" mentality (among other approaches of this site) just make this //look// like its users are stereotypically smug, self-righteous, hypocritical conservatives working on a "propaganda source" instead of an honestly self-critical attempt at a no-nonsense examination of the world. 
 
To be clear, I am neither conservative nor liberal (my views on foreign policy tend to agree more with 'hawks', my economics more technical than political, my social/civil views classically liberal, and my historical/teleological views loosely extropian). I agree there is some degree of 'liberal' (as nebulous as that word is) bias among Wikipedia's editing communities, but I also think '''this''' community's notion of 'balance' is ridiculous. As well, I believe it is politically ineffective beyond 1) preaching to the proverbial choir and 2) reinforcing stereotypes of conservatives - how 'they' think and view others. If those are truly the goals of Conservapedians, then good luck and happy editing. [[User:Zebu1911|Zebu1911]] 23:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Creation "myth" ==
Im only going to say this from a neutral standpoint all stories of creation are myth this is the definition of myth {{unsigned|Cal05000}}

: Wikipedia is redefining words to advance its [[liberal]] agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::What does wikipedia define myth as, and what is myth defined as? [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 18:02, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia does specify that the definition of "myth" is just a traditional story with no implications of truth or un-truth. I can confirm definition this in several dictionaries. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 20:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: The word "myth" plainly connotes falsity, which is what the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia want to connote about [[creation]]. See [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth Webster definition]. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::::: Aschlafly you should sign your posts. And if you read the beginning of the article you can see that the author of the article goes out of their way to define myth. The article is about creation stories, including every major religion. Not just christianity. I fail to see your problem with this. But realizing no matter what I say you will never change your opinion, or for that matter admit you were wrong. So feel free to not comment back. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

You are both right. "Myth" does not imply truth or falsity ''when used in a scholarly sense''. The Merriam-Webster definition 1 (see Aschlafly's link) reflects this. But when used in an everyday sense, it implies something that is not true, as per Merriam-Webster definitions 2b and 3. Wikipedia uses the first definition as an excuse to tar creation accounts as unreliable, but contrary to your claim about "every major religion. Not just christianity", does not include atheism and apply the term to its origins account. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

: Great points, Philip. In sum, Wikipedia's [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]] bias is demonstrated by how it applies the term "myth" to [[creation]] but not to [[evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I completely agree that the word "myth" carries connotations of falsity, and for a while I was of the opinion that the title in question was not NPOV, but after reading the arguments on Wikipedia, there are several definitions of the word which do not define a myth as either true or false, which describe the topic in hand far more accurately than something like "story" or "belief". Here are some examples of the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 dictionary websites I found:

::*''"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."'' ([http://www.dictionary.com])
::*''"an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts"'' ([http://dictionary.cambridge.org])
::*''"a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"'' ([http://www.merriam-webster.com])
::*''"ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior"'' ([http://encarta.msn.com])

::In my opinion, the definition of the word "myth" is perfectly inline with the definition of Creationism, while it doesn't describe recent scientific theories like the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The fact that the article clearly explains that it is using the strictly academic definition of the word makes it an acceptable title, and I don't think a more vague, politically correct word is needed. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 22:58, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::: [[Wikipedia]] is a good home for you then. You selectively quote from the dictionary definitions about myth and then, once you settle on a misleading meaning, you apply it in a biased way against creation but not evolution. You've illustrated and embraced the bias at Wikipedia well. Enjoy it there. We don't allow such bias here on our content pages.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::::I did not selectively quote dictionary definitions, I clearly stated that I chose the '''primary''' definitions from the first 4 (and, in fact, only) dictionary websites that I looked at (typed "dictionary" into google and chose from the first page of results). I acknowledged that "myth" carries negative connotations, and that at first I felt that the title did need to be changed. However, I felt after consideration, that due to word (or at least the primary definition of the word) being far more descriptive of the topic at hand than other potential replacements, along with the definition of the word within the article itself, it was better to keep the title than to change it because of the connotations it carries. This is of course my opinion, and is based on my view of how negative the word "myth" is. Others are likely to have different perceptions, and thus disagree with me.

::::The other main definition of "myth" seems to be ''"false belief: a widely held but mistaken belief"'' (encarta). Both Evolution and Creationism could fall under this description, depending on your POV/bias. Evolution however, in my opinion, does not fall under the other definition, as it is in no way "traditional", "supernatural", "historical" or has anything to do with "deities", whereas Creationism does (if you disagree I would be happy to hear your points).

::::I do not support any form of bias in this context, and agree with Conservapedia that there is significant bias throughout Wikipedia that needs to be amended. I hope that I have cleared up my views on the matter. [[User:Hpesoj|Hpesoj]] 00:19, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: Evolution wasn't invented by Darwin. He merely popularised it by giving it a pseudo-scientific explanation. The general idea of evolution is ancient, so it ''does'' fit some of the definitions you provided (note that reference to a deity was not in all definitions, and not a requirement in others). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia obviously cant say it isnt a myth either so how you put it?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Philip you make a good point, but you have one flaw in your logic. The purpose of an encyclopedia is the present factual information based on the official definitions. Yes, popular and actual definitions are often at odds, but encylopedias present the actual definition. I disagree that a evolutionist/atheistic view of creation should be added. The page is about religious creation myths, and it does include a link to the article on evolution. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 13:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not aware that anyone has decreed that encyclopedias can only use "official" definitions.
: If the page is about ''religious'' creation myths, then why exclude the "creation myth" of atheistic religions? This is part of the atheist agenda: Label everyone else's worldviews/beliefs as "religious", but their own as "non-religious" or "rational" or whatever, and label everyone else's beliefs about origins as "creation myths" but their own as "scientific". Such artificial self-serving distinctions are not accepted on Conservapedia. Granted, Wikipedia does define how it is using the term "myth" in that particular article, but, as pointed out, does not include the atheistic origins myth. Further, at the top of the page are links to "scientific" views, a non-so-subtle inference that the "creation myths" are not scientific.
: And the only link to evolution ''per se'' is buried within the "Hermeticism" section half way through the page.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:02, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

While that may be so Philip I think it prudent to mention that many links on this website either redirect to another conservapedia page, are missing altogether or are linked to a page that says nothing in regards to the intended point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: I'm sorry, but I have no idea how that relates to the discussion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, you said the only link to evolution in wikipedia when discussing the 'creation myth' was buried ''per se'' (in what I gather) rather obscurely. I was pointing out that many CP links demonstrate this also, if not worse.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: My ''criticism'' was that Wikipedia treats creation but not evolution as a "myth". My reference to an evolution link was simply a reply to your claim that the Wikipedia article did link to evolution. It does, but not in any way that could be construed as including evolution as a "creation myth". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Has anyone else noticed the further evidence of systemic bias in the Wikipedia Creation myth page? "Some Jews and Christians believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Every other subsection starts without such a qualifier:
* "The Aztec narrative describing creation proceeds with..."
* "In the beginning, there was just water..." (Cherokee)
* "The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami churned the ocean..." (Shinto)
* "The Voluspa opens with the Norse account of the creation of the present universe :"
Wikipedia insists on qualifying every statement regarding Christianity to suggest that those who believe in the Bible, or in this case that Genesis is the Christian story of creation, are offshoots of the mainstream. [[User:Egd|Egd]] 10:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

: Right. The hostility and bias on Wikipedia against Christianity are undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, I've seen that sort of thing before, although probably not that particular example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:22, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Also wikipedia has a categories for alleged Christian mythology and Jewish mythology -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:23, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Categorization ==

Would anyone object to an effort to categorize the examples in different sections, such as Wikipedia attacks on religion, Wikipedia pro-liberal bias, examples that have been corrected and so on? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: That's OK, provided it does not dilute the entry or introduce [[placement bias]] by moving stronger and more recent points lower in the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== #12: Ron Paul smear ==

As a huge Ron Paul supporter, #12 sent me to straight to wikipedia in hopes of setting things straight, only to find that the article clearly shows that the comments were not made by Ron Paul. I fail to see the smear here. -[[User:Crimson30|Crimson30]] 14:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

: Why is the smear so extensive on Ron Paul's entry given that, as you say, he did not author the comments? When the entry is about a [[liberal]], Wikipedia does not smear the person in such a manner. Hence this illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:: How is the entry in the Wikipedia article a smear? It's responsible of the article to mention the controversy over the newsletters given the widespread coverage it has in anti-Paul propaganda online, and the article clearly states that Ron Paul is not the source of those comments and that they are not his beliefs. If there was a Wikipedia article about you, and there was a widespread story on the internet that falsely attributed Holocaust denial remarks to you, would you think Wikipedia worse for noting this story and refuting it? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia is like the National Enquirer, then, in simply repeating smears about people without any educational value.

::: But the reason the point is here, as I said, is because Wikipedia does NOT smear liberals as it smears conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: But it *does* have educational value - it informs people that Ron Paul did not write those things, does not believe those things and that he finds what was written morally reprehensible. It's not a smear, because it presents the facts of the matter. And if it's not a smear, the point has to be made with a different article. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 17:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Wandering", it obviously is a smear. If you can't admit that, then this discussion is a waste of time. Ron Paul's opponents used that information to attack and smear him. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: They cannot use that information to smear him, because the information directly indicates that it is not smear-worthy material. The information clearly shows that Ron Paul did not write and in fact repudiates the controversial content from the newsletters. I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read that portion of the article word-for-word, instead of just skimming it. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:52, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

== Points #1, #4 ==

I do not see how the image of the minuteman statue is presented as "proof" (although the caption is admittedly quite poor). On the point of the two articles concerning religious terrorism, "body" seems somewhat of a misnomer, since the articles are not essays. Regardless, reference link 6 is broken. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Defamatory material in American Family Association article ==

Wikipedia's article for the group includes numerous defamatory assertions which are either unsupported or poorly supported (e.g. with biased references). For example, the article claims the AFA supports "the criminalization of homosexuality," yet neither source supports such a blanket assertion (one of the sources actually says the AFA supports criminalizing ''public displays'' of homosexuality). Another example, the article states, "The March 2005 issue of the AFA's Journal contained an article which insinuated that raising children as Jews would lead to criminal lifestyles, and that it required a conversion to Christianity in order to make them productive members of society," yet the article in question makes absolutely no such insinuation. Wikipedia also categorizes the article under "Homophobia" even though phobias are disorders requiring a clinical diagnosis to identify. Attempts to correct material within the article are met with vicious and unrelenting opposition by homosexual and pro-homosexual editors. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:03, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
:Check out the recent edit history. WP editor (who is gay, unsurprisingly enough) is reverting my properly rationalized edits for no good reason. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The Wikipedia entry does misrepresent what the [[American Family Association]] article says, probably in a misguided attempt to smear the [[American Family Association]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Family_Association&diff=216091906&oldid=216091846] Let's see how long Wikipedia persists in its misrepresentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:36, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to admit that there was a show of bias on the part of WP editors, or to be more precise two of them. If you follow guidelines like I did and initiate discussion rather than just engaging in all out edit wars you will find that the greater community is more than willing to listen. Try doing that next time, the talk page is there for a reason. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:59, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't see any improvement. Illustrating its bias, [[Wikipedia]] simply reverted or overwrote the corrections in order to continue to smear the [[American Family Association]]. The [[Wikipedia]] entry even resorts to smearing the [[American Family Association]] for something it did not even write in one of the widely read textbooks of all time. Contrast that with how [[Wikipedia]] does not criticize John Scopes and the [[ACLU]] for defending the [[racist]] textbook at issue in the [[Scopes trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Look closer, if you have any problems with the current article perhaps you could list them here and we could see if we can try to fix them. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:07, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: It's essentially the same as when I (and Jinxmchue) complained. The Wikipedia entry is a complete hatchet job. No, I'm not going to waste all night on this. The [[anti-conservatives]] running [[Wikipedia]] will revert any corrections to this entry. This is a determined smear by Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Well the thing is Jinx didn't complain, he engaged in an edit war. Just list a couple of things here and we'll see if we can't get them changed. If they aren't then that's that, if they are then we can start working on other problems with the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:19, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Edit war. Mm-hmm. Yeah, no one else there was involved in any edit war. Nope. They can revert edits they don't like without any sort of attempt to address issues, get their friends involved to subvert the three revert rule, but they aren't ever accused of starting edit wars. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:29, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::I didn't say the others weren't also involved in an edit war, obviously you would need two sides to do it. However, if you observe what I did (discussed, rather than continually revert and get blocked for it) you will see that I achieved my goal (as stated on the article's talk page). Now, give me something else wrong with the article and we will see if we can change it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:31, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If you want to see what I did, check the edit history for AFA's article over there. There's absolutely no legitimate reason for my edits being reverted. There's just a couple of AFA-hating gay editors who want the article to be a hit piece. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:32, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

<- Yes there were a couple of anti-AFA editors who chose to revert the article, and if you look closely they also got blocked for it (one has since left). If you did what I did and tried to initiate discussion on the article's talk page you would not have gotten blocked, and others would have come to your assistance, as they came to mine. The AFA article has also been reported to ANI/NPOV for further assessment of bias against the organisation. Now, if you or Andy would care to give me another problem with the article then we will see if we can get that changed too. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 23:36, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

: We did. See the first and fifth paragraphs above. Those smears are still in the Wikipedia entry about the [[American Family Association]] despite the high-level review that you apparently initiated, and despite Wikipedia not smearing liberals like that. If AFA supported the [[homosexual agenda]] rather than opposing it, then you can be sure that Wikipedia would have a very different and favorable entry about it. So, the bottom line is clear: this is yet another example of bias at Wikipedia, and it's not likely to change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:I am making some corrections now. We will see if the one remaining gay editor who wants to control the page will leave them be. I doubt it, but then years of experience with such people have turned me into a cynic. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:31, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
::My cynicism was well-founded. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Point #44 re: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ==

The reader who submitted this comment claims that it was "guilt by association" to repeat "a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS."

However, the factual basis for associating AAPS with the John Birch Society is much stronger than a mere "newspaper claim". For example: in the early 1960's, the AAPS Board of Directors included Dr. Granville Knight (a JBS National Council member), Dr. Charles W. Pavey (a JBS member),Dr. James L. Doenges (a JBS endorser) and Dr. George J. Hess (a JBS member who was AAPS President in 1962).

Furthermore, AAPS annual conventions featured speakers and exhibitors which were recommended by the the JBS in its own literature. In fact, the exhibitors often were organizations that were created or led by JBS members, endorsers and sympathizers -- including, for example, Southern States Industrial Council, National Education Program, National Committee For Economic Freedom, and American Opinion magazine (the JBS magazine!). AAPS described these organizations as "freedom organizations". Speakers at AAPS conventions included prominent JBS members and sympathizers such as JBS National Council member Revilo P. Oliver.

Incidentally, senior FBI officials (including Director J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Division Chiefs, and Supervisors within its Domestic Intelligence Division) routinely referred to the JBS in FBI memos as "irrational", "extremist",
"irresponsible", "fanatics", and "lunatic fringe". They did not describe the JBS as a "freedom organization".

{{unsigned|Ernie1241}}

: Your 40-year-old [[gossip]] is silly and unsupported. Communists, anarchists, criminals, etc., also belong to numerous organizations. Smearing through use of guilt-by-association is criticized by [[liberals]] and against official Wikipedia policy. So why this reliance on 40-year-old gossip against this organization? This selective smearing illustrates Wikipedia's bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The recent edits by [[User:Dnotice]] had an egregiously misspelled word, several inappropriate edits, and did not recognize that some Wikipedia improvements were after (and probably the result of) criticisms here. Some of the edits reverted had some value if presented properly. We welcome proper update of the points edited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Egregiously misspelled"? "Inappropriate edits"? Which are you referring to? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Dnotice, you have this backwards. Please fix your own misspelling, and don't make as many potentially objectionable edits without discussing them here. OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:33, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The whole idea of a Wikipedia-style website is that if a mistake is noticed, e.g. spelling, then the next user amends that error, instead of removing all of the previous user's edits on that page. Anyway, you didn't answer my question, which parts of my edits are are you specifically referring to? If I know which are incorrect or "potentially objectionable" on this site, I can ensure that future edits don't fall into that category. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
:::As you've made amendments to my further edits, any chance of a response to my questions? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 05:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Dnotice, you have to try harder first. Sorry, I wish I had the time to correct your mistakes, but I don't. In addition to an egregious misspelling, your edit to the point about Conservapedia being supportive of YEC was improper as it does not properly reference the prior version of the Wikipedia entry that illustrated the bias, and does not note how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Unless you fix your edit yourself, I will probably revert it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:09, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Is Conservapedia supportive of YEC? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: StatsMan, please read the relevant points in the entry first before asking questions that distract from the issue at hand, and then stick to the issue of how Wikipedia falsely portrayed Conservapedia in order to try to smear it in front of the Wikipedia audience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::You didn't answer his question. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::My edit took a direct quote from the link that was already in place. Anyway, it's odd that you've now decided to keep in my effective re-instatement of your deletion of this point... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 11:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: No, I'm hoping you'll fix your edit to reflect how Wikipedia changed its entry in response to criticism here. Will you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::How could I show that? Especially when you don't deny what I said about my edit reflecting the what the quote actually said. With all respect, the previous edit was guilty of [[Quote mining|quote-mining]] as the Wikipedia article (even at that particular time) had a lot more than what this site portrayed it did. [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 07:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==Criticism of Conservapedia "rare or non-existent"==
Your suggestion that criticism of Conseravpedia "are rare or non-existent" seems blind to the day-to-day reality of Conservapedia. Criticism of your articles here features loudly on many, many Talk pages, much of it vandalism, yes, but much of it also well founded, well reasoned and intelligent criticism. And this is not just criticism based on ideology - this is often criticism of factual inaccuracy and misleading information. I think it's only fair to point this out in the interest of Fair Balance. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 22:29, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

: You misunderstood what your quote refers to, and falsely stated that the quote applies to all criticism. Of course many people who do not like the truth are going to criticize the truth, but that is not what the quote refers to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:07, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Correct me if I'm confused, but were you not referring to the sentence in the WP article which states "The site has come upon much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies and bias"? [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 11:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, but there are few or no criticisms of Conservapedia for "factual inaccuracies." The citation by Wikipedia for its claim is to a New York Times article that actually criticizes Wikipedia for harping on such a claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:02, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

==Belfast Agreement==
Although both 'Belfast Agreement' and 'Good Friday Agreement' are used almost interchangeably, it has become common for Irish and UK people to refer to this agreement as 'Belfast Agreement'. Some references from major Irish news sources are listed here - [http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0527/breaking59.html], [http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0408/north.html], [http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dissecting-north-agreement--for-all-its-worth-363083.html]. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:27, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:But it is better known as "Good Friday Agreement" elsewhere. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:28, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I am British and would say that use of 'the Good Friday Agreement' is far more common, in Great Britain at any rate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Where is the 'elsewhere' you refer to WilliamH? Even the Northern Ireland Office refers to it as both [http://www.nio.gov.uk/the-agreement]. I am Irish and would say 'Belfast Agreement' is much more commonly used on our island. I'm mostly curious to know why Wikipedia's use of one term over the other is considered 'bias' here? It reeks of grasping at straws, as it's perfectly appropriate to use either term. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::'Elsewhere' as in everywhere else outside Ireland or the UK. (I might have forgotten a few places or two, but the point stands.) [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 20:12, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Well, I've removed the reference from the article, because while facts usually contain a 'liberal bias', I don't believe they're geographically biased. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 21:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Google shows that uses of "Good Friday Agreement" outnumber "Belfast Agreement" '''by more than a 3:1 ratio.''' It's irrelevant that Ireland newspapers prefer "Belfast Agreement" because Wikipedia does not ordinarily defer to an Irish point-of-view!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The popularity of a term "on Google" is simply not a metric on which to base an encyclopedia - if you go down the road of determining 'fact' based on Google cites, you're in deep trouble. The simple fact is, to those for whom the Agreement matters, both terms are interchangeable, and in fact Belfast Agreement is probably more commonly used. Finally, to use the choice of one term over the other as implying 'bias in Wikipeida' is to invent controversy where there is none, and in itself, biased - in this case, against Wikipedia, the editors of which can fairly choose to use whichever term they want. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: An illustration of bias is how decisions that could go one way or the other (i.e., "interchangeable) are, in fact, always decided one way. In Wikipedia's case, that bias is against religion. Wikipedia censors religious references every time it can, and insisting on the unfamiliar "Belfast Agreement" rather that the more popular "Good Friday Agreement" is merely one of many examples. Alone it may not be significant, but with numerous other examples it reinforces the existence of the bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: You are guilty of trying to foist a conspiracy theory into on an 'encyclopedia' article. Have you considered that those who would be most knowledgeable about the Belfast Agreement might, in fact, be from Ireland? And that therefore the Wikipedia articles may well be written by Irish editors? And that they may simply be using the term that is most familiar to them? And that the choice to not use the term containing a religious holiday reflects no "conspiracy against religion" as you have invented? Not everyone in the world is American, you know - in fact, Americans barely make up 5% of the world's population. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: Maybe there are more non-Americans in the world than Americans, but there definitely are more Americans in Wikipedia than Irishmen (plus, all the other english-speaking nationalities that don't call it 'Belfast Agreement') so bias is the most plausible explanation. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 23:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: I take it you are certain that the proportion of Irish editors on the Wikipedia article is no higher than on, for example, an article about Alabama? [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 00:00, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: Some protestant groups in Northern Ireland do not celebrate Good Friday, preferring to observe the crucifixion on Wednesday, so the neutral term 'Belfast Agreement' gained favour in diplomatic circles in order to avoid suggestions of anti-protestant bias. [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 23:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Exactly, Jalapeno. Thank you for pointing out the political sensitivities that those of us on this island take for granted, and foreigners are clueless about. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 23:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Walter, you protest far too much, and now you have the fringe below even siding with you. Wikipedia editors are predominantly American and British, far more than Irish.

:::::::::::::: By more than a 3:1 margin the term "Good Friday Agreement" is used by the public. The fact that some Irish newspapers, which are themselves more liberal than the Irish public, use the term "Belfast Agreement" is an awfully weak rationale. There is no sign that the decision at Wikipedia was made by Irishmen. Odds are that this decision was made by the typically liberal editors there who seek to censor Christian. Many other points in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] illustrate the same bias at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::WP's bias is shown by it using the document's official name? (See WaltherPPK's link to the Northern Ireland Office) [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 19:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I protest because I know I am right and that you are wrong. First, I note you continue to assert the Google-sourced 3:1 ratio - except you now claim it's "the public". If Google is equal to "the public", I'll be damned. Please don't try and pull the wool over people's eyes - the world exists beyond the confines of Google, you know. Secondly, you clearly know ''nothing'' about the Irish media landscape (and, in fairness, I wouldn't expect you to), and you obviously haven't read any of my supporting references. Two are from newspapers - one being slightly left-of-centre (Irish Times), and one being right-of-centre (Independent). The third reference was a TV channel. They represent the non-tabloid news sources in the country. The other non-tabloid newspaper is to the right of these, and is only published on Sundays. Given your lack of knowledge of the Irish media scene, how you "know" that Irish newspapers are more liberal than the Irish public, I'd be interested to know. Are you an expert on every country in the world? Finally, you have obviously not looked at the Northern Ireland Office (of the UK Government) document on the Agreement (which I referenced above), which states "The Agreement (also known as the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement) was reached in Belfast on Friday, April 10 1998". Re-read Jalapeno's comments above as to the reason WHY politicans and public figures in Ireland PREFER the term 'Belfast Agreement to Good Friday Agreement. While your ignorance of the world may be appealing to an uneducated Amero-centric reader base, rest assured those of us from other nations will not lie down and let YOU tell US how we name our institutions, offices, or policy. Good day to you Sir. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 19:19, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Walter, your ranting is getting out of control. I do know quite a bit about the Irish press, Ireland, and Wikipedia. In fact, I've been quoted in the past in the Irish newspapers. Yes, they are more liberal than the Irish public, and Irishmen have relatively little influence at Wikipedia. The British and American influence, by liberals, is far stronger. It's absurd, frankly, for you to claim that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press.

::::::::::::::::: Want to rely on the Northern Ireland Office? Fine. It provides the "Good Friday Agreement" as the first choice, even though alphabetically it would come second. Use it and please stop pretending that the atheists at Wikipedia lack bias. Read the scores of other examples of the same [[Bias in Wikipedia]] and end your [[liberal denial]]. Godspeed. I expect you will insist on [[last wordism]] now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: ASchlafly, Where did I claim "that the naming of the Agreement is due to the position of the Irish press"? We're trying to make you understand the sensitivities of Northern Irish politics - re-read Japaleno's comment above please as to why "Belfast Agreement" is actually the '''preferred''' term - you should be especially sensitive to the fact that the reason it's ''not'' named "Good Friday Agreement" is '''for''' religious reasons. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

===References===
Here's [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=361&docID=219&COMMAND=PRINTER the document itself], which shows that ''technically'', its title is '''The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement'''. (''All other names are therefore colloquial terms''). Here are some references from official Irish government websites showing many different terms used for the Agreement: [http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=135&docID=507], [http://www.citizensinformation.ie/References/legislative/legislative-background-to-irish-citizenship], [http://ombudsman.gov.ie/en/Legislation/TheOmbudsmanAct1980/], [http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=5&speech=176&lang=eng], or [http://www.ga.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAY102655 this one, wherein it is referred to as "The Belfast Agreement of Good Friday"]. A brief scan of any of these will show you that any term is equally usable, and that 'Good Friday Agreement' is simply one of them. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 20:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Could someone move [[Camp David Accords]] to [[Constitution Day Agreement]] or [[Saint Lambert Agreement]]? It just happens that September 17th (the day the accord was signed) is a a political holiday in North America and it should be named accordingly. Alternatively, September 17th is also the feast of Saint Lambert and it is disappointing that people are not recognizing the religious significance of the date and instead using the more widely known, secular, place name. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:Does this mean that CP has an anti-Christian and/or anti-American bias? [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 18:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
----
Google may not be the same as the public, but it's likely to be fairly close, and is about the best idea of public usage that we have readily available. So Andy's correct point that the term "Good Friday Agreement" is more common that "Belfast Agreement" holds up, pending better evidence to the contrary.

However, I don't think it's a good entry to have in the list, unless we have some evidence of Wikipedia using the Belfast name for (anti-)religious reasons. That may be a plausible explanation (Wikipedia does tend to be anti-Christian), but in this case using the Good Friday name hardly advances Christianity at all, so Wikipedia would have little motive to change it on that basis. So although the argument ''may'' be correct, it would be better to not use this example and stick with just having stronger examples.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:Philip, a few points. 1) The specific words written by ASchlafly which I objected to and removed from the article described the term "Belfast Agreement" as "ambiguous and unfamiliar", not 'less popular'. The copious evidence I have provided has shown that the term is neither officially nor colloquially considered "ambiguous and unfamiliar", but is in regular, everyday use in the community where it is most often discussed by both of the Governments concerned and amongst the press and general public; 2) Not only that, but others have explained that there is actually an underlying reason why, for obvious reasons of religious sensitivity to all communities, religious terms are generally ''avoided'' in political debate in Northern Ireland; 3) It seems Mr.Schlafly's Amero-centric view of the world and his ignorance of Irish affairs led him to presume guilt on behalf of the Wikipedia editors where there was none; 4) Finally, I note that the Wikipedia article on the Agreement '''very clearly''' lists the term 'Good Friday Agreement' as "alternatively and widely known" in the opening sentence of their article, and the term Good Friday Agreement redirects to the article as one would expect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement]. In short, not only was the assumption wrong, the facts were wrong, and the case didn't even exist. I notice you too are sometimes upset when foreigners presume to know about Antipodean affairs, so I thank you for your analysis of this mistaken example. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 12:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) I agree. I was responding to comments on this page, not to the wording in the article.
:: 2) This seems to be supporting that Wikipedia's choice of label ''was'' chosen for religious reasons.
:: 3) I can't see what US-centricity has to do with this particular case.
:: 4) I can't see that this is any sort of rebuttal. The fact is that Wikipedia has chosen to not use (as the article title) the official name of the agreement, but what appears to be the lesser-used of the two most-commonly-used unofficial titles. And by the way, I Googled the two unofficial names on all English-language pages, on .au pages, and on .uk pages, and in all three cases, the Good Friday name was the most popular by a significant margin. So it's not as though one is more popular in American and the other in Britain, for example. So although it's unknown why Wikipedia has gone for the lesser-used title, I don't think that it's safe to jump to the conclusion that it's for anti-Christian reasons, although neither should that reason be ruled out.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Walther, Wikipedia has chosen the less popular, but more secular, name. As Philip observes, you now seem to be saying that Wikipedia did do this for religious reasons after all. Maybe what is needed is for Wikipedia to explain its decision. Perhaps the edit history can be checked, and the person responsible can be asked. I'm confident that Irish newspapers had nothing to do with the decision.

::: There may even be a formal Wikipedia policy favoring secular names rather than religious ones. Guess what? I just typed in "Saint Valentine's Day," and Wikipedia redirects me to the secular form, "Valentine's Day." I could repeat that exercise with other examples and I'm confident the same pro-secular result would be obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: The edit history shows that the Wikipedia article was started in 2001 as 'Belfast Agreement'. There was a proposal to move the article to 'Good Friday Agreement' in 2005 that failed due to lack of consensus. There is a long and ignoble history of naming disputes in Northern Ireland (e.g. [[Londonderry#Nomenclature]]) and those of us who are familiar with this part of the world know will appreciate that if there is a workable neutral term available then it's almost always best to stick to that rather than risk stirring up sectarian passions. Of course Conservapedia, as an explicitly pro-US site, is free to ignore political subtleties in other parts of the world. Interestingly Conservapedia has ''separate'' articles on [[Belfast Agreement]] and [[Good Friday Agreement]] -- what should we make of that! [[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Oh no, we have entries for each! :-) Thanks for pointing that out. What do you suggest we do about it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::I'm not really part of this argument, but I suggest they be merged, under whatever name you prefer, with the other redirecting to it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 09:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Given the far greater usage, familiarity and descriptiveness of the term "Good Friday Agreement," I think that is the obvious choice. Wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not sure that "Good Friday Agreement" is more descriptive, but I agree that it appears to be more common. However, rather than take sides on this, why not go with the ''official'' title given above (assuming that's correct; I haven't checked it): "The Northern Ireland Peace Agreement". Both the other terms can be redirects to that. I'm not suggesting this solely to avoid taking sides (I'm happy to take sides where it's warranted), but when there is an official title and two unofficial titles, why not go with the official title? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Your suggestion is a good one, assuming that really is the official name. Let's see what others have to say here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Please create the new article as Philip suggested. It is really the only ''correct'' way to title the article, and you can finally claim to have an article that is ''more correctly named'' than Wikipedia. It is the official name for the Agreement, as evidenced by [http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/NIPeaceAgreement.pdf this, the official Irish Government PDF version] of the document. All other names are colloquial terms and may be redirects to it. Thank you for finally understanding my position. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: OK, but do you agree that "Saint Valentine's Day" is the correct name for that entry and that Wikipedia is biased in claiming otherwise?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:13, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::: Google shows that uses of "Valentine's Day" outnumber "Saint Valentine's Day" by '''more than a 235:1 ratio''', so I think the answer is obviously not, no. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I feel like Charlie Brown after Lucy invited him to kick the football, but then pulled the ball away at the last minute (using incorrect data as well - try "St. Valentine's Day" too). Walther, you just refused to apply your reasoning to an analogous situation, and instead insisted on censoring the religious name a second time. To say your approach just lost credibility would be an understatement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:24, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ASchlafly, I am using the methodology you recommended [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=465265 in your comment above] - using Google hits to determine 'truth'. As to spellings and typos, it makes little difference - "St.Valentine's Day"=563,000 hits and "Saint Valentine's Day"=176,000, a total of 739,000 hits. "Valentine's Day"=41,500,000 hits, and "Valentines Day"=19,600,000 hits, or a total of 61 million hits, giving a ratio of 82:1 in favour of the non-religious form. Thus, by your suggested methodology as above, all articles regarding the 14th Feb should be retitled "Valentine's Day", and the religious forms should be redirects. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 13:15, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: But you already emphatically rejected that methodology and, besides, "St. Valentine's Day" is unquestionably the historically correct name. "Belfast Agreement" has no historical claim to accuracy. While I was willing to compromise, you were not: you are adamant that the non-religious name be chosen in both circumstances, for contradictory reasons.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::So let me get this right: Your methodology is using Google rankings and hits to decide whether or not to use a certain name for an article on Conservapedia. First of all, you have a go at [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] for not using your methodology and then, after using it and displaying the results, you criticize him even more for doing so? Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't... [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 14:50, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Rather than creating a new article, one of the existing articles should be renamed. Probably the Good Friday Agreement one, given that it was started first. Of course only a sysop can do that, but there's enough of us around. Are we agreed on that course of action? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia "bias" ==

When Wikipedia says that "Obama entered Harvard Law School in fall 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition", it's because it's [http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/?page=full sourced.] The fact that [[User:ASchlafly|you]] disagree doesn't constitute bias.{{unsigned|Tennant}}

: Surely you don't suggest that merely citing a (liberal) source makes something true and unbiased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:I think the Wikipedia sourcing is somewhat poor, but until there's evidence that he was chosen due to the quota, this "example of bias" should definitely be removed. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ah yes, because no non-anglo-saxon person ever has good grades. That sounds a lot like racism on Mr. Schlafly's part. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::To my knowledge, the policy at Wikipedia is that everything must be correctly sourced - i.e., it's enough if the source is reputable, and the entry is relevant. It doesn't matter if the source is liberal, conservative, anarchist, fascist, monarchist, socialist, regionalist, communist, christian, buddhist, atheist, nationalist, chauvinist, et cetera. Thank you. --[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 17:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, the problem with your entry is that if you follow that pattern, then you should insert each and every liberal quote on Wikipedia, from ''every'' article. '''--[[User:Tennant|Tennant]] 18:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)'''

:::More to the point there is nothing in the reference we supply here to indicate that Obama was selected on the basis of his race. Does Conservapedia want to have a ''lower'' standard of fact checking than Wikipedia? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Isn't this article biased as well?==
Sorry-I'm new-but isn't this article biased by saying that Wikipedia is biased? This is sort of like a personal account, depending on personal judgement. And plus this sounds like publically directing a criticism against Wikiepdia. PLus I think some of the stuff has already been changed or reverted--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 17:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wikipedia includes phony quote for over three years ==

The phony quote in question is as follows:
<blockquote>
The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'
</blockquote>
This appeared on at least three pages. Here is how the pages appeared recently before I attempted to remove the quote:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&oldid=219686529#Criticisms Phillip E. Johnson] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&oldid=219162996#The_Discovery_Institute Teach the Controversy] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&oldid=215173365#Origins_of_the_movement_and_strategy Wedge strategy]

And here's where the quote was added for each page:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillip_E._Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=12617922 Phillip E. Johnson - April 21, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teach_the_Controversy&diff=prev&oldid=12219123 Teach the Controversy - April 12, 2005] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=15250578 Wedge strategy - June 15, 2005]

There's absolutely no indication that this is anything other than a direct quote. I found that the quote was completely bogus [http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/post-4.html here] and [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson here]. According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons] policy, such false material should be removed immediately and without discussion.

This removal didn't sit well with the anti-ID crowd, however, and I came under vicious assault, particularly from one editor. I ultimately prevailed, and though the quote was not removed, it was moved and clarified as being a paraphrase. All the accusations made against me were found to be without merit, but the person making them continues to make them. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:36, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Obama's selection as editor==
This article states as if it were a fact that Obama was chosen for this position on the basis of his race. However the references don't say that - they do say that a person ''might'' be selected on the basis of affirmative action, but there is nothing to indicate that Obama's selection was on this basis. We need to fix this. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Michael Moore==
"the lying, deceitful films of Michael Moore". What, are we deliberately trying not to get taken seriously here? How can we go around accusing other people of bias and then expressing what is clearly someone's opinion as if it were fact? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it's pretty much a proven fact that Moore deceptively edits his films. Two examples in particular are his acquisition of a gun at a bank and his manipulation of statements made by Charlton Heston. Those are just two out of many that immediately come to mind. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Analysis of Claims ==

I am One For Logic (also spelled oneforlogic or Oneforlogic), a regular user and editor of Wikipedia for several years. I began reading some articles on Conservapedia a few weeks ago. This is an interesting project. I will readily admit that the quality of writing and sourcing of articles in Wikipedia is not always the highest, so in the spirit of supporting well-intentioned dissent (which is what I’m assuming this is; let me know now if I’m wrong) I’m going to check on the claims on this page and explain what I find. If I conclude that any of these claims are valid, I will discuss and attempt to edit the relevant Wikipedia articles myself. I expect many of you will want to comment on this effort; please do so in the next section. I welcome your input. Signed [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:01, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Issue 1: Liberal Criticism

I believe that any liberal bias present in Wikipedia is far less systematic than Conservapedia admins would have us believe, but I’m not going to go read every Wikipedia article to try to evaluate such a general claim. More specifically, the article on Debbie Riddle is fairly short, so the ‘free education comes from Russia’ quote will easily dominate the article until it is expanded. I highly doubt that any Wikipedia editor would object to more information on her accomplishments being added. Chuck Schumer’s article does indeed speak favorably of him at several points; there is a healthy discussion of the article’s neutrality in the discussion page. I’ll look for sources critical of the senator and add them to that discussion soon. Of course, any and all Conservapedia users are welcome to do the same.

Issue 2: Obama’s selection as an editor on the Harvard Law Review

Your own source makes this issue clear; in 1982, the Review adopted a policy that allowed editors to consider race while selecting new editors but did not provide for specific racial quotas. This source does discuss a short-lived quota-like policy, created in 1981, that was quickly replaced by the much less specific 1982 racial consideration policy. It cannot be clearly established how much this policy contributed to Obama’s selection as an editor, and as the Wikipedia article in question does not and should not focus on the specific policies of the Review, it seems acceptable to me that this article does not highlight this policy.

Issue 3: Censorship

The Wikipedia article on censorship does need to be expanded by an expert. I am not familiar with any specific cases of prayer, pro-life advertisements, or conservative newspapers being successfully censored, but I know that attempts to censor these things are made and they should be mentioned in the article. Let me know if any of you know of good sources of more detailed information on this kind of censorship. However, the article does discuss the issue of censoring discussion of creationism in public schools. The article indicates that many religious groups feel that not being allowed to teach creationism is censorship; it goes on to reference two court cases that established, first, that teaching creationism is equivalent to promoting the Christian faith and is illegal in public schools, and second, that intelligent design is a form of creationism. Regardless of your opinion on these issues, the Wikipedia article does cite and explain (in separate articles) the relevant court cases, which seems to me to be a completely legitimate way to discuss censorship of intelligent design.

I'll add more when I have time to do so.

== Reactions ==

I look forward to your feedback. [[User:Oneforlogic|Oneforlogic]] 15:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== There were some notable incidents in the media ==

One was the SlimVirgin/Linda Mack stuff. A lot of press. Then there was the Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland socking that for years he got away with using lots of sock puppets to spin biases in favor of illegal activity and anyone who tried to stop him was banned. This was in the media a lot, but not as much as the Linda Mack spy stuff. Then there was the Harsbara Fellowships, a group that hired people to insert biases into the encyclopedia and was led by one of their top administrators, Jayjg, though this doesn't have as much news article as the other two. Anyone else familiar with these? They are well known. I don't have any news articles right offhand, but could dig some up. It would help if others were familiar with this, too. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:KevinM

2008-06-23T19:08:18Z

RobertBobkins: /* 4chan */

==Removal of wikilinks==
How else can ''we'' determine what pages are most wanted if you keep removing those links? [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 22:06, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
:Those articles are ''protected against (re-)creation''. You ''can't'' create them. When people follow those red links, you will get to a "Permission Error" page (unless they're a sysop). I'm not doing this arbitrarily, don't worry. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 22:12, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
::Hmm.. right, I should have checked up before accusing you of wrong. At least I wasn't dumb this time and blocked someone for doing some good... [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 22:15, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
:::No worries. If you had briefly blocked me, I totally would've forgiven you. Mistakes happen, after all, and you would have done it to protect the project against a potential troublemaker. :) It also only occurred to me later on that not everybody might know that "salted" is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_deleted_pages#Creation_protection wiki-slang] for "protected against (re-)creation", so I'm not ''entirely'' innocent, I guess. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 22:22, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

==4chan==
The article [[4chan]] was protected with a '''.''' as the reason. Technical error perhaps? [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:01, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:No, it was salted: Deleted and protected against recreation. If you check [[Special:Protectedtitles]], you will see that several articles were protected that way some time ago. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
::I looked in there and wow there are a large number of furry related titles protected. [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 15:08, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:KevinM

2008-06-23T19:01:55Z

RobertBobkins:

Buddhism

2008-06-23T18:54:15Z

RobertBobkins: similar to gnosticism

[[Image:China B.jpg|right]]
'''Buddhism''' is classified as the fifth largest religion in the world. It is a belief system which teaches that desire causes suffering and if desire is eliminated, enlightenment and [[Nirvana]] are attained. Buddhism is a [[Dharmic religion]] and is often viewed as a philosophy more than a religion because gods are not necessary or primary in Buddhist thought. Much of modern Buddhism is atheistic or agnostic in practice. The term Buddha means "the enlightened one." It is similar to gnosticism, an early form of Christianity banned as heresy by the Catholic church.

==Founder==

Buddhism was founded by an [[India|Indian]] prince, [[Siddhartha Gautama]], who, after being sheltered from coming into contact with suffering due to disease, poverty and death until adulthood, finally observed the suffering of his people during his first walk outside the palace grounds. After that he worked to discover the reason for suffering and pain. He studied a number of the disciplines of the day, seeking ultimate truth. After finding other approaches to understanding lacking, he went into meditation for 49 days, vowing not to move until he had attained enlightenment. After great personal struggle he achieved enlightenment, and began to teach the principles that are now associated with Buddhism.

The philosophy has its roots in [[Hinduism]] and Vedic religion, to which Gautama belonged until the foundation of Buddhism.

==View of God==

Some Buddhist scriptures and some sects, like the Mahayana school, acknowledge that gods exist,<ref>[http://wri.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/buddhism.html Buddhism]</ref><ref>[http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html Do Buddhists Believe in God?]</ref> but do not consider that knowledge crucial to an individual's practice of Buddhist teachings. The Buddha taught that we should not speculate about what we cannot know, and that speculation about [[God]] is pointless. Buddhists' priorities are release from suffering (by learning to cease striving after objects of desire and avoiding objects of discomfort) and direct experience of the true nature of reality. Many modern strains of Buddhism are [[atheist|atheistic]] in nature, thus creating a paradox as to why they are called a religion. They can be considered to be philosophies of life. Certain denominations, such as the Mahayana tradition, believe in [[Bodhisattvas]], or quasi-divine cosmic beings that seek to benefit others by remaining in a state of [[Samsara]], or eternal rebirth. These are prayed to, for advice and spiritual guidance, and often venerated.

==Teachings==

The highest ideal for a Buddhist is the state of Nirvana, or release from eternal rebirth, a state beyond conceptual thought. This descibes a state that is achieved through meditation and practice that is beyond the categories and conditioning that are a result of our education, experiences and the limitations of language. This state has been described by the Buddha as follows:
<blockquote>''"There is O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, o monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. ~ Udana, 80-81"''</blockquote>

Adherents claim that Buddhism is a very practical [[philosophy]], which teaches us to focus our attention on personal experience, to determine what is the cause of our discontents ("dukkha") and to find a way to liberate ourselves from these, all the while expressing "metta", which is universal, unconditional love, and "karuna", which roughly translates to "compassion", towards others. These teachings are encapsulated in the [[Four Noble Truths]].<ref>[http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/four_noble_truths.htm Four Noble Truths]</ref>

Buddhism is commonly held to be a relatively peaceful religion, due to its less "absolutist" view of morality and the fluid nature of thought that encouraged not just acceptance of other faiths and ideas, but also examination of those ideas and, if necessary, applying them to ones life. This also allows people to follow Buddhism as a philosophy, and Islam, Judaism or Christianity as a faith, without contradicting any principles of either following.<ref>http://buddhism.about.com/</ref>

It should be noted that the ideals of tolerance and introspection among the Buddhist faithful were often ignored by the leaders of Buddhist nations (much like the leaders of most other nations often disobeyed their own religions fundamental laws in the in the interest of what was practical) <ref>http://buddhism.about.com/</ref> and persecution of Christians in predominantly Buddhist nations does occur today.<ref>http://www.persecution.org/whitepapers/vietnam-2002-03.html</ref><ref>http://www.christianpersecution.info/news/new-evidence-of-religious-persecution-in-vietnam-despite-release-prisoner/</ref><ref>http://persecution.org/Countries/laos.html</ref> It is important to note that only around 55% of Vietnam is Buddhist (see below), and that Buddhist monks took an active role in protesting the the corrupt Diem regime and the Vietnam War.

==Buddhism in Antiquity==

Buddhism has been an important part of the culture in many eastern countries, such as [[Cambodia]], [[Thailand]], and [[India]]. It has endured active persecution when conflicting with older beliefs such as [[Hinduism]], and led in many countries to the rise of Buddhist warrior-dissidents, as well as such interesting anomalies as ''shinshi'' (transliterated from the Khmer), a form of torture wherein strips of flesh are removed slowly from the forehead. <ref>Schlesinger, Robert. ''Schlesinger's History of the East'', 2nd ed. New York: Camport & Sons, 1986.</ref>

==Buddhism Today==
[[Image:Nara.jpg|thumb|Great Buddha at [[Nara]]]]
Buddhism is currently the majority religion in the following states:

Country Percent

Thailand 95%

Cambodia 90

Myanmar 88

Bhutan 75

Sri Lanka 70

Tibet * 65

Laos 60

Vietnam 55

Japan ** 50

* [[China]]: Buddhism is most widely practiced, with an estimated 100 million adherents.

* Tibet is an estimate, as there has never been a reliable survey. Furthermore, it is debatable whether Tibet should be considered an independent nation.

** [[Japan]] is an "odd" case, as surveys of adherence are conducted rather differently. Firstly it is debatable at what point various Japanese beliefs shift from being traditions to being religions. This is indicated by the fact that "85% of Japanese claim Buddhism as their preferred religion", yet "75% percent claim to practice and believe in no religion" -a more accurate estimate may be 20%.
<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_buddhist.html The Largest Buddhist Communities]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Kamakura]]
*[[Nara]]

== External links ==
*[http://wri.leaderu.com/wri-table2/buddhism.html#intro Buddhism]
*[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ Access to Insight: Readings in Theravada Buddhism]
*[http://www.kalachakranet.org/buddhism/history_japanese_buddhism.htm History of Japanese Buddhism]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Buddhism| ]]

User talk:Godzilla86

2008-06-23T18:51:14Z

RobertBobkins:

It is spelled 4chan, not 4_chan. Why did you create the article with the wrong name? [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 14:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh I see why, when I try to edit [[4chan]], I get "This title has been protected from creation by Ymmotrojam. The reason given is ." [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 14:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Dog

2008-06-23T18:49:51Z

RobertBobkins: /* Uses */

{{Taxonomy|image = akitadog.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Carnivora|suborder = Caniformia |family = Canidae|genus = Canis|species = lupus|sub = C. l. familiaris (Domesticated dog)}}

'''Dogs''' are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for thousands of years.

Male dogs are referred to as a ''dog'', while a female is called a ''bitch''. Offspring are called ''pups'' (or ''puppies'') until around a year old. The collective noun for a group of offspring is ''litter''.

Research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers respectively of the [[America]]s and [[Australia]] brought dogs of some sort with them.

== Scientific details ==

Dogs (scientific name ''Canis lupus familiaris'') are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]], divided into a multitude of different breeds all in principle capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example).

Fossils of canine skulls smaller than those of wolves have been found with human artefacts, with dates based on evolutionary assumptions estimated to betwen 130,000 and 190,000 years ago.<ref name="DK">Kingsley, Danny, [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s513072.htm Humans live a dog's life]</ref> whilst DNA evidence has been used to suggest that dogs diverged from wolves between 100,000 and 135,000 years ago.<ref name="DK" />
<ref>Vila, Carles; Carles Vila, Peter Savolainen, Jesus E. Maldonado, Isabel R. Amorim, John E. Rice, Rodney L. Honeycutt, Keith A. Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, Wayne, Robert F. (1997-01-30; accepted 1997-04-14). [http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog], ''Science'' 276: 1687-1689. Retrieved on 2006-12-09.</ref>
Secular archaeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 12,000 BC-10,000 BC and with certainty at 7,000 BC. <ref>Scott, John Paul (1965), Dog behavior: The genetic basis, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74338-1.</ref>

Dogs are also viewed as being the single most genetically diverse species on Earth - largely thanks to human-imposed selective breeding, the vast array of dog breeds surpasses any other creature on the planet. Due to selective breeding by man, however, many breeds of dog have significant [[gene|genetic]] disorders. These include hip dysplasia (common with German Shepherds), and respiratory problems caused by shortening of the face, as seen with Boxer dogs and the Bulldog's lip.

== Bites ==
[[Image:Dog - Jay Paul - The New York Times.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Dog in a kennel with the animal said to be on hold due to court case]]
Despite being colloquially known as "man's best friend", every 40 seconds, someone in the [[United States of America|United States]] seeks medical help for a dog bite, with approximately 800,000 such bites per year requiring medical attention.<ref>http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html</ref>
Due to the high cost of dog bite liability claims, some [[insurance]] companies have blacklisted certain breeds and refuse to provide homeowners insurance to those who own these dog breeds. <ref>http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html</ref>

== Uses ==

Dogs are used for many purposes:

*Guarding property and livestock.
*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]].
*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain rescue.
*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]].
*Providing assistance to blind and deaf people.
*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s.
*To detect illegal drugs (German Shepherds are commonly trained to do so by police)
*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges and dogcarts.
* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles and walk the tightrope.
* For fighting, now illegal in most places, e.g. everywhere in USA.
*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today.

Today most dogs in western countries are kept for [[pet|companionship]] only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and [[livestock]].

Dogs are also the most frequently used animal in the immoral act of [[bestiality]].

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.mastiffexperts.com Mastiff Experts]

==References==
<div class="references-small"><div class="references-2column"><references /></div></div>

[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]

Dog

2008-06-23T18:49:34Z

RobertBobkins: /* Uses */

{{Taxonomy|image = akitadog.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Carnivora|suborder = Caniformia |family = Canidae|genus = Canis|species = lupus|sub = C. l. familiaris (Domesticated dog)}}

'''Dogs''' are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for thousands of years.

Male dogs are referred to as a ''dog'', while a female is called a ''bitch''. Offspring are called ''pups'' (or ''puppies'') until around a year old. The collective noun for a group of offspring is ''litter''.

Research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers respectively of the [[America]]s and [[Australia]] brought dogs of some sort with them.

== Scientific details ==

Dogs (scientific name ''Canis lupus familiaris'') are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]], divided into a multitude of different breeds all in principle capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example).

Fossils of canine skulls smaller than those of wolves have been found with human artefacts, with dates based on evolutionary assumptions estimated to betwen 130,000 and 190,000 years ago.<ref name="DK">Kingsley, Danny, [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s513072.htm Humans live a dog's life]</ref> whilst DNA evidence has been used to suggest that dogs diverged from wolves between 100,000 and 135,000 years ago.<ref name="DK" />
<ref>Vila, Carles; Carles Vila, Peter Savolainen, Jesus E. Maldonado, Isabel R. Amorim, John E. Rice, Rodney L. Honeycutt, Keith A. Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, Wayne, Robert F. (1997-01-30; accepted 1997-04-14). [http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog], ''Science'' 276: 1687-1689. Retrieved on 2006-12-09.</ref>
Secular archaeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 12,000 BC-10,000 BC and with certainty at 7,000 BC. <ref>Scott, John Paul (1965), Dog behavior: The genetic basis, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74338-1.</ref>

Dogs are also viewed as being the single most genetically diverse species on Earth - largely thanks to human-imposed selective breeding, the vast array of dog breeds surpasses any other creature on the planet. Due to selective breeding by man, however, many breeds of dog have significant [[gene|genetic]] disorders. These include hip dysplasia (common with German Shepherds), and respiratory problems caused by shortening of the face, as seen with Boxer dogs and the Bulldog's lip.

== Bites ==
[[Image:Dog - Jay Paul - The New York Times.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Dog in a kennel with the animal said to be on hold due to court case]]
Despite being colloquially known as "man's best friend", every 40 seconds, someone in the [[United States of America|United States]] seeks medical help for a dog bite, with approximately 800,000 such bites per year requiring medical attention.<ref>http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html</ref>
Due to the high cost of dog bite liability claims, some [[insurance]] companies have blacklisted certain breeds and refuse to provide homeowners insurance to those who own these dog breeds. <ref>http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html</ref>

== Uses ==

Dogs are used for many purposes:

*Guarding property and livestock.
*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]].
*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain rescue.
*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]].
*Providing assistance to blind and deaf people.
*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s.
*To detect illegal drugs (German Shepherds are commonly trained to do so by police)
*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges and dogcarts.
* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles and walk the tightrope.
* For fighting, now illegal in most places, e.g. everywhere in USA.
*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today.

Today most dogs in western countries are kept for [[pet|companionship]] only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and [[livestock]].

Dogs are also the most frequently animals used in the immoral act of [[bestiality]].

== Further reading ==
* [http://www.mastiffexperts.com Mastiff Experts]

==References==
<div class="references-small"><div class="references-2column"><references /></div></div>

[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]

Child molestation

2008-06-23T18:47:58Z

RobertBobkins: /* Cases of child molesting */

'''Child molestation''' is the physical or psychological act of harming a minor child by sexual means. The chief characteristic of such abuse is the position of the adult over the child; the dominance of the adult allows that individual to coerce and/or force a child into sexual activity.<ref>Authors unknown, "[http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/ What is Child Sexual Abuse?]", ''American Psychological Association'', 2001. Retrieved April 29, 2007.</ref> Studies by law enforcement and psychologists indicate that most individuals engaged in child sexual abuse continue to do so regardless of punishment; the effects on the children involved indicate a lifetime scarring.

==Symptoms on the child==
What a child can suffer as a victim of a molester can range from mild to severe, but in general the following are characteristics of a victim:
*Depression, fear (or fear of the opposite sex), or anxiety.
*Sudden clinging to parents or a loved adult.
*Sleep disorders, or a return to regressive behaviors like bed wetting and thumb sucking.
*Behavior or performance problems at school, and non-participation in social activities.
The strongest indication of sexual abuse of a child is sexual knowledge, interest, or acting out by the child. Such displays are simply not normal child behavior, and the best way to deal with it is to reassure the child as to his or her self esteem, and give positive family support.<ref>Authors unknown, "[http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/effects.html What are the Effects of Child Sexual Abuse?]," ''American Psychological Association'', 2001. Retrieved April 29, 2007.</ref>

==Laws and punishments==
The current trend towards punishment of offenders has been longer prison sentences, and upon release mandatory registration as a sex offender. Legislation signed into law by President George Bush on July 27, 2006 mandates the requirement for offenders to update their whereabouts with law enforcement many times a year; it also provides for permanent incarceration of offenders deemed a continual threat to society. This law was named for Adam Walsh, the murdered son of ''America's Most Wanted'' host John Walsh.<ref>Author unknown, "[http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/L49HR4427ChldprotBB072006.pdf#search='H.R.%204472' HR 4472--Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006]", ''Legislative Notice'' 49, July 20, 2006. Published by [[Republican]] Policy Committee ([[United States Senate]]), [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[John Kyl]] ([[Republican|R]]-[[Arizona|AZ]]), chairman. Retrieved April 29, 2997. Requires PDF reader.</ref>

In Florida, individuals convicted of a sexual crime against a child under the age of 11 receive a minimum 25 years in prison, followed by electronic monitoring for the remainder of their lives when released.<ref> Authors unknown, "[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/02/national/main692465.shtml Fla. Gets Tough New Child-Sex Law]", ''CBS News'', May 2, 2005. Retrieved April 29, 2007.</ref>

Punishments often continue to be administered in prison, as child molesters are "marked" by other inmates for beatings or death.

The state of Vermont has come under fire recently for being a "safe haven" for child molesters who wish for lenient or no punishment for their actions. In one recent case, Judge Edward Cashman sentenced one such individual to 60 days in jail; the man involved, Mark Hulett, had molested a girl for four years, beginning from the age of 6. <ref>Authors unknown, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181498,00.html Light Sentence for Child Molester Leaves Vermont Judge Under Fire]", ''Associated Press'', January 12, 2006. Retrieved April 29, 2007, from ''[http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News Home]''.</ref>

==Cases of child molesting==
===Ancient times===
The earliest known cases of child molestation are the ancient greeks, who invented the term pederast where an adult man has a homosexual relationship with a young boy.

===Middle Ages===
Muhammed, the prophet of the Muslim religon, married a six year old girl Aisha, and first had sex with her when she was 9 years old. 

===Modern times===
Kenneth John Freeman, a former deputy sheriff from the state of Washington, allegedly raped his own daughter and had the event videotaped and posted on the internet. He posted bond of $50,000 in November, 2005, but fled the country before his trial date in March, 2006. He was arrested in Hong Kong on May 2, 2007, during an escape attempt in which he had learned that Chinese authorities were given information on him by United States Marshals, as well as a recent profile on ''America's Most Wanted''. His victim has since become an advocate against child sexual abuse. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269644,00.html]

The [[Roman Catholic Church]] has had a history of problems with cloistered child abusers among its clergy.<ref>Authors unknown, "[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1963716.stm Catholic child abuse fears widen]", ''BBC-Asia-Pacific'', British Broadcasting Corporation, May 2, 2007. Retrieved May 2, 2007.</ref> While Pope [[John Paul II]] was seen in some quarters as reluctant to address the scandal, his successor [[Benedict XVI]] has publicly acknowledged the Vatican's mishandling of the issue<ref>http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/1721305</ref>. In a recent trip to the United States Benedict spoke before bishops at Washington's National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception:

<blockquote>
"While it must be remembered that the overwhelming majority of clergy and religious in America do outstanding work...it is vitally important that the vulnerable always be shielded by those who would cause harm."
</blockquote>

====Cases which led to murder====
On April 20, 2007 Ted Lamborgine, 66, of Parma, Ohio, was sentenced by a Detroit judge to three life terms in Michigan for sexually molesting boys. Lamborgine and Richard Lawson, 60, were accused of operating a pedophile ring in Detroit during the 1970's and 1980's, often luring kids into sexual acts in exchange for candy, soda, food, and other items. Lawson, however, pointed the finger of blame at Lamborgine at another unsolved case: the notorious Oakland County Child Killings of 1976-77, in which four children were molested and killed in the county north of Detroit. Lamborgine had refused a prosecutor's deal in which 13 of the fifteen charges for child molestation would be dropped in exchange for a polygraph examination into the deaths. Lawson is currently serving a life sentence for murder.<ref>Authors unknown, "[http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/17109582.htm Ohio man given 3 life sentences for sexual assaults on young boys]", ''Akron Beacon Journal'', April 20, 2007. Retrieved April 29, 2007.</ref><ref>Authors unknown, "[http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=2986405&version=5&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.1.1 Lamborgine Receives Three Life Sentences]", ''My Fox Detroit'', April 20, 2007. Retrieved April 29, 2007.</ref><ref>Authors unknown, "[http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/71632 '70s multi-child Murder suspect found and arrested]", ''Digital Journal'', December 11, 2006. Retrieved April 29, 2007</ref>

Polly Klaas, a 12 year-old girl from Petaluma, California, was kidnapped at knife point on October 1, 1993, while hosting a slumber party at her home; she was later found strangled, and an autopsy determined she had been raped. Arrested in the case was Richard Allen Davis, who led police to the body. Davis had a lengthy criminal history, including burglary and kidnapping; the Klaas murder earned him a spot on California's death row.<ref>Denise Noe, "[http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/klaas/1.html All About Polly Klaas and Richard Allan Davis]", ''Crime Library'', retrieved April 29, 2007.</ref><ref>Authors unknown, "[http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/26/davis.klass/ Killer of Polly Klaas sentenced to death]", ''CNN Interactive'', September 26, 1996. Retrieved April 29, 2007.</ref>

John Evander Couey, a 46 year-old sex offender registered with the state of Florida, was charged with capitol murder, sexual battery, and assault on 9 year-old Jessica Lunsford, who was kidnapped from her home in Homasassa on February 24, 2005. Couey was assisted in evading police by family members with whom he shared a home, and indications are they may have helped him in committing the crime or covering it up. An autopsy determined Lunsford was buried alive, still clutching a stuffed blue dolphin that her father had given her.<ref>Anthony Brune, "[http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/jessica_lunsford/1_index.html Jessica Lunsford child abducted and murdered by repeat sex offender John Couey]", ''Crime Library'', retrieved April 29, 2007.</ref> Couey's act helped pass "Jessica's Law", in which individuals convicted of a sexual crime against a child under the age of 11 would receive a minimum 25 years in prison, followed by electronic monitoring for the remainder of their lives when released. The law was signed by Florida Governor Jeb Bush on May 2, 2005.<ref> Authors unknown, "[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/02/national/main692465.shtml Fla. Gets Tough New Child-Sex Law]", ''CBS News'', May 2, 2005. Retrieved April 29, 2007.</ref>

==Precautions against molestation==
The United States' Stop It Now! Foundation recommends 'the four R's' to limit children's vulnerability in at-risk situations. These include:

'''Rules:''' discussing with your child the importance of rules for behaviour around others. (Note that this is not merely limited to 'stranger danger', but can be taught as 'circles of closeness'. An effective way to introduce this concept can be drawing your own diagram to show this (Mummy/Daddy, family, friends, strangers) and encourage them to create their own.

'''Respect:''' explaining why the rules are necessary - your child has a right to feel safe, but so does everyone else.

'''Responsibility:''' the hard part - teaching your child to follow these rules through reminders and encouragement.

'''Reading:''' encouraging your child's awareness of their social environment. Prevention is most effective when children learn to read the situation. If rules and a sense of self-respect are in place, your child is far more likely to let you know when they're troubled by someone's behaviour.

==Organizations which promote child molesting==
The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is an organization which promotes [[homosexual]] pedophilia relations on young boys, and actively seeks the overturn of [[statutory rape]] laws. Specifically, they seek to change ''[[age of consent]]'' laws which require that a child be of a certain age (which varies by state) before they can agree to sexual intercourse. NAMBLA also engages in activities against law enforcement of pedophilia, and has stymied efforts of officers to effect arrests of wanted individuals world-wide; one famous case was Eric Franklin Rosser, a one-time keyboard player for rockstar John Cougar Mellencamp. Rosser was added to the FBI's most wanted list, as well as profiled on the television show ''America's Most Wanted'', and was continually warned by NAMBLA members as to police efforts in locating him while on the run in Europe. He was finally captured in Bangkok, Thailand on August 21, 2001.<ref>Authors unknown, "[http://www.americasmostwanted.com/fugitives/capture.cfm?id=25084 Eric 'Doc' Franklin Rosser]," ''America's Most Wanted'', capture no. 680. Retrieved April 29, 2007.</ref>

NAMBLA was defended by the [[ACLU]] in a $200 million civil lawsuit<ref>Deroy Murdock, [http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp No Boy Scouts: The ACLU defends NAMBLA]", ''National Review Online'', February 27, 2004. Retrieved April 29, 2007.</ref> brought by the parents of a 10 year old murder victim; the parents claimed the killers were motivated by material accessible on the NAMBLA website.

==Links==
If anyone suspects someone engaged in child molesting, contact your local law enforcement agency, county sheriff, state or provincial police, or one of the following links:
*[http://www.amw.com/ America's Most Wanted]
*[http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PublicHomeServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/ Federal Bureau of Investigation]
*[http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm FBI Field Offices page]
*[http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/ United States Marshals Service]
*[http://www.interpol.int/ INTERPOL]
*[http://www.met.police.uk/ Metropolitan Police Service, London (New Scotland Yard)]
*[http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ Royal Canadian Mounted Police]
*[http://www.afp.gov.au/ Australian Federal Police]

====Other links====
*[http://www.sexualpredators.com/spc/ Database of sexual predators by state]
*[http://meganslaw.ca.gov/index.aspx?lang=ENGLISH California Megan's Law]
*[http://www.newswithviews.com/Cosman/madeleine5.htm Article by Dr. Madeleine Cosman on sexual predators illegally in the U.S.]
*[http://news.corporatecounselcentre.ca/hdocs/docs/rosser/rosserindict.pdf Charges against Eric Franklin Rosser, once a keyboardist for John Cougar Mellencamp]
*[http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/ Understanding Child Sexual Abuse]
*[http://www.jessicamarielunsford.com/ Jessica Lunsford Foundation]
*[http://www.ncys.org/childsafety.html National Council of Youth Sports]
*[http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/reslist/rl_dsp.cfm?subjID=83&rate_chno=11-11214 Child Welfare Information Gateway]
*[http://www.fbifingerprintchecks.com/index.html National Foundation to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Crimes]]

Child molestation

2008-06-23T18:47:33Z

RobertBobkins: /* Cases of child molesting */

User talk:Godzilla86

2008-06-23T18:45:21Z

RobertBobkins: New page: It is spelled 4chan, not 4_chan. Why did you create the article with the wrong name? ~~~~

It is spelled 4chan, not 4_chan. Why did you create the article with the wrong name? [[User:RobertBobkins|RobertBobkins]] 14:45, 23 June 2008 (EDT)