Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-30T13:24:58Z

RonLar: /* Behaviour of Conservative (again) */@Karajou

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==

I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==

Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:

1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].

2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.

3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.

Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.

4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.

5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.

6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]].

7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''
:Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]].
:Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."?
:*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''
:I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=888699]
:*''suggested a blocking review board ''
:You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
:*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''
:And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''
:::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.
:::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
:::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rude and insulting behaviour ==

Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The same user has now taken to insulting me and questioning MY faith, simply becaue I disagree with him about the best way to oppose evolutionism, and nobody else seems to be making any attempts to curtail his offensive behaviour. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''" (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==
Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.
:::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception.
:::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.
:::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents.
:::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.
:::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,''
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==a perspective from a pianist==
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.

But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only "original" content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical "parody" pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop "community," if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.

My whole time here, I've heard it argued, "well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism." In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call "the best of the public," and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.

My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them "faux" answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not "serious accusations" these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a "dig at conservative" i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me "demonic" at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was "Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind." Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is
:'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''
But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==And end to this==

Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of "pesterfesting".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...
::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking "View full log". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Ah yes, so I see. Thanks for that. I also notice a rather unsavory comment in there from RobS regarding another sysop. This is starting to look very unsatisfactory. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== User:Conservative ==

I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.

Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.

I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.

A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc.

User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.

Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policy. He is currently on a summer vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I sent an email to Iduan to find out when his vacation is over. I expect to receive a reply within 2-7 days. In the meantime, people who are going to be on the blocking policy refinement panel may want to look at these two pages: [[User:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] and [[User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::The panel is convening on 8/17/11: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:59, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

=== A question for the ''ayes'' ===
Would you have voted for '''deleting''' the archives, too? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:04, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes. While there might have been some good points in those discussions, the vast majority was name-calling by troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets. Keeping it around gives a false impression of the site, which is exactly what the troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets want. If any of the discussion in those archives was worthwhile, I'm sure it'll be brought up again in a more orderly fashion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
*And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive to which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to? My guess is none so your "expert" opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:# ''Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.)'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy'' That may be a very promising development...
:# ''At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership.'' In the fast moving world of the internet, such intricate plans are of relatively little value.
:By the way: could you show me to a talk page where you successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? Thanks
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, who said my plan was intricate? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite to the panel so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall ==

A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

I am sending an email to [[User:Iduan]] to determine when he is returning from his vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Just returned; first: sleep; then: back to business.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have blocking rights. May I join?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 17:10, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I added you to list. I don't think there will be any objections to me doing so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==Response to Karajou==
I told Andy yesterday I would respond to these baseless charges today, but spent the better part of the last nine hours blocked after User:Conservative flip-flopped, reverted himself, and unblocked me (I'll accept your apology later, User:Conservative, for inconveniencing me). But to Mr. Karajou: you seem to be of the opinion that,
:'''A little leven leveneth the whole lump.'''
That would be true, if Conservapedia were a monolith, requiring ideological conformity. But it's not, and never has been. Let's not forget the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares,
:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares#Narrative An enemy hath done this]. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.''' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:29, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Here is the evidence that I am aware of:

1. Both RobS and TracyS edited from the same IP address. After Karajou pointed this out, I personally confirmed this matter.

2. Both were somewhat obsessed with my talk page design in an annoying way despite the fact that Conservapedia says a user's talk page is his/her castle. At the time, I had a system for leaving messages to me. I have since closes my talk page for leaving messages due to RobS and his atheist pals use of pestering tactics.

3. Both were dishonest. For example, RobS claiming he referred to me as demonic at Conservapedia which he never did as he knows the charge was baseless plus he didn't have the guts to do this at Conservapedia, but instead chose to do this at an atheist gutter website that is filled with obscenity and gossip. TracyS claimed he/she was not trying to annoy me about my talk despite using language purposely meant to annoy.

4. Both were annoying and needlessly argumentative.

5. Karajou claims there were multiple sockpuppets of RobS, but I have not personally investigated this matter.

RobS is still an egotist and has learned nothing. It would be a big mistake at this time to give him back his Sysop/Admin rights. He would just foment a lot of useless drama and nonsense. Conservapedia doesn't need RobS the egotist to change its blocking policy and a panel of which he is not a part to refine its blocking policy is far better suited to the task. I invited people to take part in such a panel and some have accepted my invitation to take part in the panel.

I did block RobS earlier for a short spell due to him being disruptive to me posting a notice in this room that would be more constructive than much of the current content which I archived. However, with another Sysops's assistance I was able to send out invitations to the appropriate parties so the notice at the community portal was no longer needed so I unblocked RobS and de-archived the material. Given his past behavior, I see no reason to apologize for any inconvenience this caused RobS.

I will now let RobS give his empty sales pitch on how his desysoping was all a misunderstanding and a mistake on Aschlafly's part. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative, I told Andy yesterday I would respond here, but was prevented by you and the whole day was wasted. Also, I see the whole page & its Archives have been vandalized, as well as other users private user space, so I hesitate in wasting anymore time here. I will however, respond with this:
:'''"pesterfesting"''': this is the term User:Conservative uses for what is commonly refereed to in the outside world as '''"[[Advocacy]]"'''. An advocate is a person who acts on behalf of others who are incapable, or have been prevented from acting on their own behalf. Two examples of advocates would be, (1) [[Andrew Schlafly]], noted attorney, and (2) [[Jesus Christ]], [[savior]] of the [[planet]]. Advocacy is very common in the world of wikis, but I can see where you would have difficultly with the idea. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:57, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, in retrospect, I believe your "pesterfesting" was just a petty and narcissistic post TK power grab which tried to show others that you were the "big man on campus". Second, I am sorry to hear that you couldn't find other things to do besides edit Conservapedia and that your whole day was wasted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Android App? ==

Does anyone have the link to the android app? I am unable to find it for some strange reason. [[User:JacobSmith|JacobSmith]] 22:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

== My Testimony ==

I was a liberal atheist. About two weeks ago, I was talking to a Conservative friend of mine and she pointed me to the site conservapedia.com. So I came here and read a few articles. Then read a few more. Then when I noticed registration was open, I signed up, but didn't contribute right away, but I kept reading. I read [[Christian apologetics]], [[Counterexamples to Evolution]], [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]] and some wonderful essays too numerous to list. While reading, I felt...something. Something I haven't felt since I was a child. Yesterday, Sunday Morning, I did something I haven't done in nearly 30 years: I went to church. It was wonderful and I do believe I felt the Holy Spirit. I don't believe I deserve to call myself a Christian yet, but I'm looking forward to next Sunday. :-) Thank you all. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 13:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Summer Paper Gone Bad ==

Summer is drawing to a close and school is beginning again. I have decided to write my essay on the origin of the moon, citing Conservapedia several times. When my teacher (this is a public school) gave me my paper back with the grade an all, he gave me a 62. In addition, he gave me a "good talking to" on not using Wikipedia. I tried to explain him that Conservapedia is different, he just wouldn't listen! He gave me the opportunity to do the paper again using different sources. I don't want to use different sources, because they are most often plagued with bias. My question is simple- how do we separate ourselves from Wikipedia to the general public, and how to we improve our reputation? --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:Wikis are not normally considered good sources for research as they are generally open and can be edited by anyone. And any decent teacher (public school or not) probably won't accept an encyclopedia of any kind (hard copy or online) as a source for a research paper, as they normally want the student to actually do some research. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:06, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::William, the good news is you were docked points for your sources and not for content. That implies that your teacher has an open mind. I'd suggest Answers in Genesis, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Creation Ministries International or look at some of Ray Comfort's books. Of course, these sources are all the work of man and are therefore always biased and flawed. For the truth, you'll want to turn to the Bible. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 19:57, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

== An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly ==

I was [[User:WalterS]] and made an inappropriate comment several months ago. Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary. I was banned by [[User:Karajou]] for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized. I am therefore offering my apologies to [[User:Aschlafly]] and [[User:Conservative]]. I am sorry. It was wrong to vandalize your site. I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it. God be with you. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::Your sentiments are appreciated. With the being said, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlafly is the sole owner of the website. My articles tend to receive web traffic, but for the most part I create articles and I have blocked some vandals as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:09, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Banned user ==

Conservative recently banned SamCoulter for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' was a legitimate point backed up by a valid reference. Indeed, the same reference has been cited by Conservative on the main page. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:This is a non-starter. Conservative is a senior admin with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of quality edits. This is a meritocracy, David. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Almost 5% of his "tens of thousands" of quality edits are minor edits. He also created 4 different articles all with the same information as a main article. From what it seemed, SamCoulter was just trying to bring more facts to the table. Three months seems too excessive for something that wasn't even explained as to "why it doesn't belong". [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't agree with Conservative's articles on this topic. That said, I did not get the impression that SamCoulter meant what he posted as a serious contribution, but rather simply as an attempt to "prove a point". He basically [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SamCoulter&curid=114914&diff=920263&oldid=920262 admitted the same himself, and called himself "juvenile"]. One should consider those facts before drawing any conclusions. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:14, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Nice job taking things out of context. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 00:32, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I do not see how I am doing so. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:55, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::It's like people who quote verses from the Bible (specifically Leviticus). They quote what they want and not its entirety. He admitted what he did was juvenile, but he felt he had to do it that way to bring attention to a topic that Aschlafly appeared to be ignoring. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:04, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::SamCoulter behaved in a manner which, by his own admission, was juvenile, and as a result was blocked. That is the topic being addressed in this section. The issue of those articles, and what position Mr. Schlafly takes or ought to take with respect to them, is a separate discussion which does not belong in this section. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:17, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
Getting back to the point; Conservative banned SamCoulter specifically for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' in question was fully-referenced material, indeed it used the same reference as Conservative had on the main page, and SamCoulter was pretty much quoting what the referenced article stated. The number of edits an admin has made is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether a particular block was justified. A block must be judged according to the specific circumstances of the case, not the past activities of the admin doing the blocking. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 09:26, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== re: User: LeonardS wanting to debate User: Conservative ==

Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple "No thank you, I'd rather not" will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you read [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] yet? There is hope and healing available. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:Interesting article. But it is not necessary to be obsessed with you, dear User:Conservative, to spot some inconsistencies between some of your statements and your actions: one can look into the logs of Conservapedia (your log-entries can be found [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Conservative&page=&year=&month=-1 here]). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):
:::'''''I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term. '''''
:On the other hand, you performed more than 5,200 logged actions after that date - as many as the next three busiest sysops (Aschlafly, Karajou and Jpatt) '''''together'''''. Generally your behavior doesn't change, whether you announce to have ''a full schedule in the following 90 days'' or not.

:You achieve this remarkable output by contributing to Conservapedia without much pause: over the last three days I couldn't find a period where you have been away from the computer form more than 6 1/2 h: you should try to avoid to have this lack of sleep to have an influence on the quality of your contributions.

:But this is not to uncommon for you: you can go for a nearly a whole day making pauses of half an hour, or for a couple of days without resting for six hours at a time. The only other sysop at Conservapedia who would do the same was TK. Now, it's clear why he showed this pattern - his illness didn't allow him to sleep for more than a precious two, three hours.

:Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::Ronlar, I don't think it's very appropriate for you to be bringing up medical conditions in a public place. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I didn't want to bring up ''medical conditions'', I just made some - as I hope helpful - observations, without offering a diagnosis. BTW: is [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] a medical condition?
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Definitely not in the DSM --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:50, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::RonLar, setting aside whether your observations are correct about my sleep patterns and your apparent obsessiveness about my editing and sleep patterns, I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep and a cursory knowledge of history is all that is needed to know this. But I will make the allowance that perhaps you are an atheist that went to public schools and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself. With that being said, here is a list of famous people in history who didn't need a lot of sleep: [http://amolife.com/personality/great-people-sleep-less.html Famous people who didn't need a lot of sleep]. So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia (see: [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]), you certainly have to take that into account. Plus, to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account. Just out of curiosity why do you think there are some atheists who are very obsessed with myself and Conservapedia? I can assure you the obsession is not one that is mutually shared as the lives of obscure atheist vandal community members are not exactly riveting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::''you maybe an atheist who want to public school and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself.'' I have had enough of your insults Conservative. Just cease it and be respectful of others as commanded: ''And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all ... (2 Timothy 2:24)''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:15, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

User:Conservative, thanks for reacting to my comment. Let's have a look a it - I hope just answering to you won't get me blocked:
*''to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account'' No, there isn't, and there have been examples of this practice: [[User:History]] and [[User:CPanel]] spring to mind. Of course, you could be many - and this would explain you turning down even an audio debate. But you look more honorable seen as a single person:
**in all your challenges you use the ''1st person '''singular''''': ''my articles'', ''my work'', etc. It would be deceitful to create this impression when asking Dawkins, Jillette (and others) to a debate, who must assume that you are a single person. And you won't be that deceptive, I hope?
**it would be lovely to read your ''manual of style'' which would be necessary to keep up your profile. This could be an excerpt:
::{|class="wikitable"
|style "background: lightgrey"|
#Don't use the preview button!
#phrase of the month: '''<s>with regards to</s> <s>obese</s> bestiality''' Use it often!
#Really, don't use the preview button!
…
|}
*''I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep'' An interesting list of famous people you are giving there. But keep in mind that ''sleeping'' is not the only thing which prevents you from editing Conservapedia. Even living today, those celebrities would have difficulties to keep up a 18-hours-a-day pattern of editing, as they would have ''jobs'' (''you certainly have to take that into account'') - Frankly, could Thomas Edison have invented anything if he would have been detracted by the Internet for most of his waking time?
*''So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia […] '' That's the fun of the WikiMedia software - I don't have to log your time, it's done automatically for me...
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:22, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative ==

Adding cowardice characteristics:

I've just found out 2 major characteristics for cowardice:
*Trying to discredit opponents in view to avoid the confrontation
*Asking for unreasonable conditions and refusing the confrontation if those conditions are not fulfilled.
Would this be acceptable characteristics ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:57, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One thing I do know is that obscure atheists who are members of vandal sites have to actually make a substantial donation to a Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability certified Christian relief organization and have a Bible believing pastor do the transaction for them before I would consider debating them since atheists have a penchant for deception (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). Oh by the way, I may challenge another well known atheist to a debate such as [[Penn Jillette]]. Given that there are 300 less atheists in the world every day and 80,000 more people everyday calling themselves Christian (see: [[Global Christianity]]) and that the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will no doubt create ex-atheists and/or prevent people from becoming atheists in the first place[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I], perhaps it is better to wait so I get more favorable debate terms (I do realize that prominent atheists are often too chicken to debate and of course this trend may continue though (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). :) On the other hand, after the atheist population has been whittled down through conversion to theism, perhaps prominent atheists may be desperate to debate anyone in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:37, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is it a matter of them being too chicken to debate, or do they simply fail to see why they should make a "substantial donation" before debating an anonymous blogger? No offence, but if someone told ME that I'd have to hand over a few thousand dollars before he'd debate me, I'd think he was making excuses. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 14:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Also I don't really get the thing about deception. I mean, I see some guy challenged you to an audio debate. If you arrange the audio hookup then he doesn't appear, that's a victory and it proves your point. If he DOES appear then you get to beat him in the debate. The whole thing with the money does sort of look like a way to get out of challenges, if you look at it from their point of view. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::And what do fat Christians need to do in order to debate you about how CP treats people with weight issues? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:See my response to you at: [[Talk:Atheism and obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:55, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just to confirm - you refuse to discuss with me the way CP demeans obese people by linking them to everything a conservative Christian finds negative (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc.) and refuses to present anyone who is obese in a positive light. (Don't throw health issues into the mix: we both agree with the information on those.) --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:11, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
User:Conservative, you asked for '''17,000$''' (or even '''20,000$''') to be donated to a charity. For this money, one could get a celebrity like R. Dawkins to speak on this matter, in person. Getting this money for a written debate (though not given to you, but to a charity), you most certainly could enter the [[Guinness Book of Records]]! So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If obscure internet atheists who are part of a vandal website don't want to meet my terms, I have no problem with that. The atheism and evolution articles that I largely created (which they cannot find one factual error in) certainly do not want of readership so I am certainly not desperate. I would ask though that they do not whine about the matter like typical socially challenged internet atheist nerds. :) ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men. In short, quarrelsome nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Do you honestly think it's reasonable to expect people to pay $20,000 to debate - in writing, not even live - an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for deciding that they'd rather have a new car? Sorry, I disagree. If you really wanted to debate atheists you wouldn't be doing all this nonsense with the money, and you'd jump at the chance when it was offered. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:53, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Thomas, would you like some cheese with that whine? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:You didn't answer my question. Do you think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for declining to do so? I don't think you actually want to debate atheists, or you'd have taken up the offer from that voiceoftruth guy. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Did I not challenge the atheist Penn Jillette to a debate? I may challenge other non-obscure atheist as well (see comments above). :) By the way, if you could resist the temptation to engage in further whining, I would appreciate it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Penn Jillette is, as you have pointed out, not obscure. Do you expect him to reply to a challenge from an anonymous blogger? He's WAY above needing to worry about that. As far as I can tell here you're the one that's whining, because yet again you've ignored my question about exactly how reasonable it is to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then call them cowards when they don't feel like throwing their money away. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I am a Christian and I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:09, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Have not other Christians challenged Penn Jillette to a debate? Has Penn Jillette ever debated a Bible believing Christian? Face it, he evolved into a chicken! (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, I still think you are an atheist and an evolutionist. You certainly whine when I post material unflattering to atheism/atheist community and evolutionism enough. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:Stop changing the subject. We're not talking about Penn Jillette; we're talking about YOU. Why do you make such unreasonable demands then accuse people of cowardice for refusing to meet them? To demand $20,000 for a written debate with an obscure blogger is absurd, and it's also dishonest, because even when offered the money you still declined. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::Jesus Christ is my savior, Conservative. Whether you believe me or not is not a concern because ''He'' knows it true. I whine about poor scholarship, I don't care what anyone says about athesits but it must be grounded in ''fact''. Hence I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity right now, right here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::That sounds like a fair and reasonable debate offer to me. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is all of this really necessary? Yes, it is rather unusual for Conservative to request compensation for engaging in a debate given his lack of celebrity status, but you should still take into account that he's asking for the money to be donated to charity, not paid directly to him. He won't actually gain anything from the offer. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::It's not a matter of where the money GOES; it's the fact that it has to be paid in the first place. User:Conservative is not a prominent figure; he's just an anonymous blogger. The idea that anyone would pay $20,000 to debate him is laughable. Well, ALMOST laughable - an offer has actually been made, which he refused after quickly changing his rules. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:34, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think it's fairly obvious why he wishes to remain anonymous. This page alone shows how much harassment he would face from trolls were he to reveal his identity. The internet isn't a nice place, and people are always on the look out for ways to have fun at another's expense. I believe the term is 'lulz'. He has every right to protect himself from that. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Then he should expect others to do the same and not label them as 'chicken'.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::And he should also accept the fact that if he insists on remaining anonymous nobody's going to be stupid enough to hand over $20,000 to debate him. After all, what recourse do they then have if he fails to participate? If someone's paying that much for a debate it's perfectly reasonable for them to demand a proper contract laying down the conditions, and you can't do that if you don't know who you're meant to be debating. No, it's just a ploy to let him CLAIM he's willing to debate without ever actually having to do it. This was demonstrated when Jeeves at RW offered to pay the money, and User:Conservative still refused to debate him. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:51, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I am willing to debate with you if you agree to give $20,000 to charity. If you are going to refuse my offer, you may be a chicken. I would as well agree that you do not reveal your identity. (No whining in this offer)--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside the matter of how desirable it is to be a celebrity, it does appear that some people are forgetting the press have quoted/cited my work (Chicago Tribune, St. Peterburg Times, LA Times, etc.). Of course, the Chicago Tribune and St. Petersburg Times quoted my work in a much more favorable light than more liberal press outlets being they are more conservative publications than many press outlets. In addition, gentlemen with doctorates in relevant fields have linked to my work. Of course, many of my atheist detractors are very aware of the press quoting my work, but being jealous, obscure, quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] they certainly are reluctant to admit this fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Can you link to these press outlets and people with doctorates citing your work? I am curious to read them. Also, what about my debate offer on Atheism and Obesity? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::First, I hope the 'atheist nerd' does not refer to me. Second, can you provide the links to these press articles ? Third, I think I am neither jealous, obscure nor quarrelsome... So why would you refuse to debate me ? Unfortunately, I am not wealthy enough to spare $20,000 for a debate but you will agree that lack of money is not a sin.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Irrelevant. We're not talking about press coverage of your work (do you have any links to support that, by the way?) but about the ludicrous conditions you attach to debates, while at the same time claiming that atheists are too scared to debate you. Well they aren't - you've had two offers from atheists in the last 48 hours, plus two more from fellow Christians, all of which you've avoided or refused - and it is dishonest of you to make this claim. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, Veritas48 was a kind and thoughtful Christian apologists at YouTube who was harassed in very inappropriate ways by atheists. [[JP Holding]] had an obsessive atheist call his wife at work. If you think I am going to allow some obscure, socially challenged atheist nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]) to needlessly hassle people with doctorates who like my work and have cited it, that is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Harassment like continually calling them chickens, mocking their weight and farcical accusations bestiality? What about newspapers that have cited your work? How about my offer of a debate? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Again, that's not relevant unless you're saying that you're refusing to debate because you insist on anonymity. I don't see how an audio debate is going to affect that, so why did you refuse? And surely you realise that to ask people to pay $20,000 when they have no legal recourse if you don't attend the debate is completely unreasonable?--[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:17, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Thomas, bring some non-obscure atheists to debate me with reasonable offers to debate me via written debate or pony up the $20,000 to be given to a ECFA certified Christian relief charity that is requested of me to debate obscure atheists who are part of vandal websites. It's that simple. Deal with it and stop whining. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, people won't pay $20,000 to debate with an obscure christian nerd. No whining here.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Yet AGAIN you have avoided the question: why do you impose such ludicrous conditions for a debate then accuse people of cowardice for not meeting them? If you genuinely want to debate atheists why don't you - as an obscure blogger - do so without demanding that they hand over $20,000 with no assurance other than your word that the debate will ever happen? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Oy, Reminder, Keep the discussion civil.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I'm certainly willing to avoid the word "ludicrous" in future if other participants stop calling people cowards, quarrelsome nerds or socially challenged, and agree to stop questioning the faith of the Christian participants here. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Agreed to avoid calling others 'obscure nerds'--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:35, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::By the way, given that: 1) each day there are 300 less atheists in the world and 80,000 additional people who call themselves Christian each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]) 2) The [[Question evolution! campaign]] will cull the atheists population further.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] - I certainly may up the amount obscure atheists who are part of a vandal website must donate to a Christian relief organization in order for me to debate them. :) And of course, given the way that [[Ben Bernanke]] prints money, inflation is certainly a consideration as well. Also, I do realize it is often difficult to find non-obscure atheists who are willing to debate (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]), but I certainly would look at reasonable debate offers from such individuals. :) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I am offering you a reasonable debate on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. I am not a "quarrelsome atheist" or anything else. We can have a written debate here on conservapedia right now or at an agreed time. Why are you avoiding this offer yet calling everyone else a coward? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::For the same reason as he avoided the offers from Jeeves, Ace McWicked and voiceoftruth2006, I imagine. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I don't know who those people are...? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Jeeves and Ace McWicked are two members of RW who each offered to pay the required $20,000 for a debate with User:Conservative; even so, he declined. voiceoftruth2006 is a YouTube atheist who offered to debate him two days ago; he ignored the offer. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Gee, if I had a spare $20,000 I certainly wouldn't be offering it up for an internet debate! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:01, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::It's probably quite safe to offer it to Ken; after all, if history is anything to go by he's not going to accept. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Excellent response, Conservative! Your intelligence level is obviously very, very high. [[User:AverageJoe|AverageJoe]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::How long do you intend to continue avoiding my question? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Oh I give up, it just doesn't make any sense...--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, do you think your comments on this page give a promising preview of your debating skills? Frankly, after reading your non-answers I have difficulties to imagine someone to pony up 2$ for the pleasure to have a written debate with you. But perhaps you can increase your market value by answering my question above:
::''So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well!''
Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::Jeeves and Ace never showed that they had a trustworthy Christian to make the donation which certainly was a condition to debate. I did suggest giving the money to a Bible believing pastor of their choosing, but of course, that never happened. I understand that obscure atheists who are part of a vandal site don't like my debate conditions, but I think it is safe to say that this does not keep me up at nights. :) My back is not against the wall - it is the atheist population that is shrinking the world each day while the conservative Christian population appears to be exploding in numbers each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]). :) Keep squabbling amongst yourselves quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] (see: [[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and women]]), while God keeps expanding the Christian population! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::So Aschlafly isn't a trustworthy Christian? I mean, they DID offer to give the money to him. Anyway you still haven't answered my question, have you? Do you really think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate an obscure blogger, with no legal assurance that the debate will actually take place even after they've paid, then call them cowards when they decline to do so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:32, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, my comments may have been lost on this page so please see [[Talk:Atheism_and_obesity#Reasonable_debate_offer|here]]. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

I'd just like to say that I think Conservative is not a coward and that he would debate if he could find a worthy opponent. Also, it is inappropriate to discuss this issue in public. --[[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] 18:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:That's your opinion, of course, and you're entitled to it. However as Conservative frequently discusses the cowardice of atheists on this site he can hardly complain when his own willingness (or otherwise) to debate crops up, can he? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Thomas, what was stopping Jeeves and Ace from giving the donation to Bible believing pastor of their choosing to give to a Christian relief organization? Were they unable to find Bible believing pastors? Are there no Bible believing pastors in their country or in the world? I am sorry, but their bluff was called and shown to be the farce that it was. Please feel free to blather on today, but don't be surprised if I disregard your blather. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What was stopping them giving the money to Andy Schlafly? I'll tell you what was stopping them giving it to a vicar; they didn't trust you and they wanted a properly witnessed and signed contract that legally committed you to doing the debate once the money had been paid. And you STILL haven't answered my question! You're just an obscure, anonymous blogger; don't you think it's utterly unreasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate you, with no assurance that you'll even attend, then call them cowards for not doing so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 19:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::User:Conservative, if you have the courage of your conviction then debating anyone about what you are sure is right then should be easy. Yet you avoid. Harding filling those who are watching this with confidence. I believe this to be an Encyclopedia where getting to the truth should be paramount. This can only be done by debate and a free exchange of ideas. Not be nit-picking the motives of those who wish to discuss things and come to a valid and provable conclusion[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 03:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
I am going to be frank. The idea of debating obscure atheist members of a vandal site is repugnant to me and I don't see much value in it. It would be the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists which I think is generally a bad practice and to be avoided if possible. I would need to see a lot of good come out of it, hence the requirement that these people donate $20,000 to a Christian relief organization. I also see a lot of trends that don't bode well for atheism both in the Western World and Eastern World so I think the [[decline of atheism]] will continue (deficits causing budget cuts to liberal Western public universities, further decline of the liberal mainstream press audience, tough economic times causing individuals to turn back to God, [[Question evolution! campaign]], explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], etc. etc.). Of course, this further reduces my incentive to want to debate obscure atheists. Lastly, there are some personal things which I put off doing that I wish to attend to. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

:Strange. I thought that converting these atheist by using your superior debating skills would be a kind of reward in itself. How do you intend to help to cut the ''squeak'' of atheists in half if you are unwilling to engage them? Is this the reason that the [[Question Evolution!]] campaign is oriented to churches - which are the most unlikely places to find a atheist to convert him (or her)? And surprisingly, you are willing to speak with the ring-leaders, the ''top terrorists''! If you don't think yourself to be fit to move the heart - and brains - of the ''obscure atheists'', what do you think you can accomplish by speaking to the more famous ones? Oh wait: do you have a secret rhetorical device which can be used only once - and you try to optimize its impact? Sorry, those things work only in the fantasy of little boys plotting in their super-secret tree-houses...

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:01, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
RonLar, I think the type of atheists who are part of vandal websites or the type of atheists who harassed Veritas48 at YouTube are the bottom of the barrel and are not the type of people who are good candidates for engagement. Jesus advised Christians not to cast pearls before swine. Second, I have always claimed that due to the weakness of atheism and the strength of the Christian position that it doesn't take exceptional debating skills to prevail and that is why a 15 year old boy can win debates with adult atheists as can be seen [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSo9hW2dOBo HERE]. Next, in most cases there is a reason why obscure internet atheists from vandal websites are obscure. Few people are interested in what they have to say. Lastly, tracts are designed to be evangelical and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] tracts are no different. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

=== In Short..===
You are saying that [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]], [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]], [[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]], [[User:SharonW|SharonW]], and [[User:ARamis|ARamis]] are vandals/atheists? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 12:09, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:I am getting tired of these false accusations: Proverbs 3:30, ''Do not accuse a man for no reason, when he has done you no harm''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:14, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
== Behaviour of Conservative (again) ==

Andy, Contrary to the wishes of every CP editor who has posted here, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] has added some more disgusting articles about bestiality: [[Bestiality and Sweden]], [[Bestiality and Britain]] and (no joking) [[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]. What's more, he's protected these pages so no other editor can get rid of them. This whole stupid bestiality stunt by Conservative is making CP a complete and utter joke.

1. If I or any other editor blocks him for a short time to make him cool off, he'll simply revert the block. Will you please block him? Give him a week to get those animal images out of his head.

2. Will you please delete his disgusting pages on bestiality?

3. Will you please consider whether or not there's any point in a well-intentioned editor (like me) contributing to an encyclopedia which is just turning into a joke because of the deranged activities of an out-of-control editor who has a high level of administrator privilege? [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:First things first...
::1. You're going to successfully refute the bestiality edits posted. Either the individuals or countries cited have made claims pertaining to their support of bestiality, or they didn't.
::2. You're going to explain how yourself, a recent contributor to this website, can justify the removal of a senior administrator who has been here from the beginning; this explanation is contingent on you being able to satisfy condition number 1. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:37, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::1. These articles run contrary to the founding principles of this site in that they are utterly inappropriate for family viewing.
:::2. Personally I have no interest in "the removal" of User:Conservative, just some of his offensive articles.
:::Karajou, I urge you to move beyond a reflex defense of User:Conservative and to look at the harm being done to the reputation of this site. One of the reasons I have used Conservapedia as a reference instead of Wikipedia is that it doesn't contain references to extreme deviance. These latest articles violate that principle. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:44, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::And what harm is that? What harm is actually being done to this website? What exactly is the harm that this website is engaging in by telling the public about a disgusting sexual practice and those who promote it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:50, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I can help with number one in that [[Bestiality and Britain]] doesn't have any mention of Britian and actually pertains to a British study of Sweden and has nothing to do with Britain - hence should be deleted. Also, [[Atheism and bestiality]] again says nothing of atheists - the only connection is that Peter Singer himself is an atheist. I actually can't check any deeper as I am on a shared network and don't want these articles on the logs. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:45, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::1a. Well, I have no direct information about the claims of bestiality of course, not least because no hard, verifiable data is given in any of the articles Conservative cites.
::::1b. Bestiality is illegal in Britain, unlike in many US states - including some of the most conservative states such as Alabama. Would you like me to add an article about "The USA, conservatives and bestiality" just because some weirdo in Alabama might be doing it with a dog? That makes as much sense as Conservative's stupid articles about atheists and bestiality.
::::2. Because this senior administrator is completely out of control, making a total mockery of the website. Think about it for a microsecond - please... He clearly needs a cooling-off period to stop thinking about such weird stuff, let alone putting on a website which is supposed to be family-friendly. Some of the other senior administrators need to get a grip. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:52, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::You have ''"no direct information about the claims of bestiality"'', by admission, so all of this is just another attack on Conservative by whiners who cannot or will not offer anything beyong whines and rants, and this has been going on in one form or another by select individuals for years. My message is simple: it stops NOW. You're going to respect him, or you're going to leave. Period. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:03, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I am not going to mention Conservative but, Karajou, I would like to point out my comment above - particularly as you said ''the individuals or countries cited have made claims pertaining to their support of bestiality, or they didn't.'' The Britain article says nothing about the practice in Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::If Conservative - or any other user - is wrong, then you ''politely'' say so, provide evidence to back up your claims, and then drop the subject. That is how it works here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is what I have already done I thought? The [[Bestiality and Britain]] article does not mention bestiality practices in Britain hence needs to be renamed or removed. thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:29, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou, the guiding principles of the site take precedence over everything else here, except the Word of our Lord. I quote from the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]]:
::::::::::''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable"'' - people have already pointed out that "Conservative"'s study is neither of these.
::::::::::''"Any content you create ... must be family-friendly"'' - these articles '''clearly''' are not family-friendly.
:::::::::In other words, these new articles by "Conservative" are in violation of two of the founding principles of this site. By your own standards, they must be deleted. I'm afraid that the onus is upon '''you''' to explain why these articles remain, in violation of the standards defined by the site's owner. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:50, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
I think that it is very disrespectful to keep bringing this debate to Andy talk page. It is obvious that he does not want to get involved in this, and you should respect his decision. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 18:55, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:Max, Is the Bible family friendly? What are your thoughts about these verses of the Bible: Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21 ? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::Well, that is a slightly facetious argument. You can't compare the Bible, and the laws of God, to Conservapedia firstly and secondly Conservapedia, unlike the Bible, has an explicit Family Friendly rule. And please address the fact that [[Bestiality and Britain]] has no mention of Bestiality and Britain. Just to be clear - my quarrel isn't with you ''personally'' but at the poor scholarship. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:53, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Khalid, atheism is madness and immorality is commonly associated with atheism. When people read about topics such atheism, it is not surprising to many people to read about odd/bizarre/weird things and people committing sinful acts. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:58, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::The history of liberal opposition to my articles [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS8rpt1y6lk&feature=related reminds me of someone.] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:12, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Just because someone has problems with your articles doesn't make them a liberal. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 21:14, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

''And what harm is that? What harm is actually being done to this website? What exactly is the harm that this website is engaging in by telling the public about a disgusting sexual practice and those who promote it?'' I generally see to possible disadvantages:
*the visibility of Conservapedia may suffer: ''bestiality'' isn't a word suffered well by filters, especially not by those which parents use to protect their children from the filth on the net.
*''you are fat'' may be seen as a crude bit of humor, ''you are abusing animals'' less so. I assume that's the reason for which Andy deleted a section on his talk page - remember, he's a lawyer!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:24, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== Andy, are you reading your Talk page? ==

If so, please read the section above (Behaviour of Conservative) and please take a decision on which way you want CP to go: family-friendly encyclopedia or weirdo blog. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 18:08, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:That's very black and white. When making an argument try to avoid those.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Khalid, atheism is madness and immorality is commonly associated with atheism. When people read about topics such atheism, it is not surprising to many people to read about odd/bizarre/weird things and people committing sinful acts. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:58, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Can this section be removed? It is a waste of space since I'm sure Mr. Schlafly reads his own talk page. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 21:16, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Why don't we move this entire discussion to the Community Portal? I am sure Mr. Schlafly doesn't appreciate all the bickering on his talk page.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:23, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== The atheism blues ==

Announcing: [[Essay: The atheism blues|The atheism blues]]. Let the whining, kvetching and crying the blues begin in earnest! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
:I am still waiting for you to accept my Atheism and Obesity debate challenge and address the fact that [[Bestiality and Britain]] contains information on Bestiality and Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:06, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
::The start of this section sounds like trolling. I've seen my fair share of them in the [[User:JonG/Tribunal|Tribunal]] and on deviantART.
::'''*hammers in a sign exclaiming, "Do not feed the trolls!"*''' [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 00:21, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: The atheism blues

2011-09-30T13:10:43Z

RonLar: /* Something doesn't add up */ new section

Ahem* It's atheism with an "i."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:15, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why not write a song about the non-atheists who have valid criticisms of your article who attempt to point them out only to be rebuffed and insulted? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:33, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::Based on? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:21, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
It's fascinating to watch other people guide your behavior, User:Conservative. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 23:50, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Something doesn't add up ==

You have no time to take part in the ''The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings'', you told Rob Smith that you could talk to him at best for a couple of minutes a month, but you find six hours to ''compose'' this little ditty? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Anemometer

2011-09-30T12:22:15Z

RonLar: Created page with "An '''anemometer''' (from the Greek: ''ánemom'' for wind) is a device to measure the speed of wind. It was invented in the 1850s. [[Category: Measurem..."

An '''anemometer''' (from the [[Greek]]: ''ánemom'' for [[wind]]) is a device to measure the [[speed]] of wind. It was [[invention|invented]] in the 1850s.

[[Category: Measurements]]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-29T12:01:40Z

RonLar: /* Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative */ @User:Conservative

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-29T06:22:17Z

RonLar: /* re: User: LeonardS wanting to debate User: Conservative */@Conservative

User talk:Ddiaz841

2011-09-27T15:22:18Z

RonLar: Created page with "== Young Americans for Freedom == Your version seemed to be just a copy from wikipedia's article - a no-no here at Conservapedia. ~~~~"

== Young Americans for Freedom ==
Your version seemed to be just a copy from wikipedia's article - a no-no here at Conservapedia.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:22, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Young Americans for Freedom

2011-09-27T15:18:45Z

RonLar: copied from wikipedia, turned back to earlier version

'''Young Americans for Freedom''' was founded by [[Bill Buckley]] in 1960 as a [[conservative]] student group on college campuses. The organization split apart in the 1980s but nominally still exists.

==See Also==
* [[The Sharon Statement]]

==Further reading==
* John A. Andrew, ''The Other Side of the Sixties: Young Americans for Freedom and the Rise of Conservative Politics'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Sixties-Conservative-Perspectives/dp/0813524016/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241684581&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gregory Schneider. ''Cadres for Conservatism: Young Americans for Freedom and the Rise of the Contemporary Right'' (1998)

==References==

*http://www.yaf.com/

[[Category:Conservative Organizations]]

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-09-27T13:25:29Z

RonLar: /* Really, Ken? */ no medical conditions

It is morally superior to attempt to do the right thing from the begining rather than live with the assumption that your sins will be forgiven. {{unsigned|Anyprophet}}

Hmm... this article is better than it used to be, it's more readable and seems more relevant. Ok Conservative. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Surely there is one more reason? ==
There is one major (possible) cause of atheism missing from this page, and it is stated on the main page for atheism (under "Atheism and Why do Atheists State They Disbelieve?"), it goes like this:
The atheist has been either been presented with evidence against or no evidence for the existence of God.
Many prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins et al) claim this is why they don't believe, and is clearly a cause of atheism.

please unlock this page or add this reason.

:What, you expect that Ken - sorry, [[User:Conservative]] - is going to unlock a page he's laid his holy atheist-repelling touch on? Please, read the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]. Especially the ones about how admins have to treat all editors with respect, rather than bullying them. Alternatively, and preferably, get yourself away from this nest of [[User:Conservative|lunatics]]. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

== In Need of Editing ==
Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies. In addition, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

This line strikes me as having multiple flaws. First of all, if you follow the link to the Atheism page, nowhere does it cite a 'demonstration' or 'study' that demonstrates moral depravity in the atheist community throughout history. As such, the only real 'support' here are Biblical quotes. These quotes should be cited here instead of linked externally. The last line is also laughable: Therefore, (what is there that's been shown? 3 Biblical quotes?) moral depravity is certainly (such a strong word) one of the prime causes of atheism. This entire sentence is inferred by the article writer with no external referencing and, frankly, doesn't make much sense.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 18:51, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== I feel like I need to say something ==
*The article seems to present only causes based on the assumption that atheism is an incorrect position. It should really present some more neutral causes as well. Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 15:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, really. Maybe some people just don't believe in God? Is that so unreasonable?

>> Yes, it's unreasonable to assume that atheism does not just happen. Scientific evidence and logical reasoning are not sufficient to give rise to atheism. Some event must have caused atheism such as; abusive upbringing, use of antidepressants, partial insanity, certain additives and toxins in food such at BT, ERDA, amoxicilin and other substances known to contribute to improper executive function of the human brain.

These are all neutral cases that show the causation of atheism and prove it is a consequence of mental deficiency.

:No, those are things you say cause atheism. Without documentation, they prove nothing. Why do you seem to have so much trouble accepting the idea that some people, as I do, honestly believe God does not exist? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

== unlock this article ==

unlock this article so I can add a template to it -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Added another reason ==
Personal Tragedy. There are some who have forsaken, quit, or otherwise stopped believing in any religion due to the loss of a loved one, or being crippled or something equally bad.

== Section to add to entry ==

I request that the entry be unlocked to be able to add another section: "Acculturation". Clearly, acculturation is a major cause of atheism. For example, the overwhelming majority of Japanese people do not believe in Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in Kami, an animist pantheon. Likewise, many times more Indians than the entire population of the US, are atheistic in regards to Yahweh/Jehovah; instead, they believe in the Hindu pantheon. This is due to the culture within which these people were raised, more than any other factor. [[User:Bricology|Bricology]] 15:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

[[Logical Necessity]]

The question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be.

It might be replied that there are non-trivial necessary existential propositions in mathematics, such as ‘There are infinitely many primes’ which implies of course ‘the number 7 exists’. (We can ignore the unhelpful ‘Something exists’ which is allowed by standard first order logic purely for convenience as few would need to apply logic to discourse about an empty universe for which in any case there are separate rules for determining validity or otherwise.) It is well known that Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic claimed to reduce arithmetic to logic. However in effect he was using a free logic without ontological commitment. Claims to reduce set theory (and so analysis) to logic are of course even more problematic. Would it help towards an adequate conception of God if we said that God has the sort of existence or non-existence that prime numbers have? One might say ‘not much’. In any case it is dangerous to talk of types of existence because it treats existence as though it was a property. At the time that he wrote his article Findlay was following the logical positivist line that logic and mathematics are alike tautologous. In the case of mathematics this can be seriously questioned. Also most theists would say that prime numbers are too abstract to be compared to God, though perhaps not John Leslie who has argued that God is a principle that brings value into existence (Leslie 1979 and 1989). We are still left with Findlay's challenge as to what a conception of God as a necessary being could be.

One thing that will not differentiate the theist from the atheist is to say that God, if he exists, is necessary in the sense of not being dependent on anything else for his existence. The atheist will say that the universe fits this bill because the universe contains everything that there is and so is not caused by anything else. It is indeed hard to see what an adequate conception of God and his necessary existence could be. For the purposes of this article, let us explore what the relations and lack of relations between atheism and agnosticism could be. Here we shall neglect the requirement of necessary existence and in a later section we shall consider the case of a posteriori arguments for the existence of a mind-like creator of the universe. Of course without the requirement of necessity it raises the intelligent child's question ‘Who made God?’ Still, this might be regarded as inevitable but excusable in an a posteriori argument in which the hypothesis of a purposive creator is put forward and claimed to be justified much in the manner of any scientific hypothesis.

== Really? ==

I just finished reading this article and, really? I'm sorry, but I thought this was Conservapedia, not Encyclopedia Dramatica. I don't see the skeptic wiki calling us "morally depraved", or stupid for believing in God, so why should we do it to them? Also all the sources are biased, and based on personal opinion, making them utterly pointless. - [[User:Mager]]
:You've made some apparently helpful contributions, but know that we don't respond kindly to these kinds of accusations. You're awfully new here to have discovered that there is a vandal site already. If you wish to deny that atheism leaves a person with no rational basis for morality, maybe Wikipedia would be better for you. If you're willing to accept the truth, and get over the shock of being exposed to harsh truth for the first time, then you're welcome to stay here and contribute. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::Despite your status as moderator, JacobB, I think Mager has a very valid point here. First, you list Moral Depravity as a cause of atheism, and all of the reasoning from you last post showed moral depravity as a result of atheism. Secondly, the Moral Depravity argument seems only to apply to Christian morals. While atheists may not adhere to strict Christian morals, many of their personal beliefs create a vast overlap in the vast field of ethics. For example, almost all atheists believe it is wrong to kill, based on the human emotion of empathy. Atheists don't want to be killed, so they won't kill others. You may point to instances of violence or mass murder by atheists, but mental problems that lead people to commit atrocious acts of violence exist in all groups of people, regardless of belief system. Take for example the horrible crimes perpetrated by the Spanish dictator Franco. Franco was a staunch Catholic fighting against the atheistic communists. Franco killed thousands, despite his Christian principles. Thus, I propose that while atheists may not abide by Christian morals, almost all people live under many of the same morals, such as not killing or harming others, no matter what system of beliefs they subscribe to.

::Also, this is a talk page. Mager shared a good point, and there is no reason to fire back at him with sarcastic remarks questioning his loyalties to this online encyclopedia. Also, I'm not sure how the age of Mager's account correlates to him being able to find possible errors or things to improve on. Finally, I would like to note that you, Jacob, did nothing to respond to Mager's critiques. Maybe Conservapedia will be able to gain more popularity if the "Talk" page becomes a dialogue in which ideas are tested and questioned rather than a place of dogma. Would you like me to defend myself from being blocked in advance? I'm accusing you of being dogmatic because you make no reference to Mager's points in your response. You solely state that the fact that moral depravity and atheism are inherently linked is true, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. Instead of blocking me, please consider responding to Mager's or my arguments to promote dialogue on the "Talk" page. -AlexanderMonroe
:::::The atheist the Marque De Sade had no feelings of empathy. Secondly, I don't think you convincingly showed that mere feelings (which certainly can include mere sentimentality ) is something you can build morality on. Stalin had feelings. Unfortunately, his feelings often involved lust for power and envy. Third, the atheists certainly don't have a good track record when it comes to charity and mass murder. Apparently, there are a lot of hard hearted atheists and the feelings thing isn't cutting the mustard. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:42, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::My whole point is that empathy for most atheists does create a certain level of morality. We can take turns taking pot shots at the other side by naming dictators or murderers who were aligned with the other side's belief system, but in reality most people, in general, are not murderers or criminals. I'm not sure I can convince you that empathy can be an adequate replacement for Christian morality without converting you to atheism. I was raised Catholic under Christian morals. I then reasoned myselfto atheism. I believe that the morals and punishments of Christianity do not bind me, but my actions as a person have not changed much. I realize that if I kill someone, there are reprecussions. I realize that there are reprecussions to even a failure to reciprocate an act of kindness. Based on empathizing with others and understanding the real world consequences of my actions, I have established a pattern of behavior that, for the most part, fits into your set of morals.
::::::::::Why is the per capita donations to charity even when church donations are not counted lower for atheists? Secondly, research shows that atheists exposed to Christianity donate higher than atheists who have not been exposed to Christianiy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:15, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ Christians Give more to Charity than Atheists] by Dr. [[William Lane Craig]] - [[YouTube]] video [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:23, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

== Really, Ken? ==

Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple "No thank you, I'd rather not" will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you read [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] yet? There is hope and healing available. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:Interesting article. But it is not necessary to be obsessed with you, dear User:Conservative, to spot some inconsistencies between some of your statements and your actions: one can look into the logs of Conservapedia (your log-entries can be found [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Conservative&page=&year=&month=-1 here]). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):
:::'''''I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term. '''''
:On the other hand, you performed more than 5,200 logged actions after that date - as many as the next three busiest sysops (Aschlafly, Karajou and Jpatt) '''''together'''''. Generally your behavior doesn't change, whether you announce to have ''a full schedule in the following 90 days'' or not.

:You achieve this remarkable output by contributing to Conservapedia without much pause: over the last three days I couldn't find a period where you have been away from the computer form more than 6 1/2 h: you should try to avoid to have this lack of sleep to have an influence on the quality of your contributions.

:But this is not to uncommon for you: you can go for a nearly a whole day making pauses of half an hour, or for a couple of days without resting for six hours at a time. The only other sysop at Conservapedia who would do the same was TK. Now, it's clear why he showed this pattern - his illness didn't allow him to sleep for more than a precious two, three hours.

:Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...

:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
::Ronlar, I don't think it's very appropriate for you to be bringing up medical conditions in a public place. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I didn't want to bring up ''medical conditions'', I just made some - as I hope helpful - observations, without offering a diagnosis. BTW: is [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] a medical condition?
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Causes of atheism

2011-09-27T13:10:41Z

RonLar: /* Really, Ken? */ @Conservative

Talk:Atheism and bestiality

2011-09-22T21:15:06Z

RonLar: /* I don't even know what to say about this article... */

==I don't even know what to say about this article...==
I was going to leave Conservapedia but when I see this kind of article, I just can't. Conservative, do you know that you are becoming very offensive? 
I heard that you were always eager to debate. I have a lot of questions about christianity & atheism that I would like to discuss. Would you be willing to answer my questions ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:56, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Absolutely revolting. Andy Schlafly, please put an end to this. ==

Disgusted. As a Christian I am reviled by this. There are no links that support what this Peter Singer said, merely heresy from another website which doesn't state its sources. Then it is taken to paint a group of people in the same stripe. Absolutely immoral, unsupported filth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:14, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:What's next? '''''Atheism and mastur<nowiki />bation'''''? Oh wait, [[Conservapedia:Deletedpage|mastur<nowiki />bation]] is a naughty word - even the spam-filter doesn't like it. Bestiality should be added to the list! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:15, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2011-09-19T05:25:41Z

RonLar: /* Via several weird redirected talk pages... */

[[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1|Archive1]]

== Via several weird redirected talk pages... ==

Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist ''extraordinaire'', right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?

Best regards,

Huw [[User:Human|Human]] 02:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:Setting aside whether or not [[Penn Jillette]] offered a good reason, is this often correct?: J. P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason." The reason I ask is due to this: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::Was this comment placed here by accident?
::*It doesn't have to do anything with the comment above.
::*User:Human is blocked indefinitely, so he won't answer timely.
::*Traditionally, new stuff goes to the end of a thread...
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:25, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any ''discussion''...
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I think you are an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno atheist/evolutionist black knight] and can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of another argument you just lost:A You won't win any debate by just ignoring your opponents: it's like your [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas - what good does it do ''contact Texas churches'', that's not where the atheists you are trying to convert hang out!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::To explain the above in detail: if there were some example of a discussion on a talk page where you, Conservative, have successfully debated an atheist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, you would have no problem to link to it. The fact that you don't do so, but instead choose an [[ad hominem]] as an answer implies that
::- there isn't such a discussion or
::- if there is, you have lost.
::And that's why you were able to lose this simple argument in two sentences - congratulations!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I find it interesting that members of a certain atheist website incessantly whine about this article. Is there any leader or are there any leaders of that atheist website who could easily shed some poundage? The reason I mention this is that generally speaking the stuck pig squeals the loudest. :) I do know that a significant percentage of the leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement had problems with being overweight (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] ). I also know that a number of [[American Atheists]]'s board of directors could benefit by losing some weight as can be seen [http://www.atheists.org/about/Board_of_Directors HERE]. Instead of whining about this article, I do think that some atheists could better spend their time by asking prominent atheist "fat cats" to lose some weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::*A stuck pig squeals - whether it was stuck rightfully or not. You know, sometimes the innocent protest, too.
::::::*You didn't answer my question (''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'') but again went on a tangent.
::::::*BTW, is this the way you intent to ''win'' debates: hinting that your opposite is fat - or that he knows some fat people?
::::::*Try to regard our little exchange of comments as a discussion. Reread it. Reflect on it. Could you answer any of the questions? How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: *cough* I am a Christian conservative, and I must say that this discussion has made me curious. Conservative, why aren't you just giving this guy examples of debates you've won if you have them? I mean, I don't ''want'' you to be wrong or anything, but this is just confusing, and frankly, this discussion has almost proven to me that RonLar is right and not you, Conservative. ''Why not just release whatever debates you have?'' And RonLar DOES have a fine, perfectly fair question. All he wants is an example of where you debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, or a related topic. That request shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't make his question less valid. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 17:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::StoryMaker, I will let readers decide if you are a bona fide Christian conservative. Personally, I am skeptical. Next, this talk page is for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Ah, an ''ad hominem'', again. And still - after a month - the question ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, (successfully) debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'' is unanswered, or, to be more precise, it is implicitly answered '''no'''... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages.
:::::::::Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Nominate for deletion ==

I'd like to propose that this article should be deleted; we could use a shortened version as a section of the "Atheism and health" article. It's just not solid enough to be a standalone article, and frankly it also lets atheists accuse Conservapedia of relying on ad hominems. Are we trying to provide a valuable educational resource or just insult atheists? Some people are far too quick to label atheists as malevolent, insane or abnormal. Well, most of them aren't; they're simply people who don't believe in God and they're generally well educated and intelligent. Some of them are going to take us seriously if we can present good, reasoned arguments. However if the best we can do is to call them fat bum bandits they're just going to laugh at us and so, I'm afraid to say, based on conversations I've had with friends from church about what I've been trying to do here, are a lot of Christians. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, before your suggestion is given merit, I think you need to do a better job at refuting the data in the article plus show that atheist community has adequately addressed their sin problem and the problems sin is causing within their community. By the way SamCoulter, what does the Bible say about atheists and what does the Bible say about fools? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::::As has been pointed out on numerous occasions the data in the article mentions neither atheism nor obesity. As for the atheist community's sin problem, if there IS an atheist community sin isn't a concept that will have any meaning to it so they're not going to see a problem. Sin is going against God's law, so the issue of atheists and their attitude to sin can be fairly easily deduced from that. I know what the bible says about atheists and I know what it says about fools - essentially that they're the same thing - but what do atehists care about what the bible says? They don't care if it says that they're fools and I do believe it's their minds that we should be trying to change here. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:12, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

===An idea===
Why don't we have a vote on whether this should remain an article of be moved to essay? We'd have disqualify users who haven't been here awhile to stop vandals and the like swinging the vote. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm happy to be excluded from that vote because I've only been here a month or so, but I think it's an excellent idea. As an essay, a personal opinion, it's perfectly reasonable. As an encyclopaedia article? Not so much. Conservapedia has massive potential - and I'll say right now that User:Conservative has been quite helpful to me in my efforts to improve it - but this article WOULD be better as an essay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, before you invoke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqZjAybWXk mob rule], why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Firstly I was explicitly against mob rule by stating it should only be trusted user to vote. Second: ''why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first?''....I have! You have ignored it time and time again! The entire page is predicated on a survey '''that doesn't mention atheism or obesity!''' That, sir, is a factual error! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have tried having this conversation with you many times - look at some of my comments above '''the Gallup study does not support the conclusion'''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, there is a number of bodies of evidence (some of them very corpulent) that I presented in the 24 pages of material for this article. :) Stop using the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and deal with the entire WEIGHT of evidence that the atheist community has problems with obesity within their community. :) By the way, I do find it telling that you cannot find a single factual error in the 24 page article. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Stop moving the goalposts Conservative. You asked me to find a single error and I have found a single error. It is not a fallacy of exclusion, you asked and I answered. The Gallup Study '''does not''' support your conclusion. That is a single error and that is all you asked me point out. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, we both know you found nothing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, can you not find ''anything'' positive to write about regarding fat people? You've worked hard to tie us to atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, evolutionists, feminists and Alzheimer's (that I know of), but nothing that a conservative Christian would consider good. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:03, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, the topic of the article is [[Atheism and obesity]]. The question you pose is beyond the scope of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pardon my confusion about the topic, because this article meanders from '''obesity''' to fat homosexuals to '''neurotic fat people who must be atheists because they obviously have mental and emotional issues''', to various '''"nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections on atheists''', to Chuck Norris talking about the internet, '''to internet atheism, to more "nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections''', back to fat homosexuals, then to fat lesbians, to chubby homosexuals, to fat evolutionists, '''back to neurotic, depressed fat people must be atheists''', to fat people can't get married, to physical ailments fat people get, to fat Alzheimer's patients, to fat people believing in UFOs because they lack self-discipline, to more UFO stuff (seriously, ''UFOs''?), to giving statistics about the growth of Christianity, to Chuck Norris saying fat people are horrid,''' to overcoming obesity by being a Christian, and finally to a list of pages making fun of fat atheists'''. The way I see it, the bolded sections are the only ones with a tenuous connection to the title of this article.

:::::But I believe you answered my question anyway, so I thank you for that. It's really too bad you can't find ''any'' good in people with weight issues. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::I think a lot of Conservative's articles are made to be thought-provoking - to ask you to think about things you might not normally consider. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well, I agree this ''started'' as thought provoking but when finding out that the very source the entire thrust of this article hangs on neither mentions obesity or atheism it stops become thought provoking and becomes fallacious. When this is then pointed out to the author who completely ignores it it becomes an embarrassment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, when are you going to show 3 things: 1) The entire thrust of the article hangs on the Gallup study. 2) It is wrong to provide data on the very religious 3) There is a marked difference between the non-religious and atheists (I leave this question up to the readers). Seeing as the article has over 20 pages of material with various bodies of data, I think #1 is impossible for you to maintain. On the other hand, being in clear error has never stopped you before. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::How many surveys in this article draw a relation between physical health and religious beliefs? I can only see one - the Gallup Study. Hence the entire premise, that atheism and obesity are somehow correlated, hang on the Gallup study. I am happy to be proven wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please show me where I have been "in clear error" before and I will happily apologise for it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since you cannot show me another study, in this article, relating to health and religiosity, then I will stand by my original comments. I will gladly apologise if wrong but at this stage there is a critical flaw in the article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:45, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

==it must be a joke==
Come on, this article is just nonsense, I clearly suspect Conservative to be a parodist. You cannot just list fifty fat atheist and say that ALL atheists are fat, that's just WRONG! I can easily find 50 fit ahteist and conclude that ALL atheists are fit ! Another interesting fact should be to compare obesity rate in Europe and America and then to compare atheism in Europe and America. More atheists in Europe but more obeses in America ? What should I conclude here ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:16, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Where does the article say all atheists are fat? Secondly, comparing apples to apples is more scientific in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, comparing very religious European people to European atheists. You can also do statistical analysis to measure particular variables. I suggest taking remedial reading classes plus taking a few courses in statistics.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Obesity by states: [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html]. Intersting to see that more religious states are those with the more obese people. Conclusion: either religious people are fatter, either atheists living with religious people get fatter than atheists living with atheists. Another study arguing for fatter christians: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TnJ9RuzDGZ8]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:35, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::ARamis, the Feinstein study you linked to only showed a correlation between obesity and how religious people were AS YOUNG ADULTS; he didn't check how religious the obese subjects are NOW. Nevertheless as far as its conclusions go it seems valid and it's one more reason why this article should be deleted. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::That would be great for you if we lived world with one or two variables. Unfortunately for you, we don't. I am used to atheists not understanding statistics and science so I am not upset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Oh Conservative, please explain to me where I failed, please excuse my pride for daring oppose the Conservapedia "facts". Please provide your statistical data (where is it?) that would open my eyes to the Truth.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:56, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::ARamis, you do have a pride issue as demonstrated by your lack of apology for incorrectly declaring the article supposedly said all atheist are fat. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who is reluctant to graciously admit error. Second, my post above dealt with your obesity by states "argument". I see now you posted a link the MSNBC article. Third, the NorthWestern study was already discussed (see above). I have nothing further to add on this point. Lastly, I think its pointless to have discussions with atheists on this matter who refuse to tackle the article in a more comprehensive manner as I see it as merely engaging in [[fallacy of exclusion]] "reasoning". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, I want to apology for my agressive behavior last week. I would be glad if we could start this over. I understand that this article does not state that all atheists are fat but it clearly imply that being an atheist give you more chance to being obese. Can you please tell me why you think we cannot compare religion and diet between different countries ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:42, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My opinion is that atheists get to say what it is. Your opinion is clearly different; fine, that's your right. However if someone says "I'm an atheist," and you say "Then according to my encyclopaedia of philosophy you believe X" and he replies "Well, I don't," what does that mean? That he's lying, that he's not an atheist or that your encyclopaedia is wrong? Secondly, I never claimed that you DID say social Darwinism is exactly the same as macroevolution; I just pointed out that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with evolutionary theory, because it doesn't. Finally, we seem to have a different perception on whether or not I've adequately responded to your questions and again that is your right, but it's also mine. No offence, but there are some questions - such as why is this article based on a study that talks about neither atheism nor obesity - that you haven't answered too well yourself. I am NOT trying to get into a fight with you or anyone else here; I am trying to expand Conservapedia into a valuable educational resource that will turn people away from atheism and evolutionism, as are you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, where did a claim that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people? I didn't and I don't think it is fair for you to misrepresent what I have written. For example, certainly it is possible in some cases for someone starting with an IQ of 200 to suffer brain impairment, yet still be smart. In terms of "intellectual superiority", it all depends on who you are comparing a person to. Plus, we really don't to what degree many health related weight problems are so Conservapedia offering material on the affects of excess weight plus various solutions for many people's problems with being overweight is a public service. I do know that in many cases the health effects of being overweight in terms of symptoms can be reversed to a large degree via weight loss. Also, given that many maladies are progressive in terms of their effects, it is better for people to be educated on the effects of being overweight sooner rather than later. Next, given that I cite responsible sources for my articles in terms of their claims such as medical journals citing research, etc., I see no reason to debate you. If you had claimed that specific statements in my articles were wrong and attempted to offer evidence to the contrary that might be different, but this is not the case plus I have used responsible sources for my articles such as medical journals citing research, etc. Lastly, thanks for the offer to have a phone discussion, but I think I will decline at this time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::No, you haven't actually ''written'' the words that there are no smart/talented/etc. overweight/obese people, you have simply ''implied'' it. Reread the quote at the top of this section. Look at the articles you've written that associate obesity with things that you don't believe in. Look at the articles you've '''''not''''' written about obesity - the fact that there is an issue within the Christian community; that it's an issue among heterosexuals, etc.; that there is some debate on whether a person can be overweight and still be healthy; that thin people can also be considered to have "normal weight obesity". I haven't argued about the medical information you've provided - it's the ''application'' of that information that I'm protesting. You use "obese" as a pejorative, and that's not right. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:24, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am not going to spend time addressing what I supposedly said "between the lines", implied, etc. If my critics don't want to show me where I made a mistake in what I actually wrote then so be it. Secondly, if you want to open a debate page entitled "Can a person be overweight and still be healthy?" then please be my guest. Given the massive amount of research that has been done on the effects of being overweight by the medical community and the biblical admonitions against overeating, I think you face an uphill battle but if you want to fight this battle with those who disagree with you, then so be it. Also, how can being overweight be an issue within a community as you suggest above, but still be healthy? Over in overweight means too much. If there are no adverse effects to being overweight (unhealthy to be overweight), then are they '''over'''weight? If you want to address the central issue, then I suggest you open the debate page I suggested. If you do open such a debate page, I would suggest you provide counter evidence to each of the sources I used on the effects of being overweight (effect on longevity, effects on brain function, etc. etc. etc. ). I do realize that there are health risks associated with being underweight and that health is more than just BMI/weight and that mortality does not necessarily mean quality of life (joint problems associated with being overweight, impaired brain function, etc.), but I don't think you can show me that any of the information I presented were examples of healthy lifestyles being shown as unhealthy. ([[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I might have used another Conservapedians claims/source about BMI rather than use my own and a responsible source seems to have been used. If I did use another Conservapedians BMI source, I used a BMI of over 25 as being overweight. Here is something I just read from a 2010 source: "After analyzing data on 1.46 million mostly white, non-Hispanic adults who participated in 19 long-term studies — each designed to follow participants for between 5 to 28 years — researchers determined that, overall, a BMI (or body mass index, a ratio of height and weight that determines overweight and obesity) between 20.0 and 24.9 was associated with the lowest risk of death in healthy non-smoking adults." [http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/03/whats-the-ideal-bmi-for-longevity] The [[Mayo Clinic]] which has a high reputation for giving sound health advice concurs with this figure. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:12, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One last thing, this is a volunteer wiki and people can within reason choose the topics of the articles they write on depending on their interests and what they feel the public might be interested in and use such things as the Conservapedia commandments in order to have a good article (cite sources, etc.). If you want to do the requisite amount of research an write good articles on topics such as [[Heterosexuality and obesity]], etc. etc. then be my guest. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, I'm planning two articles: [[Negative stereotypes in society and obesity]] and [[Christian and weight issues]]. The first is prevelant (see [[atheism and obesity]], with its numerous pictures of atheists, dictators, murderers, etc., and not one person who has a positive reputation with Christians], and the second is actually a greater problem than [[atheism and obesity]], given that Christians are supposed to follow the Bible's teachings, as you've pointed out. I'm sure there are numerous examples for both articles. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I did some poking around the internet. If you write the articles, I would suggest not titling an article [[Christian and weight issues]] as it does not seem to be a popular search engine search so people will not find your article. Also, based on Google suggestions, here are some more prevalent searches via the search engines if you want to write on these topics: [[Obesity stereotypes]] and [[Christian weight loss]] and [[Christian weight loss programs]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:23, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Might be of interest ==

An interesting comparison of [http://blog.hunch.com/?p=48884 dietary habits]. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:That seems like a liberal-run sight trying to make conservatives look unhealthy and unsophisticated. They way it's written appears very deceptive. [[User:RSnelik|RSnelik]] 17:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

A lot depends on how you define conservative. Are they for limited government which includes the United States not being the world's policeman? Are they for nation building? Are neoconservatives being counted as conservatives?

For example:
"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one has a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. - George Washington, from Letter to James Monroe, August 25,1796.

Also:
"Hence , likewise , they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." - George Washington

Given the size of the U.S. Federal Government deficit and some Republicans having budget deficits, it seems to me as if the "conservatives" who want the United States to have an overgrown military are not doing a lot of deep thinking plus are not very disciplined and would be more given to making poor dietary choices. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Here is another point: There is no indication that Moses was fat or that kosher diets lead to obesity. Also, the "Kosher Diet is not a weight loss diet per se, but its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, fish and it's lack of...high-fat pork products...can make it an eating plan that supports healthy eating and a healthy relationship to food."[http://www.dietsinreview.com/diets/kosher-diet/] Christianity has arguably had the greatest impact on Western Civilization and Christianity is a very conservative religion that says it is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. The Mayo Clinic says that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011] Jesus, the carpenter and traveling preacher who was not fat, was the founder of Christianity and he ate a kosher diet probably influenced by the Mediterranean diet. Thus, while Jesus is not a conservative in the 20th century political sense, he definitely was more conservative and slimmer than overweight and obese atheists/evolutionists. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, you cannot compare the diet of Jesus to the diet of 21th century evolutionnists. It is 2 different times with completely different diets. And what make you think that Jesus was conservative ? He surely had pretty modern ideas for this time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:38, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Also, the Apostle Peter who lived in Rome, probably was not overweight either and many present day Italians incorporate a Mediterranean diet. In addition, "In Europe, Italy was the only country where average weights actually dropped, and, along with France and Switzerland, it's home to some of Europe's slimmest people on average." [http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14818710,00.html] I think Penn Jillette needs to ask himself, "What would Jesus or Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eat?" :) Also, unlike the overweight atheist Penn Jillette, Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone is known for his [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]! :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, for Italy, France and Switzerland are countries with very high ratio of atheists, I fail to see how this helps your cause.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 19:55, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Do you believe that the atheist Penn Jillette has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the conservative Christian Chuck Norris and the Italian stallion Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone? See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::Conservative, what does machismo have to do with obesity ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:00, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I am slightly confused also. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Atheists and liberals often have great difficulty understanding the concept of [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Well I am neither and I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::"I like [[John McCain|McCain]] a lot. A lot. The script that's being written - and the reality - is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with it." - Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I'm sorry? I still don't understand. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::And Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone eats a lot of fish, just like Jesus and the Apostle Peter did. :) [http://www.howcelebsgetfit.com/sylvester-stallone-fitness-training-exercise-and-diet-plan/] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Why are you obsessed with Stallone today? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:40, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults, but given that he incorporates aspects of the Mediterranean diet, he probably generally eats more like Jesus and the Apostle Peter does than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette who professes to respect science. :) I thought medical science, exercise science, and nutritional science were all part of science. :) And of course, the fit Stallone has more [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|machismo]] than the overweight atheist Penn Jillette. :) See also: [[Sye Ten Bruggencate's debate challenge to atheist Penn Jillette]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::Stallone was born in America. But I still can't see your point. Do you know that there are a lot of atheist in southern Europe who have a Mediterranean diet ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:10, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Pat Tillman didn't lack machismo; neither did Bruce Lee. Lance Armstrong won seven Tour de France races. George Clooney is very popular with the ladies. All were/are atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:02, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:Bruce Lee '''definitely''' had machismo! Stallone became a catholic in 1996. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:04, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::[[Bruce Lee|Did he]]? By the way, "...it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." - Hebrews 9:27 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:07, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::What does that mean ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:12, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::: Stallone also took a lot of human growth hormone and was nearly charged for having it in Australia. Hardly a Biblical diet. [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
As I indicated above, "Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone certainly has his faults". With that being said, who does you think is in better health: Stallone or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? Who do you think took better care of their health: Jesus or the overweight atheist Penn Jillette? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:23, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Probably hard to tell when basing on mere looks. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:29, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Interesting fact: Penn Jillette is NOT the only atheist in the world. Why would you keep focusing on him ? Why don't you talk about other atheists like Bruce Lee Lance Armstrong or any of the multitude of fit atheists (like me for example) ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 00:28, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Penn Jillette is not the only atheist in the world, but he makes up for it in weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::Wow, that's a pretty good argument!--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:07, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== You know, ==

the debate [[Talk:Atheism and obesity/Archive1#factual|here]] was never finished--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I did respond. Have you contacted your representatives yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Minor typo ==

My apologies if I'm focusing too much on minor details, but I read this page after noticing it came up in Recent Changes, and I found a ''very'' minor grammatical error. In the Atheism and Health section, a comma is missing, as indicated here:

<blockquote>
In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' '''(comma should go here)''' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation
</blockquote>

As I said, it's a minor issue, but as a professional writer, it's the sort of thing I notice. Thank you very much! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I just noticed that I myself had a minor typo in my above post, and I apologize. I meant "notice" instead of "noticed." Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

"Oceanic" Volcanoes

2011-09-18T19:25:06Z

RonLar: Undo revision 917645 by AlexWest (talk)

#REDIRECT [[Oceanic volcanoes]]

1. FC Koln

2011-09-18T19:24:55Z

RonLar: undo

#REDIRECT [[1. FC Köln]]

Gaussian integral

2011-09-18T06:47:56Z

RonLar: Seperatint -> Separating, Substitutiing -> Substituting

{{move|Gaussian integral}} (The current version uses quotation marks in the title!)
{{Template:Math-h}}
The '''Gaussian integral''' is the integral:

:<math> \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx. </math>

It has a value of <math>\sqrt\pi</math>. The value is needed to normalize the [[Normal distribution]].

==Derivation==

First look at the [[Double integral|double integral]]

<math>\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2-y^2}dxdy.</math>

Separating it,

<math>\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-y^2}dy = (\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx)^2 </math>

So, the double integral is merely the square of the Gaussian integral.

Now, do the double integral in polar co-ordinates. <math>-x^2-y^2= -(x^2+y^2) = -r^2</math> and <math>dxdy=rdrd\theta</math>, so:

<math>\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2-y^2}dxdy = \int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-r^2}rdrd\theta</math>

<math> = (\int_{0}^{2\pi}d\theta)(\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-r^2}rdr)</math>

<math> = 2\pi \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-r^2}rdr.</math>

Substituting <math>z=r^2</math> into the integral,

<math> = 2\pi \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-z}(z^{1/2})(\frac{dz}{2z^{1/2}})</math>

<math> = \pi \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-z}dz = \pi \left[-e^{-z} \right]_0^{\infty} = \pi.</math>

Therefore,

<math>(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx)^2 = \pi </math>

<math>\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx = \sqrt\pi.</math>

[[category:mathematics]]

Gaussian integral

2011-09-18T06:46:37Z

RonLar: drop the quotation marks!

{{move|Gaussian integral}} (The current version uses quotation marks in the title!)
{{Template:Math-h}}
The '''Gaussian integral''' is the integral:

:<math> \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx. </math>

It has a value of <math>\sqrt\pi</math>. The value is needed to normalize the [[Normal distribution]].

==Derivation==

First look at the [[Double integral|double integral]]

<math>\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2-y^2}dxdy.</math>

Seperating it,

<math>\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-y^2}dy = (\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx)^2 </math>

So, the double integral is merely the square of the Gaussian integral.

Now, do the double integral in polar co-ordinates. <math>-x^2-y^2= -(x^2+y^2) = -r^2</math> and <math>dxdy=rdrd\theta</math>, so:

<math>\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2-y^2}dxdy = \int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-r^2}rdrd\theta</math>

<math> = (\int_{0}^{2\pi}d\theta)(\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-r^2}rdr)</math>

<math> = 2\pi \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-r^2}rdr.</math>

Substitutiing <math>z=r^2</math> into the integral,

<math> = 2\pi \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-z}(z^{1/2})(\frac{dz}{2z^{1/2}})</math>

<math> = \pi \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-z}dz = \pi \left[-e^{-z} \right]_0^{\infty} = \pi.</math>

Therefore,

<math>(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx)^2 = \pi </math>

<math>\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-x^2}dx = \sqrt\pi.</math>

[[category:mathematics]]

Talk:Atheism and obesity

2011-09-16T18:18:21Z

RonLar: /* Via several weird redirected talk pages... */2nd try, hopefully civil enough....

Those are some very interesting poll findings! I have not seen those reported or discussed ANYWHERE in the media, thanks for getting them out there. Hopefully many people will now realize the dangers of choosing an atheistic lifestyle. PS I really enjoy the satires based on these findings. There very funny but also deliver a very serious message.

What's with this article? I'm an atheist, I'm 5' 9", 160 pounds, I bike to school almost every day, I eat healthy food, I hike, I work out from time to time and I know at least a couple of other atheist (I don't know many people all together) who have similar life styles. What gives? [[User:JamesTimmons|JamesTimmons]] 23:04, 1 January 2011 (EST)
:::James, are you familiar with the concept of "sample size"? Assuming "a couple" means two, as it does in proper American English, you know three people who are supposedly atheists. '''Thousands''' identify as atheists. Is three out of thousands really a sample size worthy of any consideration? (Especially coming from an online anonymous source of school-going age) ???--ADW
I'm not changing the article here, so I don't need any outside sources for anything I've said here, I'm just stating an observation. [[User:JamesTimmons|JamesTimmons]] 23:11, 1 January 2011 (EST)
::::You are '''proposing''' a major change to this article and challenging basic scientific findings. Where are your sources?--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 11:05, 2 January 2011 (EST)
:::::I would also like to point out that I live in a predominately atheist area and very few people I know are overweight. I don't doubt that atheism is a worse lifestyle choice - I just don't see that it has any correlation to obesity. Furthermore, I don't think ad hominem attacks on a few overweight famous atheists is going to convince anyone, and it also seems horribly unprofessional. [[User:RkWilko|RkWilko]] 23:08, 2 January 2011 (EST)
::::::There sure are a lot of atheists who are thin skinned about the subject of fat atheists. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:05, 3 January 2011 (EST)
:::::::::RkWilko, Gallup's study takes into account geographic to create a more [[ceteris paribus]] study in terms of what they studied. Do you have a ceteris paribus like study concerning atheism and obesity? Also, did you see the pictures of the [[American Atheists]] board of directors? What are your thoughts about how fat or thin they are generally speaking? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:15, 8 January 2011 (EST)

This section: "While all atheists are non-religious..." is provided without citation. It's pretty obvious why it has no citation. It's false. There are plenty of atheist Buddhists and Humanists, for example.

Furthermore, providing a few examples of overweight atheists does nothing to prove the article's truth. That's just bad inductive reasoning. If I were to show a few skinny Hindus, would that prove that most Hindus are thin? Of course not.

Given Conservapedia's dedication to providing information that is as accurate as possible, I'm sure that someone in control of this article will make the necessary corrections. Thanks in advance. --[[User:Tylero|Tylero]] 16:54, 6 January 2011 (EST)
::::Fixed. I wrote: While many [[Western World|Western]] atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists. I did this to avoid the contentious debate on whether Western atheism is a religion. I believe it can be easily argued that Western atheism is a religion and that is probably going to be incorporated in the atheism article at a future date. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:48, 7 January 2011 (EST)

== The elephant in the room ==

Until the atheist community practices more of what [[medical science]] and [[exercise science]] recommends to do in order to have a healthy lifestyle, the issue of [[atheism and obesity]] will continue to be the elephant in the room. [[Shockofgod]] is entirely correct - [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health|atheism is madness]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:16, 11 January 2011 (EST)

:You are absolutely correct. Thank you very much for being brave enough to publish the link between atheism and obesity - I've not seen it mentioned in the lamestream media or on liberal sites. In fact I tried to add such to the article but was reverted for not having a cite for it, do you have a good cite that shows a lack of MSM coverage of the link between atheism and obesity please? [[User:DanielG|DanielG]] 21:27, 11 January 2011 (EST)
::::The MSM is losing market share as a whole and the internet is taking away their market share. Feel free to spread the word about atheism and obesity far and wide and with great alacrity across the internet and in your community as I think the slow moving overweight and obese atheist community will not be able to effectively compete with you. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:37, 11 January 2011 (EST)

== Wow! ==

I just read through nearly half of this article and fact-checked every claim it made, and there wasn't so much as one single error. To whoever the authors are, this is quite the article!--[[User:AnthonyDW|AnthonyDW]] 18:27, 19 January 2011 (EST)

== Daniel Dennett and coronary bypass surgery ==

Picture of overweight Daniel Dennett: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7230309@N05/3708479160/ Daniel Dennett and coronary bypass surgery: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html

== Stephen Fry ==
Hey, reading through this article I see many people have been mentioned, but I feel it is a bit unfair to mention Stephen Fry. To his credit he has lost a lot of weight recently, as illustrated here: [http://www.globalgranary.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=172&d=1296818872] [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 08:34, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
: As an extra note I just found a daily mail article on it: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1217335/Has-Stephen-Fry-gone-far-Actor-shows-amazing-stone-weight-loss.html] [[User:RodgerW|RodgerW]] 18:07, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::Thanks. I just added this to the article: "In 2009, the Mail Online reported that Stephen Fry went from being "appallingly corpulent" to having a weight where he can "at last bear to look at himself in the mirror again". However, in March of 2011, Stephen Fry appeared to be once again overweight.[http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/stephen_fry_backs_tiny_norfolk_theatre_1_842092] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== video of Michael Nugent ==

The overweight atheist activist Michael Nugent said that for technical reasons the video of him I cited made him looker fatter than he actually is. Accordingly, I used slimmer looking video of the overweight atheist Michael Nugent that does not make him look more overweight than he actually is.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:05, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== NorthWestern University study ==

Since I've always thought the whole "atheists are fat" thing was quite childish and bordering on out-and-out name calling, I thought I would share this- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/ Now can we drop it and start writing about more intelligent viewpoints? We have economically and socially superior ideas, and it pains me to see this site get bogged down by petty insults. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:35, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
: I hope you don't expect people at this site to take a study like this done by liberal atheist professors at its word. It's probably the most blatantly defensive study I've seen in years, and a clear attempt to whitewash clear evidence linking atheists like them to obesity. The only question is did they concoct this phony study as a direct response to Conservapedia's own [[Atheism and obesity]] article? I would not be in the least surprised if they did. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 14:15, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::::Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the [[atheism and obesity|enormous Gallup study in terms of sample size and geographic diversity in the United States]] (a study which used [[Generalized linear model]] analysis with very relevant variables) and [[atheism and obesity|other data Conservapedia has brought forth]] and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. Also, Eric were the participants of the NorthWestern taken from all across the United States or does the study merely reflect the behavior in a much smaller locale? Also, please compare the sample sizes of the respective studies and report them here. Next, did the NorthWestern study report on the "very religious" like the Gallup study did? In the book of Revelation, Jesus did say not to be lukewarm and he would spit lukewarm people out of his mouth. As far as I am aware, there are no reports of Jesus or the apostles being overweight like [[atheism and obesity|some of the modern apostles of atheism]] such as [[PZ Myers]]. And if you want to play the geography game like some atheist [http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/01/blag-hag-those-fatty-mcfat-fat-atheists.html "blag hag"], I would remind you that [[atheism and obesity|most Christians are non-western today and most non-westerners are quite thin]] plus the Gallup study used [[generalized linear model]] analysis (using very relevant variables) in relation to religiousity and health practices. :) Also, if the NorthWestern University study participants were exclusively from Illinois, they very well could have used plenty of abortion loving "faux Christians". Bottom line Eric, I could see you trying to use the NorthWestern study and not discussing [[atheism and obesity|the much larger Gallup study and other data Conservapedia brought forth]] if you were an [[PZ Myers|overweight atheist blogger at scienceblogs.com who had his brain impaired due to being overweight]], but please do not do it here. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:57, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, it appears as if some atheists have taken offense to the above data I cited and are trying to use the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/style.htm style over substance fallacy] to criticize me. Of course, this provides additional data that atheists are often illogical. [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health|Atheism is madness!]] Evolutionism [http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Theory_of_Evolution.2C_Liberalism.2C_Atheism.2C_and_Irrationality is madness as well]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:39, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, how can you complain about style over substance when you're trying to prove atheism wrong by calling people fat? Do we need to point out the fallacies involved? [[User:DGibbs|DGibbs]] 12:45, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
The Conservapedia atheism article describes atheism and related matters (effects, causes, prominent figures current in atheism and atheist history, etc.). I realize that some people may become upset if Conservapedia mentions various facts about atheism and matters relating to atheism, however. The Conservapedia atheism article certainly does not say the atheist community has some problems with obesity, therefore atheism is not valid. I would suggest reading the atheism article a few more times if you have reading comprehension difficulties. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:46, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Setting aside the issue that no internet atheist has beheld/confirmed my form nor has proved my identity/gender etc., you neglected to indicate who you are referring to as "we". I hope you are not a member of a website whose atheist leader has height/weight proportion challenges. :) Next, where have I ever said that because various atheists are fat and the Gallup survey indicated that being very religious is associated with people being more trim, therefore atheism is wrong? I most certainly have not. While I do find there is [[Overweight atheists comedy and satire|some humor associated with atheism and obesity]], the existence of various atheists ignoring [[medical science]] and [[exercise science]] and engaging in [[gluttony]] does not prove atheism is wrong. By the way, [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true]]. Christendom has certainly provided [[Christian apologetics|a great amount of evidence indicating its veracity]] despite some slothful atheists at a website headed by an overweight atheist claiming the contrary because they are too lazy to click some links in the external link section of Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]] article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Your form? Come off it. I know you're not aware of just how obvious you can be, but you are no man of mystery. And as far as membership goes, I have no interest in those people and call none of them my leader. It's a very boring place, they've been doing the same thing for years. Yes, you're using certain people's obesity as an argument against atheism. And that's indefensible, both logically and ethically. You keep coming back to this Christian apologetics thing. I have no personal interest in atheism. Make an argument and I can be convinced. I want to know how apologetics proves anything about the existence of God. Can you do that, or are you just quotes and links? [[User:DGibbs|DGibbs]] 14:21, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::DGibbs, For a person who supposedly has no personal interest in atheism, you sure do sound very much like an atheist. I am certainly not convinced of your sincerity at this point.
Conservative, I have read your article [[Atheism and obesity]] as well as the [http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx Gallup study] which it is based upon and which you have referred to above. While the article is perfectly valid in discussing the findings that "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious" you have gone beyond what the evidence indicates.

The Gallup study does not mention obesity, Body mass index or even weight in the summary of its findings. It does not say that any one group is more or less prone to obesity than the other. Indeed, if you look at [http://www.well-beingindex.com/methodology.asp Gallup's methodology] you will note that obesity is not one of the things measured under 'healthy behavior'. While it is measured under 'physical health' this category is not utilised by the study in question.

Certainly, 'eating healthily', 'weekly consumption of fruits and vegetables' and 'weekly exercise frequency' are all important factors in a person's susceptibility to obesity. But lower levels of these three criteria most certainly cannot be interpreted as signalling that someone is obese, nor that any one group is more obese. The way the study presents the data means that we do not know exactly how much healthy food people were eating or for how many hours they were exercising etc.; we only know relative values. Therefore, all groups measured might have been considered healthy, but some may simply have been ''more'' healthy. Given this and the difficulty in inferring obesity from these variables, it is not valid to conclude that obesity was higher or lower for any group; the study did not measure obesity at all.

You also point out a major flaw yourself in the article: ''The Gallup study gives some insight into the above average health habits of the very religious and not necessarily the health habits of atheists. The reason is that the Gallup organization defines a non-religious as a person where "Religion is not an important part of daily life and church/synagogue/mosque attendance occurs seldom or never. This group constitutes 29.7% of the adult population."[5] While many Western atheists are non-religious, not all non-religious people are atheists.'' It is therefore not possible to say that atheists are more obese, both given the fact that atheists are not specifically the focus of the study, and the fact that obesity is not measured in it. As you concede in your article, there is no way of knowing what proportion of the non-religious group were atheist. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 14:19, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:I don't see any valid objections to [[atheism and obesity|the atheism and obesity entry]] in the comments above, and the MSNBC-reported study would get a poor grade if turned in to me as a high school science teacher. Church "functions" include dinners that attract and generate obese people! It is patently absurd to combine church "functions" with attendance at church prayer services, where all one need do is look around and observe a less obese culture than what one sees among college professors and in train and bus stations.

:As to the resistance to equating atheism to non-religious people, there is an undeniable overlap and continuum. Let's not claim that lung cancer would depend entirely on ''which'' brand of cigarette someone smokes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::::It appears as if some atheists want to engage in the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] and not address [[Atheism and obesity|the non-Gallup data that Conservapedia provided]]. It also appears as if someone wants to engage in the [http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/sloth.htm slothful induction] fallacy and not give due weight (pardon the pun) to the very obvious tie between diet/exercise and obesity. Also, to date, no atheists has found a single factual error in the Conservapedia [[atheism and obesity]] article. Next, it is apparent that at least one member of this discussion is an unreasonable atheist and have no desire at this time to wrangle with an unreasonable atheist. If others want to continue the discussion, however, I would not be opposed to this. By the way, by the end of today, [[Atheist Population|there will be approximately 300 less atheists in the world and approximately 80,000 new people describing themselves as Christians.]] :) Perhaps, if atheist leaders addressed the atheist communities' problem with obesity with greater effectiveness, the numerical decline of the atheist "herd" ([http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4004069_f520.jpg some of whom are obese] and subject to a greater chance of succumbing to their mortality} might be reduced somewhat. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:44, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::Stop repeating yourself already. The whole accusing other people of logical fallacies thing doesn't really work when you're entire argument is based on one big non seq and ad hom. And I'm being unreasonable expecting you to be able to articulate your own beliefs instead of just spamming links to an article about Christian Apologetics?

I don't deny that there's an overlap between atheism and non-religiosity, indeed the former is a sub-group of the latter. But the point that the two are not exactly the same is taken from the atheism and obesity article itself. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 16:00, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:Why do I not find it surprising that liberals and atheists are more concerned with a website highlighting the obesity problem among atheists, rather than with the obesity problem itself! [[User:MichaelOL|MichaelOL]] 16:07, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

I haven't found any news organizations that linked to the actual obesity study conducted by NorthWestern University/Matthew Feinstein relating to some religious activities. I did find this credible source which says Feinstein did statistical analysis to rule out other factors such as race: http://www.uamshealth.com/HealthLibrary/Default.aspx?ContentTypeID=6&ContentID=651145 Can anyone provide the actual study to see what variables they did statistical analysis on to rule them out as being the causal factors? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:17, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:If anyone wants to contact this science editor http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/03/religious-young-adults-obese.html , she may be able to direct someone to actual study. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:24, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps you could write the lab and ask them to Release the Data. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 22:30, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
:::The Gallup people used a random dialer and had a much larger sample size. I read some place online that the primary places the NorthWestern participants came from was the cities of Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Alabama and Oakland, California. I am primarily interested in whether the researchers took into account income and education. It does appear as if they might not had enough geographical diversity. The study seems big city oriented if the reports of the cities and the study are true. That certainly could make a difference. For example, at an upscale suburban church they might have a booth for premium coffee, fruit, and fruit smoothies after a service while at a less well heeled church they could be serving donuts and coffee after the service. Martyp, since there appears to be some new atheist editors at Conservapedia who take exception to the Conservapedia [[atheism and obesity]] article, I have a feeling that they might attempt to present the actual study. In the meantime, I am going to attend to some personal matters. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:48, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== NorthWestern U study new data ==

Here is what I read before:

"But researchers have also found signs that people who attend services put on more weight. In the new study, which will be released Wednesday at an American Heart Association conference in Atlanta, researchers sought to follow people over time to see what happened to them. They examined a previous long-term study that tracked 2,433 people who were aged 20 to 32 in the mid-1980s.

'''Most of the participants were women, and 41 percent were black.'''

After adjusting their statistics to take into account factors such as race, the researchers found that 32 percent of those who attended services the most became obese by middle age, Feinstein said.

Whatever the case, he said, the study points to the role that '''places of worship could play in reducing obesity.'''

"They can become part of the solution," explained Dr. Daniel P. Sulmasy, a professor of medicine and ethics at the University of Chicago, perhaps by increasing awareness of obesity and holding health fairs.

'''"Pastors, especially those in poor neighborhoods, could champion programs for more fresh produce and less fast food in their neighborhoods," Sulmasy added.'''[http://www.uamshealth.com/HealthLibrary/Default.aspx?ContentTypeID=6&ContentID=651145]

'''<big>It does appear that there are some church people in less affluent areas that are starting to become part of the solution:</big>'''

The study tracked 2,433 young men and women for 18 years in '''Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Ala., and Oakland, Calif.'''

In the study, “frequent” religious participation meant attending at least one event per week. Most, but not all of the participants, were Christians — reflecting the dominant religion in the United States, Feinstein said.

'''Courtney Parker, the catering manager for the 20,000-member Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn,''' said he’s not entirely surprised by the study’s results. Parker suspects there may be a historical connection between over-eating and going to church. In years gone by, so many things were taboo — but not eating, Parker said.

Years ago, “church services ran long,” Parker said. “So the first thing you do is go eat, and then you go to sleep.”

'''Parker said Apostolic has made a point in recent years of serving healthy food at church events. So you’re more likely to see baked fish or chicken, rather than pizza, on the menu'''[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/4490719-460/religion-and-obesity-study-links-church-and-being-fat.html] - cited from Chicago Sun Times, March 25, 2011

Of course, what I wrote above still applies:

Eric, what is truly childish is you trying to compare the [[atheism and obesity|enormous Gallup study in terms of sample size and geographic diversity in the United States]] (a study which used [[Generalized linear model]] analysis with very relevant variables) and [[atheism and obesity|other data Conservapedia has brought forth]] and you trying to show equivalency with your much smaller NorthWestern University study. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:05, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

==Additional content==
While I feel obesity is a Western culture phenom, there are many more examples of obese atheists to add. Try a search for celebrity atheists and you'll be quite surprised. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:31, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
:As the East gains more access to process food via global markets and gains in prosperity, obesity is spreading to the East as can be seen in this report on India.[http://hindu.com./2007/10/12/stories/2007101260940600.htm] However, unlike atheists, Christians have lots of songs including dance music. Indian Christian dancers seem to be fairly immune to obesity. Please see: [[Essay: Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers|Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Christian lady dancers]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:16, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

== Relation to obesity ==

Can we get a study that directly relates to obesity? These seem to be generalized studies about health practices without any physical data. A proper study should confirm the results, but it would be better to use an obesity-specific study or at least one with obesity-specific conclusions than to use this one and make assumptions about obesity.

I'm also not that comfortable with these more questionable anti-atheism arguments because they trivialize the importance of religion. It's trivial whether you look good or lose a few inches off your belly, it's much more important how you define yourself as a member of this world and the next. I know lots of slightly pudgy Christians (while I'm not obese, I could lose a few pounds) who are nonetheless more spiritually healthy than all the skinny atheists out there.

Make fun of me all you want, but I would like to see less of this kind of article and more on the matters of substance.[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 22:37, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::The article offers a lot of data and studies plus over 130 footnotes with relevant information. Some individuals, such as PZ Myers, don't appreciate being a data point and poster boy. :) Second, faith without works is dead and the Bible says by your fruits you shall know them. The Bible also says that the Holy Spirit empowers people to have more self-discipline and that gluttony is a sin. The Gallup study and the world wide population of Christendom is very favorable to Christianity as far as health practices/slimness especially when you compare it to the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity#American_Atheists_organization American Atheists board of directors] and [[New Atheism leadership and problems with being overweight|the make up of the New Atheism leadership]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::But let's be realistic. This is just anecdotal evidence (obese individuals out of millions nationwide) and one study that, while large in sample size, isn't about obesity. The reason obesity is chosen is because it's a) funny and b) reverses a stigma that liberals like to attach to conservatives. I get it. But the case is weak. It's quality of evidence, not quantity. This is the kind of thinking I see in the most foolish of liberal college students and is too childish for us to engage in. We are better than that. We should strive to be.
:::::To say that all overweight people are gluttons (or sloths) is a generalization. Some hard-working Christians eat just to relieve hunger, but find our bodies change as we grow older and do less work on our feet. Do you not see any hefty people with your church, or among your neighbors? When I do, I do not assume they are bad Christians. And I do not assume that atheists are flawed in any way besides their lack of faith and morals. The Bible has a lot to say about talebearing too.
::::Back to the topic at hand - if the hard evidence is there, let us find it. This Gallup study is not about obesity and the anecdotal evidence is meaningless (just as libs try to use anecdotal evidence to attack Christians and Republicans).
[[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:28, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::The article merely gives evidence relating to atheism and obesity/being overweight. Although some atheists on the internet have tried to deny that I cited instances of overweight and/or obese atheists, such denialism was unwarranted. The article does not say the extent of the problem of obesity within the atheist community. It also gives data relating to the very religious and health practices, obesity, health practices of various populations, and related matters (Mayo Clinic data). The reason why the article gets under some atheists' skin (particularly those whose skin are on the thicker side), is that atheism is all about denialism (such as denying the [[Christian apologetics|abundant evidence for Christianity]], [[atheism and mass murder]], etc.). The evidence I did present was accurate and had some relevancy. People can make their own conclusions based on the accurate and relevant data I presented concerning the extent of the obesity problem within the atheist community. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:42, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::By the way, Jesus said, "Be ye perfect...". Unlike [[PZ Myers]], Jesus was perfect and had no problems with being overweight. Jesus was a carpenter. Perhaps, PZ Myers should consider getting into carpentry and spend less time pursuing sedentary activities such a blogging about atheist nonsense. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:02, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obese atheists wax museum ==

::::I am considering opening up an obese atheists wax museum. :) Any thoughts? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

What would the entrance fee be? [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 11:00, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Pretty steep to cover the amount of wax that would have to be used. For example, if I had an "Overweight and obese atheists wax museum", take a look at the amount of wax that would have to be used [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ HERE]. I would feel sorry for the bees having to do that much work for the wax that would be needed. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:26, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== My intentions. ==

This was supposed to be a message to user:conservative but I cannot edit his page for some reason so I'll mention it here. I am a Christian and have been interested in learning more about creationism (which is how I found Conservapedia). However I find your obesity and atheism series to be purile at best. This is no indictment of you ''as a person'', conservative, merely that I think this is the wrong way to attack atheism. Let us fight on what we '''know''' are the logic failings of atheism insteadx of sneering about a biologist that appears slightly overweight. Remembering that the latest statistics state nearly half of the population in the US are overweight....as far as I know atheists are in the minority in the US hence obesity afflicts people ''indescriminate'' of religious belief (yes, I classify atheism as a religious belief). Let us have an intellectual victory, this isn't a beauty contest. I am hoping to create a rebuttal essay, my intentions are to bring forward a dissenting view. Please feel free to engage me in debate or throw any questions my way. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:56, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:A helpful tip. I would recommend using the Firefox browser to edit Conservapedia as it has a spelling checker which would aid you in the spelling of words such as puerile. Second, the Conservapedia atheism article describes atheism and related matters (effects, causes, prominent figures current in atheism and atheist history, etc.). I realize that some people may become upset if reality "attacks" atheism, however. Next, is [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cfimi/5244769742/ this picture] a picture of someone slightly overweight? Next, how do you know that different worldviews affect rates of obesity equally? For example, the very religious, the moderately religious, the irreligious and atheists? Next, I realize that certainly people may crave intellectual victories because they: always lose in chess/Go/Othello/Risk/Monopoly; always lose their debates with spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends and in-laws; always come up on the short end of the stick in negotiations; are in intellectually unfulfilling occupations; have trouble figuring out how their computers and remote controls work; can't figure out how to get their dog to listen to them, etc. Yet, I am very content creating descriptive article content. Now it is true that I have posted some material on non-article pages such as my User page/talk pages/satire/essay pages, etc. which alluded to/mentioned victory/defeat in a good-natured/humorous manner (exultant matador, wildfires, etc.) which some people enjoyed. Yet, after all is said an done, in articles I present meaningful information concerning a matter and endeavor to do so in a relevant manner. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
::I am not sure how to respond as you veer pretty far off topic. The Gallup survey cited does not mention atheism and there is no correlation as far as I can see. As stated above half the US population is overweight yet only about 9% are atheist so the numbers don't match. Atheism has many failings but being more prone to obesity isn't one of them and making snide attacks towards PZ Myers, for example, does not advance our cause. I don't really want this to be a debate. I will create my own essay (might take me awhile though as it is rare I get much time to write such things) and you may respond on it's talkpage when complete. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:46, 28 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I don't think anywhere near 9% of Americans are atheists and use this large survey to support this matter: http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf I don't have an inclination to discuss the atheists/obesity matter further with you given your previous posts. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:21, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
::::The survey you linked to says that 12% of Americans are atheists, so I don't think it exactly supports you. As it happens 12% ties in with the figure of 13% that I've seen in several other places and I have to say it seems credible. Atheism IS gaining ground in the USA, although it's nowhere near as bad as it is in Europe yet, which makes it all the more important that Conservapedia becomes a high-quality educational resource. No offence, but given the effort that's been put into pointless themes like obesity and atheism (which, even if true, proves exactly nothing about the validity of atheism) what could those man-hours have achieved if directed towards creating good, solid articles on scientific or social issues? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:04, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Hi Sam, I gave up my intentions in trying to help Conservative with this. This entire article is predicated on a survey that doesn't mention either Obesity nor Atheism. Despite bringing this up numerous times Conservative has yet to address this problem and has made it abundantly clear that trying to discuss anything with him only leads to one being insulted, accusesations of not being a Christian followed by having to wade through paragraphs and paragraphs of non-sequiters. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:10, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

==My suggestions==
I think that two more points bear mentioning in the article. First, since recent studies show a correlation between rate of religious attendance and obesity, links to such studies would provide strong evidence in favor of the atheism-obesity link. Second, while the article mentions lesbianism and obesity, the male homosexual culture of personal irresponsibility would lead male homosexuals to a similar level of disregard for their physical fitness. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 09:39, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:Actually in my experience male homosexuals take extreme care about their appearance, far more so than most heterosexual men do whether Christian or not. I'd say that a good 25% of the men who go to my gym are openly gay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:09, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::DavidE, we covered the recent study you referred to. See above. Second, if you want to make a claim, please advance data to support it. Don't plan on checking this talk page very often. Saw your post to recent changes though. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:10, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

== Correction ==

Hi, this is my first edit. I am an East Asian Languages and Cultures major. I just read "[[Essay: Prominent atheists weighed on the scales and found wanting]]" and noticed a mistake. The essay has two pictures of what is supposed to be Siddhartha Guatama. The picture of the chunky fellow is actually Budai, who is, according to Buddhist lore, an incarnation of the Maitreya Buddha. Maitreya and Guatama are two different deities. Guatama is always portrayed in art as either skinny or broad shouldered and muscular. The mis-identification needs to be corrected. Although a satire, the essay makes a good point, so I think even small things like captions on pictures should be accurate. --[[User:Jimmyray|Jimmyray]] 08:25, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, much appreciated. I removed the material. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:09, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

== a reply from penn jillette ==

:I just watched [http://revision3.com/pennpoint/fat_atheists this video]. He addresses this article. I should warn, though, that it is laced with profanity.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:37, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
Thank you, here is my response: [[Essay: Conservapedia's reply to atheist Penn Jillette]] Here is my favorite line from the essay: "Of course, with his busy eating schedule, he probably found it difficult to read the whole article." [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:12, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

:You've missed equating us fat people with fluffy kitten haters though, so I guess I should be grateful. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:51, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
SharonW, everyone makes mistakes in their lives. In many cases, it is the result of making bad choices. The common sense things Mr. Norris says about being overweight [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity|HERE]] are true. There is a reason why people in Asia are far thinner than Americans and many European countries. They make better choices when it comes to diet and exercise. I realize that some people have thyroid problems or other medical issues, but in most cases it comes down to diet and exercise. People in Asia eat healthier food and exercise more and I provided a responsible citation from the medical literature in this article indicating that Asians eat healthier food. In the majority of cases, being overweight is very fixable and I did provide the solutions to being overweight in the external link section of this article and I cited responsible sources such as the [[Mayo Clinic]] and WebMD.

As far as your charge that I have not equated overweight people with kitten haters, I would simply point out that you really can't show me anything in this article I wrote that is untrue/unreasonable. I guess you can claim that overweight people are largely that way because of their genes. However, I don't buy it. Here is why: http://blog.awpainrelief.com/health-issues-childhood-obesity/ Even Polynesian people who are more disposed to obesity did fine before they changed their dietary habits. Lastly, I am certainly not going to play online doctor and diagnose anyone's particular health issues so if you have health issues relating to being overweight, I will let you work out things with your physician. I really have no animosity towards you and hope the best for you. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:20, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obesity article ==

1) Does the fact the talk page for the [[obesity]] article redirects here mean '''CP's official position''' is that '''all fat people are atheists'''? If not, please remove the redirect and allow comments on that page.

2) If the purpose of the obesity article is not to label '''all''' fat people as atheists, or lesbians, or liberals, please show some concern for the people struggling with this issue (obesity, not atheism, homosexuality or liberalism) by adding the different treatments available to reduce weight, including gastric bypass surgery, medication and counseling. Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, and Nutrisystem are just a few popular programs.

Because in reality, the majority of fat people are ''not'' evil.
Thank you, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:01, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:I find this whole thing confusing. Obesity is rampant in the United States but Conservative also likes to claim that atheists are a mere squeak of the US population. Ergo, many religious people are obese also and the fattest states are also the most religious. None of it really makes any sense to me. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:07, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Removed redirect that was done by a vandal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:12, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, please consider learning more about the [[Generalized linear model]] and multi-variable statistical analysis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK, I'll do that if you learn more about obesity and it's relation to atheism (hint: there is no relation). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:18, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for the removal of the redirect. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

==This material is offensive==
This material is offensive and does nothing to bring people in need to Christ. "''It's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth"''" (Matt 15:11) and it is the ridicule coming out of the mouth of the author that defiles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:08, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
:I notice you didn't point out any factual errors in the article and I am not going to censor factual information for you. I see no reason to cave in to an egotistical blowhard who is merely seeking payback. I also don't believe you know your Bible well. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Amos%204&version=NASB Amos 4:1 - Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria] Biblical commentary on Amos 4: "You cows of Bashan: Amos wasn’t trained as a prophet, he was a simple herdsman and farmer. When he wanted to get the point across to the indulgent women of Israel, he called them fat cows."[http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/3004.htm] Titus 1:12: "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." If you think I am going to let a egotist suck up my time for no good reason, think again. By the way, it is funny and awfully convenient that you suddenly find the material to be offensive now. Please grow up. You wonder why I don't want to communicate with you. It is undisciplined and petty outbursts like this that is one of the prime reasons. I have zero trust in your integrity. I also think you have little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes your fancy. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is nonsense. What evidence is there the "the indulgent women of Israel" were Atheists? And please refrain from incivility and personal attacks. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:54, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::A factual error has been pointed out many times over, by me as well as others. The study does not mention atheists nor does the study mention obesity - there is no factual connection between Atheism and Obesity. That is an error. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::How did I misrepresent a study. I didn't. If you are going to post on the talk page, please post something worthwhile. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:49, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::The study does not mention atheism nor obesity. The study shows no link between the two. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Hasn't Mr. Schlafly addressed this before and said that the link between atheism and obesity should not be censored? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Conservative asked about a factual error and I pointed one out. Who mentioned Andy or censorship? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:10, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::: Rob mentioned this material as being "offensive". What's offensive about a fact? And why say that unless you want to censor? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 17:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::What fact? This who page is based on a Gallup study that mentions neither obesity or atheism. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
Max, this isn't rocket science. I provided commentary on the Gallup study in the article. You either need to read better, express yourself better or be more honest. I hope it's not the latter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:Your commentary does not match what the study says - your commentary is factually in error. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I suggest getting a new optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::All the study says is that more religious people choose healthier diets. There is nothing about Atheism nor Obesity in the study. You leapt to that conclusion on your own and it is factually unsupported by the study. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::RobS, grow up. I merely pointed out above that the Bible does talk about obesity/gluttony in populations. I think the more you hang out with atheist buddies and try to court them with this type of bootlicking to curry their favor, the more you are going to find facts to be offensive. I am going to have to agree with BradleyS's comment above. I also continue to believe your timing is awfully convenient in terms of your petulant complaint and this is merely a petty and spurious attempt at payback. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:12, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::*''The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a [[gluttony|glutton]], and a winebibber, a friend of publicans<ref>publicans were [[collaborator]]s with the enemy, Jews who collected taxes from Jews to support the Roman occupation troops.</ref> and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.'' (Matt 11:19) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:20, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
{{reflist}}
RobS, I know you are spoiling for fight with me at this time, but I am not going to cooperate and be drawn into senseless contention. I also suggest if you truly want to make some positive changes to Conservapedia that you engage in less factious and unwarranted behavior. Based on recent communications to me, you are going to find it much more difficult to gain the cooperation of your fellow Conservapedians if you continue down your present path. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:You know, you don't have to respond to every post you're name is mentioned. See [[Last wordism]]. Also, please do not presume to telepathically understand other's motives, or impugn other's motives with your imagination. It can be misconstrued as incivility. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::What "senseless contention" are you referring to? It's certainly not people calling to your attention the several unsupported arguments you make in these hitpieces. You've failed to carry your burden that there's even a correlation between atheism and obesity, yet you continue hectoring and sneering at these people. Why is that? That's not what I would call openmindedness or cooperation. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:29, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
===factual===
:User:conservative you keep insisting that this material is factual and ignoring what everybody else is saying about it. But whether or not it's "factual" isn't the point, and it's rather disingenuous of you to keep insisting that it is.
:Do you make fun of the handicapped? Because it would be "factual," wouldn't it, to call a person with disabilities a cripple. Lots of things are factual, but here people are expressing concern over your apparent need to mock and degrade. What is it that you are trying to prove with these "facts?" You do know that there are overweight Christians and physically fit atheists, don't you? It seems to everybody that you are only pointing and saying "HaHa! You're fat."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:33, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::CamilleT, if you feel strongly about this matter, I think you should contact your elected representatives and ask them to include being overweight as a disability. Perhaps, you could get some equal access laws passed too requiring: extra wide doorways, extra wide seating in all public transit and heavy duty shock absorbers installed in all taxis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I not sure why I'm trying again, but come on, Conservative. What exactly is your goal behind these articles where you're equating fat people with atheists and gays and I can't remember what else? These article don't appear to express any true concern about overweight people and our very real issues; instead, it appears as though we're just convenient whipping boys. We're one of the few remaining subgroups in society that are considered fair game without our denigrators becoming social pariahs. Your writings reflect many of the typical attitudes people display toward fat people - we're supposed to accept any and all insults, fat jokes and negative stereotypes because I guess it's assumed we're not "real" people with "real" feelings. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:59, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
::::The article provides data relating to atheism and obesity and related matters. It also provides some helpful information. I don't see the point of repeating myself. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:30, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::You are wasting your time Sharon. Conservative has shown himself to be entirely impervious to either logical argument or to any appeal to civility or empathy. He is determined to plough ahead with these disgraceful articles which bring this site into disrepute. In spite of his name he is clearly no real conservative. --[[User:CharlesDN|CharlesDN]] 00:07, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Charles, as far as your empathy comment, have you read Conservapedia's article [[Atheism and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and mass murder]] articles? [[Atheist Population|Atheists as a population]] are not known for their empathy. Perhaps, if some atheists weren't so busy engaging in their costly habit of [[gluttony]], they would have more money to donate to others. Plus, the greater the aggregate world demand for food, the higher the price of food so [[Atheism and obesity|obese atheists]] are not making things easy for people having difficulty with rising food prices. Now I realize there are people with legitimate medical reasons for being overweight such a thyroid problems, but I have to agree with this article as a whole: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::So... because atheists are not empathetic it is ok for your not to be empathetic? Hmm. I think you had better re-examine your "conservative" values. Furthermore, it has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions that your Gallup poll does not mention either atheists or obesity. On every occasion you have utterly failed to explain how your article is supported by that poll. I suggest that you consider removing your atheist/fatties "articles". Finally, I really don't care what Chuck Norris has to say on any topic outside of acting. --[[User:CharlesDN|CharlesDN]] 00:35, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I have mentioned many times over Conservative, '''there is no mention of atheism or obesity in the gallup study'''. It is an error you have yet to address aside from deflection. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:37, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Interesting. I had not bothered to question the actual data, rather its presentation and its implications, but with this it seems User:conservative is wrong on every single level. Go on, deflect away, conservative.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:46, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Whining, kvetching and pretending will not make the Gallup study cease to mention the very religious nor will it remove the non-Gallup data I offered. As far as the Gallup data and the non-religious and its relevance, each person has to decide for themselves how similar non-religious people are to atheists in terms of health habits unless there is data I am not aware of that compares the two. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL9ZleOXzQ0 This song] reminds me of many whiners and pretenders concerning this article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Show me where in the essay your "non-Gallup" data supports a correlation between atheism and obesity. Show me where the Gallup poll supports the specific conclusion that atheists are obese. Walk me and everyone who thinks you're dead wrong though this. Apparently none of us is as good a reader as you are. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:28, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I presented 25 written pages of data and content relating to atheism and obesity. I am very content to let readers decide its relevance. Please feel free to offer more prominent overweight atheist to be included. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:10, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::But what is it based on? Because the Gallup study '''does not''' support the conclusion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:13, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::I am thinking of adding [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZDs88uWKrk&feature=relmfu HappyCabbie] as an example of a overweight YouTube atheist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::If someone is looking for a list of overweight atheists on the internet this article is easily found.[http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=list+of+overweight+atheists&pbx=1&oq=list+of+overweight+atheists&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2887l12923l0l13407l29l24l1l8l8l0l350l3232l0.11.5.1l17l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=661c0b1152c259b4&biw=1024&bih=514][http://www.bing.com/search?q=list+of+overweight+atheists&form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI][http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=list+of+overweight+atheists&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:38, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::I don't understand Conservative, you have never answered the most basic of questions and I am rather bewildered. The Gallup study never mentions atheism or obesity and obesity affects nearly half of all US citizens yet you yourself state atheist are in the extreme minority (1.9% if I remember correctly). Please help me understand where you are drawing your conclusions from. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:42, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::So, all your information comes from a few online atheists? Without statistics, you have nothing. Should I add that I, who does not believe in any deities or supernatural forces, am not fat? Where does that leave your careful analysis? Or are you just cherry picking? Because I can name overweight Christians pretty easily too (off the top of my head: Bill Donahue, John Hagee and his son; Jack Chick is pretty burly looking; various self-professed Christians not involved in preaching such as Joe Barton, Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele, and the late Jerry Fallwell).--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:49, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
"Conservative", answer two simple and direct questions simply and directly. No more of your deflection. Show me where in the essay your "non-Gallup" data supports a correlation between atheism and obesity. Show me where the Gallup poll supports the specific conclusion that atheists are obese. I'll give you a hint, and this time I'm flat out calling you a liar if you give another ridiculous non-response: it's not in there. Your campaign to slander your opponents however childishly and dishonestly you can is casting this website in disrepute. For one of the few times in a year I did a google search for Conservapedia and specifically the rubbish you call articles. You in particular get overwhelmingly negative attention, even from Christians and conservatives. Please desist before you bring more shame to our doorstep. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Via several weird redirected talk pages... ==

Ken, you realize the reason Penn won't debate you is that he suspects you are a parodist ''extraordinaire'', right? It's not because he is a bunny, or a burning building, it's because he thinks you edit here to discredit CP. Can you write an essay that proves this wrong?

Best regards,

Huw [[User:Human|Human]] 02:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::[[Essay: This year's best atheist debaters]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:17, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

:Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? On the talk-pages I've seen so far you havn't won any ''discussion''...
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:54, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I think you are an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno atheist/evolutionist black knight] and can safely be ignored. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of another argument you just lost:A You won't win any debate by just ignoring your opponents: it's like your [[Question evolution! campaign]] in Texas - what good does it do ''contact Texas churches'', that's not where the atheists you are trying to convert hang out!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

::To explain the above in detail: if there were some example of a discussion on a talk page where you, Conservative, have successfully debated an atheist/Darwinist/Evolutionist, you would have no problem to link to it. The fact that you don't do so, but instead choose an [[ad hominem]] as an answer implies that
::- there isn't such a discussion or
::- if there is, you have lost.
::And that's why you were able to lose this simple argument in two sentences - congratulations!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:53, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I find it interesting that members of a certain atheist website incessantly whine about this article. Is there any leader or are there any leaders of that atheist website who could easily shed some poundage? The reason I mention this is that generally speaking the stuck pig squeals the loudest. :) I do know that a significant percentage of the leaders of the [[New Atheism]] movement had problems with being overweight (see: [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] ). I also know that a number of [[American Atheists]]'s board of directors could benefit by losing some weight as can be seen [http://www.atheists.org/about/Board_of_Directors HERE]. Instead of whining about this article, I do think that some atheists could better spend their time by asking prominent atheist "fat cats" to lose some weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::*A stuck pig squeals - whether it was stuck rightfully or not. You know, sometimes the innocent protest, too.
::::::*You didn't answer my question (''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'') but again went on a tangent.
::::::*BTW, is this the way you intent to ''win'' debates: hinting that your opposite is fat - or that he knows some fat people?
::::::*Try to regard our little exchange of comments as a discussion. Reread it. Reflect on it. Could you answer any of the questions? How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:40, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: *cough* I am a Christian conservative, and I must say that this discussion has made me curious. Conservative, why aren't you just giving this guy examples of debates you've won if you have them? I mean, I don't ''want'' you to be wrong or anything, but this is just confusing, and frankly, this discussion has almost proven to me that RonLar is right and not you, Conservative. ''Why not just release whatever debates you have?'' And RonLar DOES have a fine, perfectly fair question. All he wants is an example of where you debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, or a related topic. That request shouldn't be too hard to fulfill. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't make his question less valid. --[[User:StoryMaker|StoryMaker]] 17:18, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::StoryMaker, I will let readers decide if you are a bona fide Christian conservative. Personally, I am skeptical. Next, this talk page is for the [[atheism and obesity]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Ah, an ''ad hominem'', again. And still - after a month - the question ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, (successfully) debated someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?'' is unanswered, or, to be more precise, it is implicitly answered '''no'''... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ron, what would you call a "successful" debate? It seems to me that debates rarely finish with one party saying "I was wrong, you have changed my mind", no matter how comprehensively they are out-argued, so perhaps it is unfair to ask Conservative to produce such an example. (This is particularly true online, where obstinacy abounds.) In my view, a truly "successful" debate is one containing absorbing dialog that advances or deepens the understanding of all parties - and examples of these can be found all over Conservapedia talk pages.
:::::::::Perhaps now you could take this case as closed and move on to another issue?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:58, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

My previous comment seemed to be not civil enough, so I try to rephrase my statement: I'm well aware that ''successfully'' is a quite ambiguous term, and I don't want to put to much into it. On various occasions has User:Conservative expressed his desire to debate atheists and/or evolutionist like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Penn Jillette]]. He (or even she!) chooses not to bolster his stature by citing any off-site activity or qualification, so the seriousness of his challenges can only be measured by his contributions to this site.

He has created ample content. But the talk pages give you a perfect arena for an actual debate (especially as User:Conservative seems to have a virtual event in mind when he ushers his challenges). So, what is more natural then to look for a discussion on these talk pages to see how good a debater User:Conservative is? As I couldn't find an example of such a discussion where User:Conservative faired well, I asked him to provide me with such an example, i.e., his best shot(s) on these debate grounds.

An impressive amount of such debates would help to take User:Conservative's challenges more serious. But unfortunately User:Conservative hasn't provided me with a link yet.

Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 14:18, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Nominate for deletion ==

I'd like to propose that this article should be deleted; we could use a shortened version as a section of the "Atheism and health" article. It's just not solid enough to be a standalone article, and frankly it also lets atheists accuse Conservapedia of relying on ad hominems. Are we trying to provide a valuable educational resource or just insult atheists? Some people are far too quick to label atheists as malevolent, insane or abnormal. Well, most of them aren't; they're simply people who don't believe in God and they're generally well educated and intelligent. Some of them are going to take us seriously if we can present good, reasoned arguments. However if the best we can do is to call them fat bum bandits they're just going to laugh at us and so, I'm afraid to say, based on conversations I've had with friends from church about what I've been trying to do here, are a lot of Christians. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, before your suggestion is given merit, I think you need to do a better job at refuting the data in the article plus show that atheist community has adequately addressed their sin problem and the problems sin is causing within their community. By the way SamCoulter, what does the Bible say about atheists and what does the Bible say about fools? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:00, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::::As has been pointed out on numerous occasions the data in the article mentions neither atheism nor obesity. As for the atheist community's sin problem, if there IS an atheist community sin isn't a concept that will have any meaning to it so they're not going to see a problem. Sin is going against God's law, so the issue of atheists and their attitude to sin can be fairly easily deduced from that. I know what the bible says about atheists and I know what it says about fools - essentially that they're the same thing - but what do atehists care about what the bible says? They don't care if it says that they're fools and I do believe it's their minds that we should be trying to change here. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:12, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

===An idea===
Why don't we have a vote on whether this should remain an article of be moved to essay? We'd have disqualify users who haven't been here awhile to stop vandals and the like swinging the vote. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm happy to be excluded from that vote because I've only been here a month or so, but I think it's an excellent idea. As an essay, a personal opinion, it's perfectly reasonable. As an encyclopaedia article? Not so much. Conservapedia has massive potential - and I'll say right now that User:Conservative has been quite helpful to me in my efforts to improve it - but this article WOULD be better as an essay. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:37, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, before you invoke [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqZjAybWXk mob rule], why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Firstly I was explicitly against mob rule by stating it should only be trusted user to vote. Second: ''why don't you point to a single factual error in the article first?''....I have! You have ignored it time and time again! The entire page is predicated on a survey '''that doesn't mention atheism or obesity!''' That, sir, is a factual error! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:18, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::I have tried having this conversation with you many times - look at some of my comments above '''the Gallup study does not support the conclusion'''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:19, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, there is a number of bodies of evidence (some of them very corpulent) that I presented in the 24 pages of material for this article. :) Stop using the [[fallacy of exclusion]] and deal with the entire WEIGHT of evidence that the atheist community has problems with obesity within their community. :) By the way, I do find it telling that you cannot find a single factual error in the 24 page article. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Stop moving the goalposts Conservative. You asked me to find a single error and I have found a single error. It is not a fallacy of exclusion, you asked and I answered. The Gallup Study '''does not''' support your conclusion. That is a single error and that is all you asked me point out. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:29, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, we both know you found nothing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, can you not find ''anything'' positive to write about regarding fat people? You've worked hard to tie us to atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, evolutionists, feminists and Alzheimer's (that I know of), but nothing that a conservative Christian would consider good. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:03, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, the topic of the article is [[Atheism and obesity]]. The question you pose is beyond the scope of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Pardon my confusion about the topic, because this article meanders from '''obesity''' to fat homosexuals to '''neurotic fat people who must be atheists because they obviously have mental and emotional issues''', to various '''"nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections on atheists''', to Chuck Norris talking about the internet, '''to internet atheism, to more "nanner-nanner, you're fat" sections''', back to fat homosexuals, then to fat lesbians, to chubby homosexuals, to fat evolutionists, '''back to neurotic, depressed fat people must be atheists''', to fat people can't get married, to physical ailments fat people get, to fat Alzheimer's patients, to fat people believing in UFOs because they lack self-discipline, to more UFO stuff (seriously, ''UFOs''?), to giving statistics about the growth of Christianity, to Chuck Norris saying fat people are horrid,''' to overcoming obesity by being a Christian, and finally to a list of pages making fun of fat atheists'''. The way I see it, the bolded sections are the only ones with a tenuous connection to the title of this article.

:::::But I believe you answered my question anyway, so I thank you for that. It's really too bad you can't find ''any'' good in people with weight issues. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::I think a lot of Conservative's articles are made to be thought-provoking - to ask you to think about things you might not normally consider. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Well, I agree this ''started'' as thought provoking but when finding out that the very source the entire thrust of this article hangs on neither mentions obesity or atheism it stops become thought provoking and becomes fallacious. When this is then pointed out to the author who completely ignores it it becomes an embarrassment. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:50, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, when are you going to show 3 things: 1) The entire thrust of the article hangs on the Gallup study. 2) It is wrong to provide data on the very religious 3) There is a marked difference between the non-religious and atheists (I leave this question up to the readers). Seeing as the article has over 20 pages of material with various bodies of data, I think #1 is impossible for you to maintain. On the other hand, being in clear error has never stopped you before. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::How many surveys in this article draw a relation between physical health and religious beliefs? I can only see one - the Gallup Study. Hence the entire premise, that atheism and obesity are somehow correlated, hang on the Gallup study. I am happy to be proven wrong. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please show me where I have been "in clear error" before and I will happily apologise for it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:15, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, you need help that I cannot provide and I suggest going to a optometrist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since you cannot show me another study, in this article, relating to health and religiosity, then I will stand by my original comments. I will gladly apologise if wrong but at this stage there is a critical flaw in the article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:45, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

==it must be a joke==
Come on, this article is just nonsense, I clearly suspect Conservative to be a parodist. You cannot just list fifty fat atheist and say that ALL atheists are fat, that's just WRONG! I can easily find 50 fit ahteist and conclude that ALL atheists are fit ! Another interesting fact should be to compare obesity rate in Europe and America and then to compare atheism in Europe and America. More atheists in Europe but more obeses in America ? What should I conclude here ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 01:16, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Where does the article say all atheists are fat? Secondly, comparing apples to apples is more scientific in terms of isolating the variable of religiousness/atheistic. For example, comparing very religious European people to European atheists. You can also do statistical analysis to measure particular variables. I suggest taking remedial reading classes plus taking a few courses in statistics.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:21, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Obesity by states: [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html]. Intersting to see that more religious states are those with the more obese people. Conclusion: either religious people are fatter, either atheists living with religious people get fatter than atheists living with atheists. Another study arguing for fatter christians: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256829/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TnJ9RuzDGZ8]. Personnaly I believe that you can be fat or fit whether you are a christian, an atheist, a buddhist or whatever you want.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:35, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::ARamis, the Feinstein study you linked to only showed a correlation between obesity and how religious people were AS YOUNG ADULTS; he didn't check how religious the obese subjects are NOW. Nevertheless as far as its conclusions go it seems valid and it's one more reason why this article should be deleted. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:23, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::That would be great for you if we lived world with one or two variables. Unfortunately for you, we don't. I am used to atheists not understanding statistics and science so I am not upset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Oh Conservative, please explain to me where I failed, please excuse my pride for daring oppose the Conservapedia "facts". Please provide your statistical data (where is it?) that would open my eyes to the Truth.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 18:56, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::ARamis, you do have a pride issue as demonstrated by your lack of apology for incorrectly declaring the article supposedly said all atheist are fat. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who is reluctant to graciously admit error. Second, my post above dealt with your obesity by states "argument". I see now you posted a link the MSNBC article. Third, the NorthWestern study was already discussed (see above). I have nothing further to add on this point. Lastly, I think its pointless to have discussions with atheists on this matter who refuse to tackle the article in a more comprehensive manner as I see it as merely engaging in [[fallacy of exclusion]] "reasoning". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Some observations ==

I know that this hardly counts as a scientific study, but out of interest I went through the list of speakers at The Amazing Meeting 9, a sceptical and atheist event that was held in Las Vegas in July, and checked photos of all the speakers. To reduce the variables as much as possible I considered only American speakers, of whom there were 36. Of these, FOUR (PZ Myers, Pamela Gay, Heidi Anderson and Maria Walters) appeared to be seriously overweight or obese, and Pamela Gay is not an atheist. As a third of US adults are obese this (admittedly crude) study suggests that it is not a problem linked in any significant way to atheism. If anybody can suggest a way to look at this in more detail I'd be happy to do what I can. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, for the sake of discussion lets assume that is true. With that being said, it depends on who you are comparing contemporary American atheists to. Are you comparing them to Jesus? Are you comparing the founders of the New Atheism movement to the American general public (3 out of 5 of the founders of the New Atheism movement have had problems with being overweight)? Are you comparing them to the very religious? Are you comparing them to the the bulk of Christianity which is in the non-Western World? Are you comparing them to Moses who certainly had a lot to say about diet? In any event, atheists say they believe in science and we know what science says about obesity (medical science, nutritional science and exercise science). Certainly a group of prominent atheists being prominent in the waist is an embarrassment especially since many atheists claim two things: atheism is in accordance with good science and theism is not and atheists are intellectually superior. BY the way, given that being overweight/obese is a causal factor for brain impairment, an overeweight/obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic. Lastly, since some atheists probably believe that society is evolving upward, contemporary American atheists being more overweight than mankind was in general earlier is problematic as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::No, atheists say that they DON'T believe in God. The majority of them certainly are attached to the scientific method, but then again so are the majority of western Christians. I don't think we help ourselves by misrepresenting what atheists believe. For the record I am comparing prominent American atheists to the US population in general, and it doesn't look like they're any more prone to obesity. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:39, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, you didn't adequately respond to my posts that atheism is more than merely not believing in God which I thought was very shoddy. Second, I cite: "Social Darwinism claims that society is evolving upward from our primitive beginnings to the point where we reach a state of utopia."[http://mnorthernlights.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-day-2009.html] Certainly, highly religious Bible believers do not believe in social Darwinism so time periods of atheists getting plumper are not problematic to biblical Christianity. Also, how attached are overweight/obese atheists to the scientific method? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:50, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Atheists say that's what atheism is, and the difference between not believing in gods and denying the existence of gods is in any case more semantic than anything else: Me: "Do you deny the existence of God?" Atheist: "Yes." Me: "Why?" Atheist: "Because I don't believe in gods." Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and claiming that it does just gives evolutionists an opening to attack your credibility. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 14:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Do atheists say what atheism is or do encyclopedias of philosophy? If someone says they are Napolean is he? Why is the definition more semantic than anything else and how does it affect the burden of proof as far as the existence of God? Next, where did I say Social Darwinism is the exactly the same as macroevolution? The more I interact with you and you fail to adequately respond to my questions and the material I post to you, the less worthwhile I am finding it to respond to you. Don't be surprised if I cease to respond to you. Perhaps, you should consider adequately responding to the backlog of questions I have posed to you and more adequately respond to what I have posted to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:11, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== Challenge for User:Conservative ==

''BY the way, given that obesity is a causal factor for brain impairment, an obese atheist claiming intellectual superiority is problematic.'' quote by [[User:Conservative]]

So now you claim there are no smart fat people. Wow, just... wow.

70 to 76% of Americans self-identify as Christian. 2-5% of Americans self-identify as atheists. 33.8% of Americans are overweight/obese. There is obviously a much greater problem within the Christian community than in the atheist community, by sheer numbers alone, yet Conservapedia turns a blind eye to this issue. It also ignores "normal weight obesity", where skinny people can be fatties without even knowing it.

You keep challenging people to debate you on atheism. Well, I'm not an atheist, and I don't know much about that subject, but I ''am'' overweight. I'm challenging you to a debate about how horribly Conservapedia treats obese people in their articles. Simple rules - written responses with one post (no edits); the topic is '''''just obesity''''', not atheism, homosexuality, evolutionism, feminism, etc. and so forth (I can't remember all the labels you've tried to slap on fat people); answers due the last Saturday of October. You can pick the moderator.

Or I'll post my phone number and you can tell me in person why you '''''flat-out ignore''''' the fat Christians or the fat creationists or the fat heterosexuals or all of the intelligent, talented , good, nice fat people who live in this country in your diatribes. I'll pay for the phone call. Whichever one you want to choose is fine with me. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:08, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Veritas Liberabit Vos

2011-09-16T18:12:51Z

RonLar: cat:latin -> cat:latin phrases

'''''Veritas Liberabit Vos''''' is [[Latin]] for "The Truth Shall Set You Free," a quote from the [[New Testament]].

It is the motto of [[Southern Methodist University]], a private university in [[Texas]] affiliated with the [[United Methodist Church]].
[[category:Latin Phrases]][[Category:Quotes]]

Sic transit gloria mundi

2011-09-16T16:09:55Z

RonLar: cat:latin -> cat:latin phrases

'''Sic transit gloria mundi''' is a [[Latin]] expression meaning "so passes world glory." It emphasizes that world glory is fleeting.
[[category:Latin Phrases]]

O tempora, o mores!

2011-09-16T15:41:26Z

RonLar: more precise category

''O tempora, o mores!'' is a [[Latin]] sentence found on [[Cicero]]'s Catiline Orations (''Oratio in Catilinam''). The literal translation is '''What times! What mores!''' and is nowadays used as an exclamation to point out the corruption of morals, habits and attitudes by time.

[[Category:Latin Phrases]]
[[Category:Quotes]]

Brno

2011-09-15T19:51:32Z

RonLar: Created page with "'''Brno''' (German: Brünn) is with 380,000 inhabitants the second biggest city of the Czech Republic after Prague. It's the seat of a Catholic bishop. [[Cat..."

'''Brno''' ([[German]]: [[Brünn]]) is with 380,000 inhabitants the second biggest city of the [[Czech Republic]] after [[Prague]]. It's the seat of a [[Catholic]] bishop.
[[Category:Czech Republic]]

World History Study Guide to 1648

2011-08-14T22:45:53Z

RonLar: /* Basic terms */ Analects already at Cosnservapedia

This is the growing list of study terms for [[World History Lectures|World history]], from creation to 1648 (the same midpoint used by the [[CLEP]] exams).

This should grow from 315 to 500 terms -- about half basic and half honors -- and every term should be described in the table. ''An examination on this material will be given in November 2011''.

==Basic terms==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Term
!Definition
|-
|[[Abraham]]
|Aprx. 2000 BC. Father of Jewish people; God made a covenant with him to make his descendants great in number. Arabs claim descendance from Abraham's son Ishmael.
|-
|[[Acropolis]]
|Portion of a town or city that is built on a hilltop for easy defense. Best known Acropolis is at Athens, where the democratic assembly met. Most Greek city-states had an Acropolis.
|-
|[[Aesop]]
|Ethiopian slave in 600s BC in Greece. Famous for "Aesop's Fables," such as "the fox and the grapes" and "the wolf in sheep's clothing."
|-
|[[Alexander the Great]]
|356 BC - 323 BC. Born to Philip II of Macedon and tutored by [[Aristotle]]. Conquered Greece, Egypt, Persia, and more, but turned back at India. Alexander's conquests spread Greek culture and language and helped the future spread of [[Christianity]].
|-
|[[Analects]]
|The analects are a record of the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius, written and compiled by his disciples circa 400-300 B.C.
|-
|[[Ancient world]]
|Civilized world before the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] in AD 476.
|-
|[[Archimedes]]
|287 BC – 212 BC. Greek mathematician and engineer. Discovered Archimedes' Principle, invented "Archimedes' screw," and built defenses against the Romans for his city of Syracuse; killed by the Romans.
|-
|[[Aristocracy]]
|"Rule by the best": aristocrats generally wealthy and privileged. European feudal government resembled aristocracy, and some governments in ancient Greece were aristocracies.
|-
|[[Aristotle]]
|384 to 322 BC. Greek [[philosopher]], student of [[Plato]] and tutor to Alexander the Great. Focused on experience with the physical world; studied biology and founded a school, the Lyceum, resembling a university with specimens and a library.
|-
|[[Assyrian Empire]]
|1400-605 BC. First dependent on Babylonia, then became an independent state, and finally an empire. Known for cruelty, especially to the Hebrews. Captured northern Kingdom of Israel in 722, but destroyed by Medians in the 600s.
|-
|[[Athens]]
|Greek city-state. Democracy begun by Pericles in 5th century BC. Previously ruled by aristocrats. First democracy in the world and a great naval power. Rival with Persia but united to defeat invading Persians.
|-
|[[Attila the Hun]]
|Last and greatest ruler of the Huns. Fought against the eastern Roman Empire and then fought the western Roman Empire throughout the mid AD 400s. Almost defeated, but then almost sacked Rome; turned away by Pope Leo I.
|-
|[[Augustus Caesar]]
|63 B.C. - A.D. 14. Succeeded Julius Caesar and became first Roman Emperor. Ruler during the birth of Christ. Defeared Mark Antony for rule of Rome.
|-
|[[Babylon]]
|The major Mespotamian city in the ancient Middle East. Greatest ruler was Hammurabi. Developed Cuneiform, used base-60 numbers, and defeated ancient Sumer about 2000 BC. Later cruel to Hebrews.
|-
|[[Babylonia]]
|State and Empire created by Babylon. First empire existed from 1900-1600 BC. Resurged as the Neo-Babylonian Empire from 625-538 BC. Imposed [[Babylonian Exile]] on Hebrews.
|-
|[[Bible]]
|Collection of Hebrew (Old Testament) and Christian (New Testament) Scriptures. Foretells the coming of a Messiah for the Hebrews, and contains ancient stories like the Tower of Babel and the Great Flood.
|-
|Brahman
|The ultimate god or existence in Hinduism, of which all existence is somehow a part, or from which all comes.
|-
|brahmin
|The ultimate god or existence in Hinduism, of which all existence is somehow a part, or from which all comes.
|-
|[[Bronze Age]]
|It is the age referred to during which time bronze was the common metal used in people's everyday lives. It was used for jewelry, tools, utensils, weapons, and it helped enable the introduction of the plough.
|-
|[[Buddhism]]
|It is a belief system which teaches that desire causes suffering and if desire is eliminated, enlightenment and Nirvana are attained.
|-
|[[Byzantine Empire]]
|It was the eastern part of the Roman Empire that split away. It outlasted the Western half by 1000 years due to its greater financial resources.
|-
|[[Carthage]]
|A city off the coast of Africa whose rivalry with Rome led to the three Punic Wars at the end of which Carthage was destroyed and decreed never to be rebuilt.
|-
|[[Caste]]
|It is a social rank in Hinduism. Brahmans are priests and scholars, Kshatriya are rulers, Vaishya are peasants, and Shudra are serfs. Good karma enables one to improve his caste in the next life.
|-
|[[Celts]]
|d
|-
|[[Chaldeans]]
|d
|-
|[[China]]
|d
|-
|[[city-states]]
|small nations consisting of only a single city each; common in ancient Greece. Examples included Sparta, Athens and Corinth. They fought each other, but also banned together to defeat the Persians when that great empire sought to absorb Greece.
|-
|[[Civilization]]
|d
|-
|[[Classical Civilizations]]
|d
|-
|[[Classicism]]
|d
|-
|[[Code of Manu]]
|d
|-
|[[Colosseum]]
|d
|-
|[[Comedy]]
|d
|-
|[[Confucius]]
|d
|-
|[[Constantine]]
|d
|-
|[[Constantinople]]
|d
|-
|[[Council of Nicaea]]
|d
|-
|[[cuneiform]]
|d
|-
|[[David]]
|d
|-
|[[Dharma]]
|d
|-
|[[Diaspora]]
|d
|-
|[[Direct Democracy]]
|laws are made by votes of the citizens, rather than by elected officials. Athens of ancient Greece was the first direct democracy.
|-
|[[Early agriculture]]
|d
|-
|[[Edict of Milan]]
|a political proclamation that fully legalized Christianity (and all other religions) throughout the Roman Empire. This edict was issued by Constantine I in 313 AD, shortly after the end of the Diocletian persecutions against Christians.
|-
|[[Egypt]]
|d
|-
|[[Eightfold Path]]
|d
|-
|[[Enlightened One]]
|d
|-
|[[Epic of Gilgamesh]]
|d
|-
|[[Euclid]]
|d
|-
|[[Fertile Crescent]]
|d
|-
|[[Four Noble Truths]]
|d
|-
|[[Gentiles]]
|The term for people who are not of Israeli descent.
|-
|[[Gracchi brothers]]
|d
|-
|[[Great Wall of China]]
|d
|-
|[[Greek drama]]
|d
|-
|[[Greek empire]]
|d
|-
|[[Gupta empire]]
|d
|-
|[[Hammurabi]]
|d
|-
|[[Hannibal]]
|d
|-
|[[Hebrews]]
|d
|-
|[[heliocentric]]
|d
|-
|[[Hellenistic]]
|d
|-
|[[hieroglyphics]]
|d
|-
|[[Hinduism]]
|d
|-
|[[Hippocrates]]
|d
|-
|[[Homer]]
|d
|-
|[[Huns]]
|d
|-
|[[Ideograms]]
|d
|-
|[[India]]
|d
|-
|[[Indus River Valley]]
|d
|-
|[[Iron Age]]
|d
|-
|[[Isaac]]
|The promised son born to Abraham and Sarah in their old age. The father of the Israeli people.
|-
|[[Ishmael]]
|Bastard son born to Abraham and Sarah's servant.
|-
|[[Israel]]
|d
|-
|[[Jainism]]
|d
|-
|[[Jesus]]
|d
|-
|[[Judah, Kingdom of]]
|d
|-
|[[Julius Caesar]]
|d
|-
|[[Karma]]
|d
|-
|[[Latin]]
|d
|-
|[[Maize]]
|d
|-
|[[Mandate of Heaven]]
|d
|-
|[[Marc Antony]]
|d
|-
|[[Mauryan Empire]]
|d
|-
|[[Mesoamerica]]
|d
|-
|[[Mesopotamia]]
|d
|-
|[[Messiah]]
|d
|-
|[[Middle Ages]]
|d
|-
|[[Middle Kingdom]]
|d
|-
|[[monotheism]]
|d
|-
|[[monsoons]]
|d
|-
|[[Moses]]
|d
|-
|[[New Kingdom]]
|d
|-
|[[Nicene Creed]]
|d
|-
|[[Nirvana]]
|d
|-
|[[Old Kingdom]]
|d
|-
|[[Olympics (Ancient Greek)]]
|d
|-
|[[Paul]]
|d
|-
|[[Pax Romana]]
|d
|-
|[[Peloponnesian War]]
|d
|-
|[[Pentateuch]]
|d
|-
|[[Persian empire]]
|d
|-
|[[Persian Wars]]
|d
|-
|[[Peter]]
|d
|-
|[[pharaoh]]
|d
|-
|[[Philip of Macedon]]
|d
|-
|[[Philistines]]
|d
|-
|[[Phoenicians]]
|d
|-
|[[Plato]]
|d
|-
|[[polis]]
|d
|-
|[[polytheism]]
|d
|-
|[[Ptolemy]]
|d
|-
|[[Punic Wars]]
|d
|-
|[[pyramids]]
|d
|-
|[[Roman empire]]
|d
|-
|[[Roman republic]]
|d
|-
|[[Rome]]
|The capital city of the Roman Empire and now, modern day Italy. Founded by Romulus and Remus who supposedly fought over which one of them the city would be named after. Romulus killed his brother and had the city named after himself.
|-
|[[Rosetta Stone]]
|d
|-
|[[Saul]]
|d
|-
|[[Senate]]
|d
|-
|[[Seven Wonders of the Ancient World]]
|d
|-
|[[Siddhartha Guatama]]
|d
|-
|[[Silk Road]]
|d
|-
|[[Socrates]]
|d
|-
|[[Solomon]]
|d
|-
|[[Sparta]]
|d
|-
|[[Spread of Buddhism]]
|d
|-
|[[St. Augustine]]
|d
|-
|[[Sumer]]
|d
|-
|[[Sumerians]]
|d
|-
|[[Taoism (Daoism)]]
|d
|-
|[[Ten Commandments]]
|d
|-
|[[Theocracy]]
|d
|-
|[[Thucydides]]
|d
|-
|[[Torah]]
|d
|-
|[[Tragedy]]
|d
|-
|[[Vedas]]
|d
|-
|[[Virgil]]
|d
|-
|[[Vishnu]]
|d
|-
|[[Visigoths]]
|d
|-
|[[Warring States Period]]
|d
|-
|[[Yahweh]]
|God as described in the [[Old Testament]], written as YHWH in the original Hebrew.
|-
|[[Yin and Yang]]
|d
|-
|[[Zhou dynasty]]
|d
|-
|[[Ziggurat]]
|d
|-
|[[Zoroastrianism]]
|d
|-
|}

==Honors terms==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Term
!Definition
|-
|[[Age of Metal]]
|d
|-
|[[Age of Pericles]]
|d
|-
|[[Queen Ahhotep|Ahhotep]]
|d
|-
|[[Akkadian Empire]]
|d
|-
|[[Alluvial]]
|d
|-
|[[Arianism]]
|d
|-
|[[Ark of the Covenant]]
|d
|-
|[[Aryans]]
|d
|-
|[[Ashoka]]
|d
|-
|[[Bantu]]
|d
|-
|[[Barracks Emperors]]
|d
|-
|[[Battle of Marathon]]
|d
|-
|[[Bhagavad Gita]]
|d
|-
|[[Caesar's Commentaries]]
|d
|-
|[[Caligula]]
|d
|-
|[[Canaan]]
|d
|-
|[[Catal Huyuk]]
|d
|-
|[[Cato the Censor]]
|d
|-
|[[Champollion, Jean]]
|d
|-
|[[Chandragupta Maurya]]
|d
|-
|[[Cicero]]
|d
|-
|[[Cincinnatus]]
|d
|-
|[[Claudius]]
|d
|-
|[[Cleopatra]]
|d
|-
|[[Confucianism]]
|d
|-
|[[Constitutional monarchy]]
|d
|-
|[[consul]]
|d
|-
|[[Copts]]
|d
|-
|[[Covenant]]
|d
|-
|[[Cynicism]]
|d
|-
|[[Cyrus]]
|d
|-
|[[Darius]]
|d
|-
|[[Delian League]]
|d
|-
|[[Demosthenes]]
|d
|-
|[[Diocletian]]
|d
|-
|[[Dorians]]
|d
|-
|[[Dravidians]]
|d
|-
|[[Empress Lu]]
|d
|-
|[[Epicureanism]]
|d
|-
|[[Etruscans]]
|d
|-
|[[Euripedes]]
|d
|-
|[[Exodus]]
|d
|-
|[[Five Good Emperors]]
|d
|-
|[[foraging society]]
|d
|-
|[[Four Emperors Era]]
|d
|-
|[[Franks]]
|d
|-
|[[Gaul]]
|d
|-
|[[Golden mean]]
|d
|-
|[[Great Canal]]
|d
|-
|[[Hadrian]]
|d
|-
|[[Han empire]]
|d
|-
|[[Harappa]]
|d
|-
|[[Hatshepsut]]
|d
|-
|[[Hellenistic culture]]
|d
|-
|[[helot]]
|d
|-
|[[Herodotus]]
|d
|-
|[[Hiram]]
|d
|-
|[[Hittites]]
|d
|-
|[[Horace]]
|d
|-
|[[humanism]]
|d
|-
|[[Hyksos]]
|d
|-
|[[Iron Smelting]]
|d
|-
|[[Iliad]]
|d
|-
|[[Jericho]]
|d
|-
|[[Josephus]]
|d
|-
|[[Kassites]]
|d
|-
|[[Khufu]]
|d
|-
|[[Khyber Pass]]
|d
|-
|[[Kush]]
|d
|-
|[[Larger Vehicle]]
|d
|-
|[[Last Roman Emperor]]
|d
|-
|legalism
|d
|-
|[[Legions]]
|d
|-
|[[Lesser Vehicle]]
|d
|-
|[[Livy]]
|d
|-
|[[Loess]]
|d
|-
|[[Mahayana]]
|d
|-
|[[Manichaeism]]
|d
|-
|[[Marathon]]
|d
|-
|[[Marcus Aurelius]]
|d
|-
|[[Marius]]
|d
|-
|[[Masada]]
|d
|-
|[[Menes]]
|d
|-
|[[Meroe]]
|d
|-
|[[Minoan Civilization]]
|d
|-
|[[Moksha]]
|d
|-
|[[Mount Sinai]]
|d
|-
|[[Mycenaean Civilization]]
|d
|-
|[[Nebuchadnezzar I]]
|d
|-
|[[Nebuchadnezzar II]]
|d
|-
|[[Neolithic Age]]
|d
|-
|[[Nero]]
|d
|-
|[[Nerva]]
|d
|-
|[[Nineveh]]
|d
|-
|[[Nok culture]]
|d
|-
|[[Octavian]]
|d
|-
|[[Odyssey]]
|d
|-
|[[Olmec]]
|d
|-
|oracle bone
|d
|-
|[[Ostrogoths]]
|d
|-
|[[Ovid]]
|d
|-
|[[Paleolithic Age]]
|d
|-
|[[papyrus]]
|d
|-
|pariah
|d
|-
|[[Parthenon]]
|d
|-
|[[patricians]]
|d
|-
|[[Peru]]
|d
|-
|[[Philippides]]
|d
|-
|[[Philo]]
|d
|-
|[[Pisistratids]]
|d
|-
|[[plebian]]
|d
|-
|[[Plutarch]]
|d
|-
|[[Pompey]]
|d
|-
|[[praetors]]
|d
|-
|[[Prehistory]]
|d
|-
|purdah
|d
|-
|[[Pythagorus]]
|d
|-
|[[Ramayana]]
|d
|-
|[[Ramses II]]
|d
|-
|[[Rig Veda]]
|d
|-
|[[Romance of Three Kingdoms]]
|d
|-
|[[Romulus and Remus]]
|d
|-
|[[rule of tyrants]]
|d
|-
|[[Sargon the Great]]
|d
|-
|[[Sati (Buddhism)]]
|d
|-
|[[Satrap]]
|d
|-
|[[Saxons]]
|d
|-
|[[Schliemann, Heinrich]]
|d
|-
|[[Scipio]]
|d
|-
|[[Seneca]]
|d
|-
|[[Shang dynasty]]
|d
|-
|[[Shang Yang]]
|d
|-
|[[Shi]]
|d
|-
|[[Shiva]]
|d
|-
|[[Solon]]
|d
|-
|[[Sophocles]]
|d
|-
|[[Steppes]]
|d
|-
|[[Stoicism]]
|d
|-
|[[Stone age]]
|d
|-
|[[Stupa]]
|d
|-
|[[Sulla]]
|d
|-
|Sunna
|d
|-
|[[Sumuabum]]
|d
|-
|[[Suttee]]
|d
|-
|[[Tacitus]]
|d
|-
|[[Taj Mahal]]
|d
|-
|[[terra cotta]]
|d
|-
|[[Theravada]]
|d
|-
|[[Thutmos III]]
|d
|-
|[[Tiber River]]
|d
|-
|[[Tiberius]]
|d
|-
|[[Tigris and Euphrates]]
|d
|-
|[[Titus and Domitian]]
|d
|-
|[[Trajan]]
|d
|-
|[[Tribal Assembly]]
|d
|-
|[[Triumvirate]]
|d
|-
|[[Twelve Tables]]
|d
|-
|[[Untouchables]]
|d
|-
|[[Upanishads]]
|d
|-
|[[Ur]]
|d
|-
|[[Vandals]]
|d
|-
|[[Vespasian]]
|d
|-
|[[Wheel]]
|d
|-
|[[Xenephos]]
|d
|-
|[[Xerxes]]
|d
|-
|[[Zealots]]
|d
|-
|[[Zeno]]
|d
|-
|}

[[Category:World History lectures]]

Talk:World History Study Guide to 1648

2011-08-14T22:30:08Z

RonLar: Created page with "Marvelous work! But may I draw you attention to User talk:Aschlafly#Have you made a determination yet? --~~~~"

Marvelous work! But may I draw you attention to [[User talk:Aschlafly#Have you made a determination yet?]] --[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:30, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Saint Benedict

2011-08-14T21:10:28Z

RonLar:

'''Saint Benedict''' (born about 480 near [[Nursia]], died Mar 21, 547 in [[Monte Cassino]]) was a great [[monk]] and [[abbot]] who founded twelve monasteries and wrote the [[Rule of St. Benedict]]. He was canonized by the [[Catholic]] Church in 1220 A.D. St. Benedict's rules are also followed by some monastic communities of the [[Lutheran]] and [[Anglican Communion|Anglican]] Churches. In 1964 [[Pope]] Paul VI named St. Benedict as [[Patron Saint]] of [[Europe]] in recognition of his contribution to European Christianity and civilization.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Benedict, Saint}}

[[Category:Saints]]

Talk:Definition of atheism

2011-08-14T16:09:08Z

RonLar: /* The blog post is not listed as being by shockofgod */true perhaps, but not verifiable

There's a huge difference between saying that everything is made of matter, and materialism.
Saying that everything is made of matter is a scientific concept, which actually has different definitions of matter (ie. some don't consider light to be matter because their definition of matter requires it to have mass. Whilst some do consider light to be matter because it is made up of particles). 
Materialism is something different entirely. Materialism is a philosophical viewpoint, and is about wanting only physical things, such as a big house or a nice car, and not caring about emotional things such as love and friendship.
Because they are different, it is improper to put 'materialism' in brackets after mentioning the idea that everything is made of matter, and is why I removed that implication. - JamesCA, July 31 2011

:Maybe you should look at the [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism definition of materialism] again. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 21:30, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Putting the issue into context, here's the line: "Some of the central dogmas of atheism include the non-existence of God, the non-existence of afterlife or an immortal soul, that all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter (materialism), and that faith is illegitimate". okay, fair point, but as the word 'materialism' is associated more often with the philosophical definition, rather than the science one, perhaps it would be better to put "(the scientific theory of materialism)" instead of just "materialism". - JamesCA, 31 July 2011
:JamesCA, there is a distinction between the ''philosophical'' definition of materialism (all reality is reducible to matter), and the ''popular'' one (excessive focus on material wealth). It should be obvious from the context that the first definition is meant, not the second. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:12, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
:It is only obvious to those who know of both. It was only after following the link above that I was aware of the philosophical definition. So I think that a bit of clarity is useful, and is not harmful to the article. JamesCA, August 6 2011
::Well, the article reads now: ''Some of the central dogmas of atheism include... that all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter ([[materialism]])''. I think it was clear enough already, given that we explciitly state what definition of materialism we are using "all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter". But now there is a link to the article which discusses the same definition, so if there is any doubt in the reader's mind, they should click on that link and enlighten themselves. :) [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 22:44, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::: Good idea. No further issues. - JamesCA, August 7 2011

== The blog post is not listed as being by shockofgod ==

The blog post is not listed as being by shockofgod. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:06, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:''Given that Shockofgod is such a big thorn in the side of internet atheist and has won over 50 debates with atheists, a quote from his blog certainly suffices. '' Conservative, Aug 10, 2011
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:18, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

If the ''blog post is not listed as being by shockofgod'', then you are giving as the source of J. Calvert's quote: ''someone said something somewhere on the internet''. Could you please explain your understanding of [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia's First Commandment]]:
{{cquote|Everything you post must be true and verifiable. }}
Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:09, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-13T20:04:15Z

RonLar: /* Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above */

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-13T15:58:00Z

RonLar: /* On archiving */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policy. He is currently on a summer vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
*And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to? My guess is none so your "expert" opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:# ''Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.)'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy'' That may be a very promising development...
:# ''At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership.'' In the fast moving world of the internet, such intricate plans are of relatively little value.
:By the way: could you show me to a talk page where you successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? Thanks
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-13T13:56:24Z

RonLar: /* On archiving */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
*And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-13T13:20:14Z

RonLar: /* On archiving */ change my comment

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-13T13:17:29Z

RonLar: /* On archiving */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-08-13T12:50:52Z

RonLar: /* Why were the archives deleted? */ new section

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Category:Medal of Honor recipients

2011-08-13T12:34:55Z

RonLar: Category: Military honors

[[Category: Military honors]]

James Swett

2011-08-13T12:31:42Z

RonLar: Category:Medal of Honor recipients

[[Image:James Swett.jpg|thumb|right|Colonel James Swett, USMCR]]
'''James Elms Swett''' was a fighter pilot and [[Flying ace|ace]] in the [[United States Marine Corps|US Marines]] in [[World War II]]. He earned the [[Medal of Honor]] for heroism on his very first combat mission, and finished the war with fifteen and a half aerial victories.

Swett was born on June 15, 1920, in [[Seattle]], [[Washington]], and attended college in San Mateo, [[California]], before enlisting in the Naval Reserves in August 1941.<ref>[http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/Whos_Who/Swett_JE.htm Who’s Who in the Marine Corps]</ref> He became an aviation cadet and earned his wings as a Marine Corps aviator in April 1942, being assigned soon after to VMF-221, the “Fighting Falcons”. The unit, equipped with [[F4F Wildcat]] fighters, arrived at [[Guadalcanal]] on March 16, 1943. By this time in the war, Guadalcanal and some surrounding islands had been secured, but most of the rest of the [[Solomon Islands]] chain was still occupied by the Japanese. Swett had his baptism of fire three weeks later. Having finished a morning patrol on April 7, he was sent up again in the afternoon after coastwatchers spotted a large group of Japanese planes headed straight for the Marine base. The group turned out to be 67 [[Aichi D3A|Val dive bombers]] escorted by 110 [[Mitsubishi Zero|Zero fighters]]. When they came into visual range, Swett’s fellow flyer, John “Smiley” Burnett from VMF-214, was heard to say, “Holy Christ! There’s millions of ‘em.”<ref name="MyFirstRef">''Semper Fi in the Sky: The Marine Air Battles of World War II'', by Gerald Astor, Presidio Press, 2005</ref> Meeting the Japanese were 76 Marine, Navy, and Army fighters.

The 22-year old Swett was over Tulagi Harbor (on [[Tulagi]] Island across the sound from Guadalcanal) when he spied a group of bombers, and attacked. He shot down three before they could start their bombing runs, then came under friendly anti-aircraft fire which put a hole in his port wing. Pulling up at eight hundred feet, he spotted seven Vals that had just finished their drop. He flew after them, and was able to splash four in short order. When he lined up on the fifth, however, the rear gunner sent out a stream of murderous fire, shattering Svett’s canopy and damaging the engine. Swett was still game, and poured the last of his ammunition into the bomber, causing it to smoke. He turned back toward Henderson Field, trying to coax his crippled plane as far as he could. It was losing oil, though, and the engine seized, forcing Svett to ditch in the waters off nearby Florida Island. Swett suffered a broken nose in the crash, and was dragged twenty feet below the surface by his sinking plane before he could extricate himself. Swett managed to get aboard his life raft, and was rescued by a picket boat. He was taken to Tulugi, where his wounds were treated. Unfortunately, the pain-killing combination of a shot of Scotch and a shot of [[morphine]] proved more dangerous for the young Marine than Japanese bullets, and he spent six days in the hospital.<ref>[http://www.acepilots.com/usmc_aces.html#Swett USMC Aces: James Svett]</ref>

His claim of seven victories and a possible eighth was greeted with a certain amount of skepticism at first, but an intelligence officer interviewed witnesses to the battle and was able to confirm his story. Lt. Swett was awarded the [[Medal of Honor]] for his heroism in an amazing first combat mission.<ref>[http://www.medalofhonor.com/JamesSwett.htm James Swett at MedalofHonor.com]</ref>

Overall results of the battle were mixed. Thanks to effective escorting by the Zeros, most of the Vals were able to complete their bombing runs unmolested, sinking a tanker, an American [[destroyer]], and a [[New Zealand]] corvette.<ref>Considering the number of Vals that attacked, this wasn’t a particularly impressive result for an aircraft that had boasted an 80% hit rate in the first six months of the war. Clearly, a year of pilot losses in combat had had an effect.</ref> At least three Wildcats, including Swett’s, and one [[F4U Corsair]] had been shot down, but all pilots were recovered safely, and American intelligence determined that between the fighters and anti-aircraft fire, the enemy had lost twelve Vals and twenty-seven Zeroes (although Japanese records showed only 21 aircraft lost in total), one of the Vals being downed by Swett’s excitable friend, “Smiley” Burnett.

Soon after this battle, Swett’s squadron traded in their Wildcats for Corsairs. Swett would score eight and a half further victories in that plane, for a total score of fifteen and a half. This included two dive bombers shot down on November 1, 1943, during the Marine landing on the island of [[Bougainville]], one of the last objectives of the Solomons campaign.<ref name="MyFirstRef"/> Swett was sent back to the States in January 1944, but returned the next year onboard the aircraft carrier ''Bunker Hill''. His squadron’s most important duty was to protect the fleet against [[kamikaze]] attacks, Corsairs being particularly suited for this task. Swett scored his last victory, a kamikaze, on May 11, 1945. Unfortunately, the ''Bunker Hill'' herself was hit by two others on that very day, which set fires, killed close to 400 men, and forced Swett and his mates to land on the nearby [[USS Enterprise (CV-6)|''Enterprise'']]. ''Bunker Hill'' was able to make it to [[Pearl Harbor]] for repairs, but was out of action for the rest of the war.

After the war, James Swett left active duty with the rank of major, although he stayed in the Marine Corps Reserves until 1970, retiring with the rank of colonel. He enjoyed a successful post-war career in manufacturing.

Jim Swett's first mission was portrayed on an episode of the [[History Channel]] series, ''Dogfights'' (see link, below), for which Swett also provided commentary.

==References and Notes==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-C5xEorpRE Computer animation of Swett's first mission] at YouTube.com (Swett's story starts at 3:45, and is continued in Part 5/5)
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20060423013135/http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eaglebios/96bios/swett96.htm Swett Bio]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Swett, James}}
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]
[[Category:World War II]]

Rodger W. Young

2011-08-13T12:31:27Z

RonLar: Category:Medal of Honor recipients

[[File:Rodger Young.jpg|thumb|right|Rodger Young, taken while he was still a sergeant]]
'''Rodger Wilton Young''' (April 28, 1918 - July 31, 1943) was a private in the U.S. Army who was posthumously awarded the [[Medal of Honor]] for his actions in combat during [[World War II]].

== Early Life ==

Rodger Young was born in Tiffin, Ohio<ref name="sandusky">[http://www.sandusky-county-scrapbook.net/Young/Biographical.htm Rodger W. Young biography]</ref> to Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Young. <ref name="sandusky"/> He had three brothers and one sister. <ref name="sandusky"/> As a teenager he enjoyed fishing and hunting<ref name="sandusky"/> and also tried to participate in [[american football|football]], [[basketball]], and [[baseball]]. Due to his small stature, his participation in these sports was limited. He persevered, and his determination ensured that he was put into a few basketball games. However, he suffered a head injury in a game, resulting in dulled senses. Thereafter, he struggled at high school because of his injury and eventually left school to help support his family instead.<ref name="young">[http://www.homeofheroes.com/profiles/profiles_young.html Young profile]</ref>

== Military Career ==
In 1938 he joined the Ohio National Guard. At the time he joined, he was only 5'2" and weighed 125 pounds. He trained at Camp Shelby, [[Mississippi]] and Indiantown Gap Military Reservation, [[Pennsylvania]], where he served as an instructor of a rifle range, and won marksmanship medals. He was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant and was appointed a squad leader, all while hiding the severity of the effects from his high school head injury.

Upon America's entry into World War 2, he was deployed to the Pacific Theater, where he first went to the Fiji and Solomon Islands after their liberation. While on the islands, awaiting deployment to Guadalcanal, Young trained his men to the best of his abilities. He eventually realized his previous injury might cause problems in the chain of command, and possibly result in the death of his men. He decided to voluntarily ask for a demotion to the rank of private. This selfless action was at first thought to be an act of cowardice by his CO, but they later clarified it with each other.

Rodger Young took part in [[Operation Cartwheel]] and was among those tasked with capturing and holding the airstrip at Munda, New Georgia, Solomon Islands. During a patrol, Young's platoon, under the command of Sergeant Walter Rigby, was ambushed by a hidden Japanese machine-gun nest. The platoon was pinned down and had no way to either effectively retreat or advance. After several people were wounded, Young crawled toward the machine-gun nest, suffering multiple wounds as he did so, including some immobilizing of one of his arms. Despite his many wounds, he continued his advance and eventually reached within fifteen feet of the enemy fortification. He then armed a grenade, using one arm and his teeth to pull the pin. He stood up, facing the hail of enemy bullets, and threw the grenade, which destroyed the fortification. The enemy shot him a third time, killing him.

Rodger Young managed to save fifteen of the twenty man patrol, at the cost of his own life .

Rodger W. Young is buried at McPherson Cemetery, Clyde, Sandusky County, Ohio.<ref>[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=20871 Rodger Wilton Young at Find A Grave]</ref>

== Medal of Honor ==
Due to his actions in battle, Rodger Young was awarded the [[Medal of Honor]] posthumously on January 6, 1944.<ref>[http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/3076/young-rodger-w.php Young, Rodger W. at the Congressional Medal of Honor Society]</ref>
<blockquote>
The President of the United States takes pride in awarding the Medal of Honor posthumously to 

PRIVATE RODGER W. YOUNG, COMPANY B, 148th 

INFANTRY, UNITED STATES ARMY 

for service as set forth in the following 

CITATION: 

"For distinguishing himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with the enemy on New Georgia, Solomon Islands. On 31 July 1943, the infantry company, of which Private Young was a member, was ordered to make a limited withdrawal from the battle line in order to adjust the battalion's position for the night. At this time, Private Young's platoon was engaged with the enemy in a dense jungle where observation was very limited. The platoon suddenly was pinned down by intense fire from a Japanese machine-gun concealed on higher ground only seventy-five yards away. The initial burst wounded Private Young. As the platoon started to obey the order to withdraw, Private Young called out the he could see the enemy emplacement, whereupon he started creeping toward it. Another burst from the machine-gun wounded him the second time. Despite his wounds, he continued his heroic advance, attracting enemy fire and answering with rifle fire. When he was close enough to his objective, he began throwing hand grenades and while doing so was hit again and killed. Private Young's bold action in closing with this Japanese pillbox and thus diverting its fire, permitted his platoon to disengage itself, without loss, and was responsible for several enemy casualties."<ref>[http://www.sandusky-county-scrapbook.net/Young/MdlHnr.htm Citation]</ref>
</blockquote>

==Additional honors==

March 31, 1945 was proclaimed "Rodger W. Young Day" in Ohio in honor of his great deeds and accomplishments.<ref>[http://www.sandusky-county-scrapbook.net/Young/Proclam.htm Proclamation]</ref>

"The Ballad of Rodger Young" was written by Frank Loesser and first performed in March, 1945. The words were based on his Medal of Honor citation and it went on to become one of the best-known songs of the war. <ref name="young"/>

The author Robert A. Heinlein mentioned Young in his 1949 short story, "The Long Watch", and Heinlein named a troop transport ship the ''TFCT Rodger Young'' in his Hugo-winning 1959 novel, ''Starship Troopers''. The name was also used in the 1997 movie adaptation.

==External links==
*[http://www.homeofheroes.com/profiles/profiles_young.html Rodger Young - Little man, big hero]
*[http://www.sandusky-county-scrapbook.net/Young.htm Biography and information on Rodger Young]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MEJM0cboDg The Ballad of Roger Young on YouTube]
*[http://www.west-point.org/greimanj/west_point/songs/RodgerYoung.htm Lyrics to the song]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Young, Rodger}}
[[category:Ohio]]
[[category:World War II]]
[[category:United States Heroes]]
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]

Charles J. Watters

2011-08-13T12:31:11Z

RonLar: Category:Medal of Honor recipients

'''Charles J. Watters''' was born in Jersey City, [[New Jersey]] in 1927. He was ordained as a [[Catholic]] [[Priest]] in 1953. In 1964 he became a [[chaplain]] in the [[U.S. Army]].

In 1966, he went to [[Vietnam]] with his unit, and during his first tour he won the [[Air Medal]] and the [[Bronze Star]] for Valor. On November 19, 1967, his unit was in heavy combat with the enemy. Chaplain Watters saved the lives of several soldiers while under enemy fire. For "his conspicuous gallantry, unyielding perseverance and selfless devotion to his comrades" Chaplain Watters was posthumously awarded the [[Medal of Honor]]. He is buried in [[Arlington National Cemetery]].

==External Links==

[http://www.thecross-photo.com/Charles_Watters.htm Charles Watters]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Watters, Charles J.}}
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]
[[Category:Vietnam War]]
[[Category:Clergy]]

Theodore Roosevelt

2011-08-13T12:30:49Z

RonLar: Category:Medal of Honor recipients

{{President
|image=Theodore roosevelt.jpg
|seq=26
|term_start=September 14, 1901
|term_end=March 4, 1909<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~sharonday7/Presidents/AP060301.htm</ref>
|party=Republican
|vp=None
|vp_dates=1901-1905
|2vp=Charles W. Fairbanks
|2vp_dates=1905-1909
|previous=William McKinley
|next=William Howard Taft
|office2=vice
|seq2=25
|term_start2=March 4, 1901
|term_end2=September 14, 1901
|pres2=William McKinley
|previous2=Garret Hobart
|next2=Charles W. Fairbanks
|birth_date=October 27, 1858
|birth_place=New York, New York
|death_date=January 6, 1919
|death_place=Oyster Bay, New York
|spouse=Alice Hathaway Lee
|spouse2=Edith Kermit Carow
|religion=Dutch Reformed
}}
'''Theodore Roosevelt''' was the 26th [[President of the United States of America]], 1901-1909, leader of the [[Republican party]], and (in 1912-16) the Progressive Party. Roosevelt is best known for his remarkable personality and commitment to democratic process. He was strongly committed to law and order, active leadership, civic duty, and individual self-responsibility, and was more concerned with the process of change than its direction.

A strong and vigorous man both personally and in politics, it was through Roosevelt that the world identified America with cowboy values of courage, initiative, and hardiness while it watched TR expand American influence in world affairs.

Roosevelt enlarged the presidency because he made it a "bully pulpit" for national uplift and inspiration. He preached as much as he politicked. He felt responsible for the well-being and morals of the whole country. He set an example of how a large, strenuous life could be led, and he invited others to renew their energies and apply them to public causes. TR strongly endorsed motherhood and criticized women who had careers while neglecting motherhood <ref> See "Theodore Roosevelt on Motherhood and the Welfare of the State," ''Population and Development Review,'' Vol. 13, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 141-147 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972126 online]</ref>.

In the contest between [[Conservation and environmentalism]], Roosevelt supported the conservation and optimum use of natural resources, and opposed the environmentalists of the day, such as [[John Muir]].

==Family==
The Roosevelts could trace their family to Claes Martenssen van Rosenvelt, an immigrant from Zealand, Holland ([[Netherlands]]) who came to America in 1649, settling in New Amsterdam ([[New York City]]). Theodore was born on October 27, 1858, the second child of a very successful New York businessman, Theodore Roosevelt, Sr., and his wife Martha Bulloch, a Southern belle from Georgia. His early childhood was marked by frequent illness and asthma, of which his father spent many an evening bundling up "Tedie" - as young Theodore was often called - and taking him out for carriage rides in the fresh air. By age 10 his father would have enough of the possibility of his son growing into an unhealthy weakling, and forced on him a regimen of weights and daily physical exercise.

===Education===
TR was home schooled by tutors and his parents. He was solid in geography (thanks to his careful observations on all his travels) and very well read in history, strong in biology, French and German, but deficient in mathematics, Latin and Greek. He became one of the outstanding naturalists of the era, specializing in very careful study of birds.<ref> Brands (2001) p. 49–50</ref> He attended [[Harvard]] College, graduating in 1880 "magna cum laude". He lived very well--his annual $4000 allowance was higher than the president of the college--the days of equalitarian houses were decades in the future. His father's sudden death in 1878 was a stunning blow; Roosevelt redoubled his efforts.<ref> His inheritance was worth $8000 a year, about triple what the average doctor or lawyer earned.</ref> In academics he did well in science, philosophy and rhetoric courses, as well as German; but fared poorly in Latin and Greek. Harvard did not have majors, but he took all the advanced biology he could. Classmates considered him an odd bird--he kept snakes in his room and knew all about them. He also dressed in the latest fashions and kept his own horse and buggy. A crack shot, he brought his friends along on hunting parties to the north woods. The perfect gentleman, he was invited into the best clubs.

Roosevelt had amazing powers of concentration. He had a photographic memory and developed a life-long habit of devouring books, memorizing every detail. He was an unusually eloquent conversationalist who, throughout his life, sought out the company of the smartest men and women. He could multitask in extraordinary fashion, dictating letters to one secretary and memoranda to another, while browsing through a new book. During his adulthood, a visitor would get a not-so-subtle hint that Roosevelt was losing interest in the conversation when he would pick up a book and begin looking at it now and then as the conversation continued.

===First marriage===
[[Image:Alice Lee.gif|thumb|left|Mrs. Alice Roosevelt]]

Roosevelt married Alice Lee of Boston in 1880. on February 14, 1884, Roosevelt's young wife died after giving birth to the couple's first child. Only a few hours earlier, his mother, Martha Bulloch Roosevelt had died in the same house. After the double funeral and the christening of his new baby daughter, Alice, on February 17, 1884, the bereaved husband wrote:''
:::::::''For joy or for sorrow my life has now been lived out.''

He never again ever mentioned Alice Lee.
{{Clear}}

==Early career==
Given a chance to run for the state legislature in a "silk stocking" (rich) district in Manhattan, he astonished his upscale friends by dropping out of Columbia Law School, and was elected. His goal, he explained, was to join the "ruling class" not merely watch it passively.

Young Roosevelt was a Republican reformer in the legislature, writing more bills than anyone. Already a major player in state politics, he attended the Republican National Convention in 1884 and fought alongside the [[Mugwump]] reformers; they lost to the Stalwart faction that nominated [[James G. Blaine]]. Refusing to join other Mugwumps in supporting Democrat [[Grover Cleveland]], the Democratic nominee, he stayed loyal to the GOP.<ref>Edward Kohn, "Crossing the Rubicon: Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the 1884 Republican National Convention." ''Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era'' 2006 5(1): 18-45. Issn: 1537-7814 </ref>

TR held many offices. He was on the federal Civil Service Commission, then headed the New York City Police Department. After campaigning vigorously for [[William McKinley]] in the momentous 1896 presidential election, he became Assistant Secretary of the Navy, the #2 position. TR loved ships and had written solid naval history; his goal was to modernize the Navy, bringing it up to world class standards.

==War with Spain, 1898, and Medal of Honor==
When the battleship ''Maine'' was blown up in Manila harbor on February 15, 1898, Roosevelt, immediately resigned as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and worked with Colonel [[Leonard Wood]] to recruit a volunteer cavalry regiment composed of TR's Ivy League friends and western cowboys for the [[Spanish-American War|coming war against Spain]]. Hundreds answered his invitation to join in this grand endeavor, and, after brief training, the "Rough Riders" arrived in Cuba. On July 1, 1898, Roosevelt seized the initiative and led his men on the celebrated charge of San Juan Hill where 89 of the 490 who followed were killed. Nevertheless, the press and Roosevelt made this the most important battle of the campaign. The "splendid little war" (as termed by John Hay, State Ambassador to England<ref>Frank Freidel, ''The Splendid Little War'', (Boston: Little, Brown and Co. 1958)</ref>) was soon over and TR returned to a hero's welcome in New York City.

After the battles in Cuba, malaria, yellow fever and typhoid became an issue for the troops. Roosevelt, not constrained by a military career, complained to both the White House and the press about the need for the troops to return home for better care. This, coupled with a bias against volunteers, is most likely the reason that when Roosevelt was nominated for the Congressional [[Medal of Honor]] for his bravery during the battle at San Juan Hill, the nomination was not approved.<ref name="medal">[http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/medalofhonor.htm Roosevelt Medal of Honor]</ref>

President [[Bill Clinton]] posthumously bestowed the Medal of Honor to Roosevelt on January 16, 2001, saying,
<blockquote>
...TR was a larger-than-life figure who gave our nation a larger-than-life vision of our place in the world. Part of that vision was formed on San Juan Hill. His Rough Riders were made up of all kinds of Americans from all walks of life. They were considered unpolished and undisciplined, but they were true citizen soldiers. By taking San Juan Hill, eventually they forced the enemy fleet into the Battle of Santiago Bay, where it was routed. This led to the Spanish surrender and opened the era of America as a global power.<ref name="medal"/>
</blockquote>

Roosevelt and his eldest son, Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt Jr., are one of only two father/son pairs to earn the Medal of Honor. Roosevelt Jr. posthumously received his for actions on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day during [[World War II]]. Roosevelt is the first and only president to receive the Medal of Honor.

==Governor of New York==
A few weeks after his return Roosevelt was elected governor of New York as a Republican in 1898. As governor of New York, Theodore Roosevelt promoted greater accountability and efficiency in government by ending patronage handouts, supporting an effective civil service system, and forcing the Republican machine to hold fair elections.

==Vice President, 1900==
Senator Tom Platt and other party bosses distrusted him, and they forced his nomination as vice president on [[William McKinley]] in 1900. Roosevelt demonstrated his amazing energy by his campaign work. Nationally TR covered 21,209 miles by train. In Nebraska alone, some 300,000 men, women and children turned out for his 673 speeches at 40 cities and towns as he covered 1,500 miles in the state. His arguments for McKinley prosperity and America's role in the Philippines were accepted wholeheartedly or dismissed scornfully by his audiences. The GOP ticket carried Nebraska, the home state of Democratic nominee [[William Jennings Bryan]], by 7,000 votes.

Once in office, TR had little to do.

==President==
When President McKinley was fatally shot by an [[anarchist]] in 1901, Roosevelt automatically became President, and was reelected against a challenge by the Democratic candidate Alton B. Parker in [[United States presidential election, 1904|1904]].
[[Image:Tr2006.jpg|thumb|290px|''Time'' July 3, 2006]]

Roosevelt redefined the modern presidency by drawing attention to the office through his dynamic personality, thus creating a 'public obsession' over his executive actions and attracting a permanent public eye toward the presidency that endowed it with new power.

===Domestic policy===
Roosevelt was the chief leader of the [[Progressive Era|Progressive movement in politics]]--which in 21st century terms includes both liberal and conservative values. He tried to move the dominant Republican Party into the Progressive camp. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved 40 monopolistic corporations as a "trust buster." He did not disagree with trusts and capitalism in principle but was only against their corrupt, illegal practices. His "[[Square Deal]]" promised a fair shake for both the average citizen, including regulation of railroad rates and pure foods and drugs, and the businessmen. As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement, emphasizing efficient use of natural resources.

In his last two years in office (1907-1908), Roosevelt moved left, attacking big business and suggesting the courts were biased against labor unions.
====Pure food and drugs====
Widespread outrage followed publication in 1906 of [[Upton Sinclair]]'s novel, ''The Jungle,'' which detailed the horrible conditions in Chicago’s packinghouses. Roosevelt sent sociologists and social workers to investigate the meat-packing industry in Chicago. Their report to the president was 'revolting,' but since Roosevelt feared the impact on ranchers and European meat importers, he withheld the report from publication. Sinclair was so upset that he provided specific information to newspapers. Roosevelt then had the commissioners put their report in writing, and sent it to Congress. This led to a hearing before Congress; witnesses were asked about seeing a dead hog slide partway into a men's privy. Although Sinclair was a Socialist and his main interest was in the stockyard workers, not consumers, the turmoil over tainted meat helped move Congress to enact the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. The act itself had been drawn up by experts in the Department of Agriculture, and remains in effect in the 21st century.<ref> James Harvey Young, "The Pig That Fell into the Privy: Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle' and the Meat Inspection Amendments of 1906." ''Bulletin of the History of Medicine'' 1985 59(4): 467-480 </ref>

====Coal strike====
The [[Coal strike of 1902]] was a strike by the [[United Mine Workers of America]] in the anthracite coal fields of eastern Pennsylvania. The strike threatened to shut down the winter fuel supply to all major cities.<ref> Most homes and apartments were heated with anthracite or "hard" coal because it had higher heat value and less smoke than "soft" or bituminous coal.</ref> Roosevelt jumped in, and personally negotiated with the mine leaders and financiers. Acting as a neutral party, he set up a fact-finding commission that suspended the strike. The strike never resumed, as the miners received more pay for fewer hours; the owners got a higher price for coal but did not recognize the union as a bargaining agent. It was the first labor episode in which the federal government intervened as a neutral arbitrator and it made Roosevelt's reputation as a peacemaker.
[[Image:Coal-TR.JPG|thumb|300px|left|TR teaches the childish coal barons a lesson; 1902 editorial cartoon]]
====Railroad regulation====
Roosevelt worked closely with Congress to pass important laws (the 1903 Elkins Act and the 1906 Hepburn Act), that regulated railroad rates for the benefit of shippers and consumers, while injuring the railroads (which were assumed to be so rich that they could always pay). The new laws retarded the growth of the South, which the railroads could no longer afford to subsidize.<ref> Albro Martin, "The Troubled Subject of Railroad Regulation in the Gilded Age - a Reappraisal." ''Journal of American History'' 1974 61(2): 339-371 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1903953 in JSTOR]</ref>
====Antitrust====
Roosevelt expressed an antitrust image within a pro business framework. Critics who have measured Roosevelt's success by the number of antitrust suits he brought or won miss the essentially rhetorical purposes of his involvement with corporate America. His primary emphasis involved the promotion of the proper attitude in corporate leaders and the general public regarding the role of big business in American society. This Roosevelt did in two ways. First, he argued metaphorically for the necessity of corporations and the restraint of muckraking journalists. Second, along with employing metaphors to chastise big business, Roosevelt assumed the role of moral guardian and preached to corporate leaders to adhere to an ethical standard in business. For Roosevelt, corporate America could be effectively regulated only by its leaders' sense of morality and spirit of public service.<ref> Dorsey, Leroy G., "Theodore Roosevelt and Corporate America, 1901-1909: a Reexamination," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 1995 25(4): 725-739 </ref>

===Moving left===
[[File:TR-Farewell.jpg|thumb|320px|TR moves left in his 1908 Farewell Address]]
Roosevelt moved left in 1907-08, criticizing the courts, promoting labor unions, and attacking big business. The Republican leadership in Congress ignored his radical proposals, and waited for his successor--Taft--to take over the White House.
===Foreign Policy===
Roosevelt's administration was marked by an active approach to foreign policy. He followed four basic principles: 1) promoting broadly defined American interests worldwide, 2) building American military and naval power and control over strategic points (especially the Panama canal and its approaches), 3) cooperation with the British, and 4) there was a social contract between the nation's citizens and its government, such that civilized nations had a right of intervention in cases in which such a contract had been broken. His foreign policy was well suited for the challenges of the world; he anticipated later attitudes and developments well into the 20th century and even the 21st century, as exemplified by [[John McCain]] in 2008.<ref> M. Patrick Cullinane, "Invoking Teddy: the Inspiration of John Mccain's Foreign Policy." ''Diplomacy & Statecraft'' 2008 19(4): 767-786 </ref> He combined a credible realist and internationalist approach with great attention to detail and full appreciation of the importance of diplomatic finesse.

====Civilization and modernization====
Roosevelt saw it as the duty of more developed ("civilized") nations to help the underdeveloped ("uncivilized") world move forward. In [[Cuba]], the [[Philippines]], [[Puerto Rico]], and the [[Panama Canal Zone]], he used the Army's medical service, under [[Walter Reed]] and [[William C. Gorgas]], to eliminate the [[yellow fever]] menace and install a new regime of public health. He used the army to build up the infrastructure of the new possessions, building railways, telegraph and telephone lines, and upgrading roads and port facilities.
====Army and Navy====
Roosevelt and his Secretary of War [[Elihu Root]] modernized the Army by creating a general staff system and structuring the military away from small frontier forts to modern combat roles.

[[File:Tr-militarist-1904World.jpg|thumb|350px| The ''New York World'' newspaper, mouthpiece of liberal Democrats, blasts TR as a dangerous militaristic dictator in 1904]]

Roosevelt, convinced that American military preparedness hinged on the nation's ability to develop and exploit new technologies, worked to make the technology of the army and navy as modern as possible. Among other things, he took an active interest in the army's consideration of the role of the machine gun and the airplane and in the navy's development of both the submarine and a new and more powerful type of battleship.<ref>Matthew M. Oyos, "Theodore Roosevelt and the Implements of War." ''Journal of Military History'' 1996 60(4): 631-655 25p </ref>

By identifying and working with two talented junior officers in the Navy Department, Albert Lenoir Key and [[William S. Sims]], Roosevelt assembled an ad hoc staff on naval policy. This staff funneled technical information to Roosevelt that allowed him to dominate policy discussions with Congress and the senior Navy staff. The President annoyed his admirals by micromanaging their responsibilities and ignoring the chain of command.<ref>Peri E. Arnold, "Policy Leadership in the Progressive Presidency: the Case of Theodore Roosevelt's Naval Policy and His Search for Strategic Resources". ''Studies in American Political Development'' 1996 10(2): 333-359 </ref>

Roosevelt dramatically increased the size of the navy, forming the new warships into a "Great White Fleet" for display purposes and sending it on a world tour in 1907. This display was designed as a show of force to impress the Japanese, and even more to motivate Americans to support naval power and be aware of the new role in the Pacific. Yet, the ships were almost forced to return because of the inadequacy of American ports in the Pacific.<ref>James R. Reckner, "The Rebirth of the Fleet." ''Naval History'' 2007 21(6): 16-25 online at [[EBSCO]]; Edward S Miller,''War Plan Orange'' (1991) </ref>

====Britain====
Typical of his eagerness for closer cooperation with London was Washington's support for Britain in the [[Boer War]], despite public opinion that favored the underdog Boers. the British reciprocated, so that in settling the boundary dispute between Canada (controlled by Britain) and Alaska, the British sold out the Canadians to gain American favor--a stunning shock to the Canadians.
====Mediator====
Balance of power considerations shaped Roosevelt's role as the successful mediator who ended the 1904-05 war between Russia and Japan. Japan had clearly won, but was not allowed to grab too much, thus allowing Russia to keep a certain power base in the region. Roosevelt justified his actions as consistent with American interests and American values. Moral principles in politics and diplomacy, Roosevelt claimed, help make clear the inescapable tension between ideals and reality. The moral problem persists, he thought, because diplomacy involves choices often obscured by faulty perception, controlled by national interests, and complicated by multiple purposes and goals.<ref>Greg Russell, "Theodore Roosevelt's Diplomacy and the Quest for Great Power Equilibrium in Asia." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2008 38(3): 433-455 </ref>

At the time Japan was consolidating its colonial rule over Korea. Roosevelt supported Japan because he viewed Korea as an backward nation fit to be a protectorate of Japan, which he hoped would protect American economic interests in Manchuria, where Japan was largely in control.<ref> Ki-jung Kim, "Theodore Roosevelt's Image of the World and United States Foreign Policy Toward Korea, 1901-1905." ''Korea Journal'' 1995 35(4): 39-53 1</ref>

====Roosevelt Corollary ====
The '''Roosevelt Corollary''' to the [[Monroe Doctrine]] was a substantial expansion in 1904. Roosevelt asserted the right of the United States to intervene to stabilize the economic affairs of small nations in the Caribbean and Central America if they were unable to pay their international debts and were at risk of intervention by European powers. The new policy primarily prevented intervention by Britain and Germany, which loaned money to the countries that did not repay. The catalyst of the new policy was Germany's aggressiveness in the Venezuela affair of 1902-03. The intervention took the form of takeover of the customs collection, and disbursement of the funds to the debtors and claimants. The policy was unpopular abroad.<ref>Serge Ricard, "The Roosevelt Corollary." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(1): 17-26. Issn: 0360-4918, online </ref>

Mitchener and Weidenmier (2006) show the economic benefits to the small countries. The average debt price for countries under the US "sphere of influence" rose by 74% in response to the pronouncement and actions to make it credible. That is, their bonds rose 74% because buyers now believed they would be repaid. The increase in financial stability reduced internal conflict because political factions could not count on winning control of the national treasury if they won a civil war. The program spurred export growth and better fiscal management, but debt settlements were driven primarily by gunboat diplomacy.<ref>Kris James Mitchener and Marc Weidenmier, "Empire, Public Goods, and the Roosevelt Corollary." ''Journal of Economic History'' 2005 65(3): 658-692. Issn: 0022-0507; online</ref>

<blockquote>
''“Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”'' The phrase was initially used by Roosevelt to explain his relations with domestic political leaders; later the phrase was associated with him and came to refer particularly to his foreign policy with Latin America. <ref> [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/65006/Big-Stick-Policy Big Stick Policy.] </ref>
</blockquote>

====Panama Canal====
[[Image:Panam2.JPG|thumb|350px|Roosevelt builds the canal—and shovels dirt on Bogota, the capital of Colombia]]
Roosevelt felt that the Panama Canal was his most important and historically significant international achievement.

Inspired by [[Alfred Thayer Mahan]]'s extraordinarily influential book ''The Influence of Sea Power upon History'' (1890), Roosevelt believed that American security and geopolitical power could be secured only through naval supremacy. This was particularly important in the Caribbean because of its proximity to the United States, European interest in the area, and its status as a critical juncture of trade routes. Roosevelt was able to maintain US dominance of the Caribbean without resorting to major military action.<ref> James R. Holmes, "Roosevelt's Pursuit of a Temperate Caribbean Policy." ''Naval History'' 2006 20(4): 48-53 in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

In particular, Roosevelt understood the strategic significance of the [[Panama Canal]], which opened up the Pacific Coast and Asia to cheap shipping, and made it possible for the Navy to move rapidly between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

A central issue was which route the canal would take; across Nicaragua and Costa Rica or through the Panama region of Columbia. Intense lobbying resulted in the Congressional decision to follow the Panama route. However, the Colombian Senate rejected the terms of the American Hay-Herran Treaty (1903) and tried to extort more money from the Americans. Roosevelt rejected Colombia's devious strategy and blocked Colombia from suppressing an insurrection in Panama against Colombia. With the success of the revolution, the United States initiated a treaty with the now independent Panama and began construction of the canal, which was completed in 1914.<ref> David McCullough, ''The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914'' (1978) [http://www.amazon.com/Path-Between-Seas-Creation-1870-1914/dp/0671244094/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250828638&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]</ref>

==Break with Taft==
When Roosevelt's term was up he decided not to run again but chose Secretary of War [[William Howard Taft]] as his successor.

Long-term disputes inside the GOP, especially regarding tariffs, and the tension between Eastern industry and Midwest agriculture, pulled the party apart. Whle Roosevelt was in Africa and Europe, his friends grew alarmed that Taft was betraying the progressive cause by collaborating with reactionaries in the GOP. TR finally broke with Taft in 1910 but was outmaneuvered by Taft, who won the GOP nomination in 1912. Roosevelt walked out of the convention and the party, running as an independent on his own "Progressive" ticket, nicknamed the "Bull Moose Party". Roosevelt was shot before giving in a speech in Milwaukee. The bullet lodged in a copy of the speech stuffed into his breast pocket, saving his life. He gave the speech anyway that day, beginning the speech with the famous line, "I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot; but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose."

[[Dale Carnegie]] wrote, "{{tr-taft}}".

Both he and Taft lost to Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]] in the [[United States presidential election, 1912|election of 1912]]. The Taft conservatives, however, kept control of the GOP.

==Exploration==

After leaving office, Roosevelt took a trip along the [[Amazon River]] and wrote a book about his experience, ''Through the Brazilian Wilderness''. While in [[South America]], Roosevelt contracted [[malaria]] and nearly died. At one point, he requested that his expedition leave him behind. His son, Kermit, helped nurse him back to help, and Theodore credited Kermit with saving his life.
==Conservation==
More than any president before or since, Roosevelt insisted that conservation of natural resources be high on the agenda. As a world-class hunter and explorer, he mobilized support among American hunters, fishermen and outdoorsmen. he promoted both the national park system and the national forest system.

[[File:TR-Conservation.jpg|thumb|320px|Roosevelt was a leader in Conservation, fighting to end the waste of of natural resources]]

In the early 20th century there were three main positions. The laissez-faire position held that owners of private property--including lumber and mining companies, should be allowed to do anything they wished for their property. The conservationists, led by Roosevelt and his ally [[Gifford Pinchot]], said that was too wasteful and inefficient. In any case, they noted, most of the natural resources in the western states were already owned by the federal government. The best course of action, they argued, was a long-term plan devised by national experts to maximize the long-term economic benefits of natural resources. The third position, led by the Sierra Club, held that nature was almost sacred, and that man was an intruder. It allowed for limited tourism (such as hiking), but opposed automobiles in national parks. It strenuously opposed timber cutting on most public lands, and vehemently denounced the dams that Roosevelt supported for water supplies, electricity and flood control. Especially controversial was the Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite National park, which Roosevelt approved, and which supplies the water supply of San Francisco. To this day the Sierra Club and its allies want to dynamite Hetch Hetchy and restore it to nature.

==Race and Ethnicity==
Roosevelt was keenly sensitive to the issues surrounding race and ethnicity, particularly the heated debated on immigration restriction. He considered himself Dutch, not Anglo-Saxon . He welcomed the vitality of new immigration, while holding that America's first responsibility was to its literate, native-born, working poor. In balancing these competitive goals, the president backed legislation that limited the immigration of poverty- and disease-stricken people regardless of ethnicity. He blocked harsh anti-Japanese efforts in California, but negotiated an informal agreement whereby Japan would no longer send immigrants. During World War I he attacked certain "[[Hyphenated American|hyphenated Americans]]," especially German-Americans and Irish-Americans, saying they put loyalties to their homeland above American interests.<ref> The German-Americans did not support Germany, but did want the U.S. to remain neutral. The Irish Catholics were so hostile to Britain that they did not want the U.S. to support it.</ref>
===Historian of the frontier===
In ''The Winning of the West,'' a four-volume history of westward expansion, Roosevelt developed the thesis that the western experience shaped and created a new ethnic group or people (what he called a "race"), the true American people. His ideas helped shape the popular culture, especially since his own cowboy persona exemplified all the strengths of the new people. Meanwhile, Professor [[Frederick Jackson Turner]] developed his famous [[Frontier Thesis]], based in part on Roosevelt’s ideas. Turner’s views came to dominate professional historiography and shaped the teaching of history for a century–and is still influential in the 21st century. Roosevelt and Turner shared the view that the frontier was the most significant force in America's cultural and political development, but Turner stressed the complex social and political processes simulated by the frontier, while Roosevelt emphasized that national growth and progress came from the West. Turner envisioned political problems that could befall America if cheap land resources were exhausted. Roosevelt saw a new, highly capable cohort of ruling elites growing out of the conquest of the frontier and leading America to new frontiers.<ref> Richard Slotkin, "Theodore Roosevelt's Frontier Hypothesis," ''European Contributions to American Studies'' 1989 16: 44-71 </ref>

==Patriotism==
Roosevelt once declared:<ref>Theodore Roosevelt, "The Children of the Crucible," 14 Annals of America 1916-1928, 129, at 130 (1968).</ref>

:''We must have but one flag. We must also have but one language. That must be the language of the Declaration of Independence, of Washington’s Farewell address, of Lincoln’s Gettysburg speech and second inaugural. We cannot tolerate any attempt to oppose or supplant the language and culture that has come down to us from the builders of this Republic.''

In the last year of his life Roosevelt was quoted in the [[Kansas City Star]] newspaper about the need for truth in regards to the Presidency:

:''The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.''
==Turn to the left==
About 1907, Roosevelt turned more to the left in domestic policy, and in his 1912 campaign he called for movement toward what would later be called a "welfare state." His move to the left annoyed conservatives and fueled the split in the GOP that exploded in 1912, with TR on the losing side. His nationalism and his chivalry predisposed him toward an enlarged protective state, along with his admiration for what the British were doing at the time.<ref> [[David Lloyd George]] and [[Winston Churchill]], key leaders of the British [[Liberal Party]], started the welfare state in Britain, 1908-11, with unemployment insurance and old age pensions; American conservatives accepted these policies by the 1950s..</ref> Roosevelt preached the manly protection of the family and a state led by manly men who insisted on protecting all women and children. TR believed that "the ruin of motherhood and childhood by the merciless exploitation of the labor of women and children is a crime of capital importance." His solution was to support labor's right to bargain collectively and to denounce employers who mistreated women and child workers.<ref>Kathleen Dalton, ''Theodore Roosevelt: A Strenuous Life'' (2004) </ref>

==Conservative or liberal?==
Metaphorically, there were 15 different Roosevelts; conservatives admire 10 of them, liberals admire 10, with some overlap. Conservatives are more apt to admire his patriotism, masculinity and military achievements, his stress on national greatness, his buildup of the nation's military forces, his resolution of the [[Coal strike of 1902|1902 Coal Strike]] without forcing business to recognize the unions, his attacks on hyphenated Americans (people with divided loyalty in wartime), and his bold histories of the frontier. Liberals are more likely to admire his trust-busting and hostility to big business, his promotion of liberal programs in 1907-8 and 1912, and his break with the GOP in 1912 when he denounced it as too conservative. [[Ronald Reagan]] noted in 1972, "I admire 'Teddy' greatly and quote him often."<ref> Text in Ronald Reagan [http://books.google.com/books?id=ZrRc_ABenS8C&pg=PP1&dq=inauthor:ronald+inauthor:reagan&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES#PPA266,M1 ''Reagan: A Life in Letters'' (2004) p 266]</ref>

Conservation was always high on TR's agenda. His optimal use policy has largely been adopted by conservatives and businessmen, while the Sierra Club and related groups reject Roosevelt's policies.

Everyone admires his amazingly dynamic style and willingness to confront the issues of the day by bringing everyone to the negotiating table, his settlement of the war between Japan and Russia (which led to Roosevelt's winning the Nobel peace prize), and his building of the Panama Canal (though liberals complain he was too rough with Colombia).

== Sidelights ==
===Life in the White House===
Roosevelt relished the presidency and seemed to be everywhere at once. He took Cabinet members and friends on long, fast-paced hikes, boxed in the state rooms of the White House, romped with his children, and read voraciously. In 1904, he was permanently blinded in his left eye during one of his boxing bouts, but this injury was kept from the public at the time.<ref>Brands, (1997) 565</ref> His many enthusiastic interests and limitless energy led one ambassador to wryly explain, "You must always remember that the President is about six."<ref>Cecil Spring Rice, ''The Letters and Friendships of Sir Cecil Spring-Rice,'' (1929) p 437</ref>

Roosevelt's oldest daughter, Alice Roosevelt, was a controversial character with a tart tongue and a spirit of adventure. When friends asked if he could rein in his elder daughter, Roosevelt said, "I can be President of the United States, or I can attend to Alice." In turn, Alice said of him that he always wanted to be "the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral."<ref> Carol Felsenthal, ''Princess Alice: The Life and Times of Alice Roosevelt Longsworth'' (1988) pp. 60, 105</ref>

Roosevelt rebuilt the White House building, adding a new West Wing to free up the second floor rooms in the residence that formerly housed the president's staff. To this day, "west Wing" signifies the presidential staff. He and Edith also had the entire house renovated and restored to the [[federal style]], tearing out the Victorian furnishings and details (including Tiffany windows) that had been installed over the previous three decades.

===Teddy Bear===
The Teddy Bear is named for Theodore Roosevelt. After it was reported that Roosevelt had refused to shoot a bear on a hunting expedition a toy shop owner placed a sign next to a toy bear in his shop window announcing that this was "Teddy's Bear". The name stuck.

===Spelling reform===

[[File:TRSpelling.jpg|thumb|390px|Roosevelt shoots holes in the dictionary as the ghosts of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dr Johnson moan.]]

During his presidency, Roosevelt failed in efforts to simplify the spelling of common words. He (and other spelling reformers) wanted to replace "dropped" and "chased" with "dropt" and "chast", and replace "through" with "thru" and "thoroughly" with "thoroly." He tried to force government to adopt the system, sending an order to the Public Printer to use the system in all public documents. The reform annoyed the public, forcing him to rescind the order. Roosevelt told his friend, literary critic Brander Matthews, one of the chief advocates of the reform, "I could not by fighting have kept the new spelling in, and it was evidently worse than useless to go into an undignified contest when I was beaten. Do you know that the one word as to which I thought the new spelling was wrong — thru — was more responsible than anything else for our discomfiture?" Next summer Roosevelt was watching a naval review when a launch marked "Pres Bot" chugged ostentatiously by. The President waved and laughed with delight.<ref>Pringle 465-7; Brands 555ff</ref>

===Football reform===
Both Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson took an intense interest in the controversy over the reform of college football to make the game more efficient and less brutal. In the 1890s and early 1900s, football faced widespread harsh criticism over injuries and the exaggerated role of athletics in college life. Roosevelt and Wilson, loyal followers of Harvard and Princeton, had defended football in the 1890s. In the fall of 1905, however, Roosevelt called a conference of football experts at the White House to discuss brutality and unsportsmanlike conduct. Thereafter, Roosevelt worked behind the scenes to bring about sufficient reform to preserve football and insure that it would continue to be played at Harvard. In the years 1909-10, when college football again faced an injury crisis, Woodrow Wilson, president of Princeton University worked with the presidents at Harvard and Yale to make reasonable reforms. Both Roosevelt's and Wilson's approaches were consistent with their strategies for national political change. In the years that followed the reforms on the gridiron, football evolved rapidly into the 'attractive' game that Wilson had advocated and a far less brutal game than the unruly spectacle that Roosevelt had tried to control.<ref> John S. Watterson, "Political Football: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and the Gridiron Reform Movement." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 1995 25(3): 555-564 </ref>

==Religion and character==
In a speech in 1911 Roosevelt said the King James Version was "the book to which our people owe infinitely the greater part of their store of ethics, infinitely the greater part of their knowledge of how to apply that store to the needs of our every-day life." The former president was characteristically dramatic:
:"No other book of any kind ever written in English—perhaps no other book ever written in any other tongue—has ever so affected the whole life of a people as this authorized version of the Scriptures has affected the life of the English-speaking peoples."

Roosevelt based his conclusions less on specific Christian reasoning than on broad humanitarian appeal. He urged his auditors to study the Bible, not necessarily "as an inspired book," but as an essential volume for every person "who seeks after a high and useful life."<ref>Mark Noll, "'The Most Democratic Book in the World'" ''Christian History & Biography'' 2008 (99): 26-29 in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

Like his Roosevelt ancestors, Roosevelt was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church. In Oyster Bay there was no Reformed church, and so from 1887 onward he went to Christ Church (Episcopal) with his wife Edith and the children, where he took part in the service, loudly singing the hymns. In Albany and Washington Roosevelt attended a Dutch Reformed church. <ref>[http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/Religion.htm THE RELIGION of THEODORE ROOSEVELT] Relative little has been written on Roosevelt 's religion, although a book, ''ROOSEVELT'S RELIGION'' by Christian Reisner, [http://books.google.com/books?id=-rVEAAAAIAAJ&dq=ROOSEVELT%27S+RELIGION+by+Christian+Reisner&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=NaRpPqwPWv&sig=v-mVzmOukGfPAKjq6jZgfo4q3aM&hl=en&ei=x8-CSpiCOsaltgfD_rjMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 Extract and search] provides recollections from his friends and others on the subject.</ref>

Roosevelt was not sworn in on a Bible. He remains the only president in history to do so.<ref>[http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html Library of Congress Presidential Inauguration Precedents and Notable Events]</ref>

Roosevelt provided ''Nine Reasons Why a Man Should Go to Church'',<ref>http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/Church9reasons.htm</ref> such as

:''In this actual world, a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at or ignored their religious needs, is a community on the rapid down grade.''

:''He will listen to and take part in reading some beautiful passages from the Bible. And if he is not familiar with the Bible he has suffered a loss.''

:''He may not hear a good sermon at church. He will hear a sermon by a good man who, with his wife, is engaged all of the week in making hard lives a little easier.''

:''I advocate a man's joining in church work for the sake of showing his faith by his works.''

Various other quotes<ref>''The Works of Theodore Roosevelt - National Edition'', H-BAR Enterprises</ref><ref>http://thinkexist.com/quotation/a_thorough_knowledge_of_the_bible_is_worth_more/164715.html</ref><ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/theodore-roosevelt</ref> help express Roosevelt's character and values.

:''A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.''

:''To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.''

:''There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility.''<ref>Abilene, KS, May 2, 1903</ref>

:''A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.''

:''Alone of human beings the good and wise mother stands on a plane of equal honor with the bravest soldier; for she has gladly gone down to the brink of the chasm of darkness to bring back the children in whose hands rests the future of the years.''<ref>The Great Adventure, 1918</ref>

:''The one thing I want to leave my children is an honorable name."<ref>Chicago, IL, April 10, 1899</ref>

:''It is better to be faithful than famous.''

:''There are good men and bad men of all nationalities, creeds and colors; and if this world of ours is ever to become what we hope some day it may become, it must be by the general recognition that the man's heart and soul, the man's worth and actions, determine his standing.''<ref>Letter, Oyster Bay, NY, September 1, 1903</ref>

:''I have a perfect horror of words that are not backed up by deeds.''<ref>Oyster Bay, NY, July 7, 1915</ref>

:''Men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others.''<ref>Jamestown, VA, April 26, 1907</ref>

:''A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.''<ref>An Autobiography, 1913</ref>

:''This country has nothing to fear from the crooked man who fails. We put him in jail. It is the crooked man who succeeds who is a threat to this country.''<ref>Memphis, TN, October 25, 1905</ref>

:''No man can lead a public career really worth leading, no man can act with rugged independence in serious crises, nor strike at great abuses, nor afford to make powerful and unscrupulous foes, if he is himself vulnerable in his private character.''<ref>An Autobiography, 1913</ref>

:''Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger.(1894)''

:''I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life; I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.''<ref>Des Moines, Iowa, November 4, 1910</ref>

:''The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight.''

:''There is not a man of us who does not at times need a helping hand to be stretched out to him, and then shame upon him who will not stretch out the helping hand to his brother.''<ref>Pasadena, CA, May 8, 1903</ref>

:''Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.''

:''It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed.''<ref>Chicago, IL, April 10, 1899</ref>

:''The only man who makes no mistakes is the man who never does anything.''

:''...any nation which in its youth lives only for the day, reaps without sowing, and consumes without husbanding, must expect the penalty of the prodigal whose labor could with difficulty find him the bare means of life.''<ref>Arbor Day - A Message to the School-Children of the United States" April 15, 1907</ref>

:''Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.''"<ref>The New Nationalism" speech, Osawatomie, Kansas, August 31, 1910</ref>

:''Is America a weakling, to shrink from the work of the great world powers? No! The young giant of the West stands on a continent and clasps the crest of an ocean in either hand. Our nation, glorious in youth and strength, looks into the future with eager eyes and rejoices as a strong man to run a race.''<ref>Letter to John Hay, American Ambassador to the Court of St. James, London, Written in Washington, DC, June 7, 1897</ref>

:''Now to you men, who, in your turn, have come together to spend and be spent in the endless crusade against wrong, to you who face the future resolute and confident, to you who strive in a spirit of brotherhood for the betterment of our Nation, to you who gird yourselves for this great new fight in the never-ending warfare for the good of humankind, I say in closing what in that speech I said in closing: We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord''<ref>A Confession of Faith, delivered in Chicago, Illinois, 6 August 1912</ref>

== External links ==

*[http://faithandfreedom.us/documents/20thcentury/bigstick.htm "Big Stick" Policy.] Faith & Freedom Network.

==Bibliography==
===Surveys===
* Buenker, John D. and Joseph Buenker, eds. ''Encyclopedia of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.'' (3 vol 2005), 1280pp; articles on all the major people, events and causes of TR’s era
* Mowry, George. ''The Era of Theodore Roosevelt and the Birth of Modern America, 1900–1912.'' (1954) general survey of era

===Biographies===
* Brands, H.W. ''T.R.: The Last Romantic'' (1998), scholarly biography [http://www.questia.com/read/98669157?title=T.R.%3a%20The%20Last%20Romantic online edition]
* Chessman, G. Wallace. ''Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Power,'' (1969), short biography by scholar
* Cooper, John Milton ''The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt.'' (1983), well-written a dual scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/Warrior-Priest-Woodrow-Theodore-Roosevelt/dp/0674947517/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220396273&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Dalton, Kathleen. ''Theodore Roosevelt: A Strenuous Life.'' (2002), full scholarly biography that stresses his late crusade for social welfare [http://www.amazon.com/Theodore-Roosevelt-Strenuous-Kathleen-Dalton/dp/0679767339/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250752111&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Harbaugh, William Henry. ''The Life and Times of Theodore Roosevelt.'' (1963), full scholarly biography; good on politics
* Keller, Morton, ed., ''Theodore Roosevelt: A Profile'' (1967) excerpts from TR and from historians.
* McCullough, David. ''Mornings on Horseback, The Story of an Extraordinary Family. a Vanished Way of Life, and the Unique Child Who Became Theodore Roosevelt.'' (2001) popular biography to 1884 [http://www.amazon.com/Mornings-Horseback-Extraordinary-Vanished-Roosevelt/dp/0671447548/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250752478&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Morris, Edmund. ''The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt'', to 1901 (1979); vol 2: ''Theodore Rex'' 1901–1909. (2001); Pulitzer prize for Volume 1. Biography; unusually well-written and well-researched [http://www.amazon.com/Theodore-Roosevelt-Modern-Library-Paperbacks/dp/0375756787/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250752478&sr=1-4 vol 1 excerpt and text search]
* O'Toole, Patricia. ''When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt after the White House.'' (2005). 494 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/When-Trumpets-Call-Theodore-Roosevelt/dp/0684864789/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250752668&sr=1-16 excerpt and text search]
* Pringle, Henry F. ''Theodore Roosevelt'' (1932; 2nd ed. 1956), full scholarly biography [http://www.questia.com/read/270595?title=Theodore%20Roosevelt%3a%20A%20Biography online 1st edition]
* Putnam, Carleton ''Theodore Roosevelt: A Biography, Volume I: The Formative Years'' (1958), only volume published, to age 28; written by prominent conservative

===Scholarly studies ===
* Barsness,John A. "Theodore Roosevelt as Cowboy: The Virginian as Jacksonian Man." ''American Quarterly,'' Vol. 21, No. 3 (Autumn, 1969), pp. 609-619 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2711937 in JSTOR]
* Blum, John Morton ''The Republican Roosevelt.'' (1954). Influential essays that examine how TR did politics
* Brinkley, Douglas. ''The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America'' (2009), best coverage of TR and conservation [http://www.amazon.com/Wilderness-Warrior-Theodore-Roosevelt-Crusade/dp/0060565284/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250752478&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Burton, David H. ''Taft, Roosevelt, and the Limits of Friendship,'' (2005) [http://www.questia.com/read/112015842?title=Taft%2c%20Roosevelt%2c%20and%20the%20Limits%20of%20Friendship online edition]
* Chace, James. ''1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs - The Election That Changed the Country.'' (2004). 323 pp; popular account [http://www.amazon.com/1912-Roosevelt-Debs-Election-Changed/dp/0743273559/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220396215&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Cutright, Paul Russell. ''Theodore Roosevelt: The Making of a Conservationist'' (1985)
* Dorsey, Leroy G., and Rachel M. Harlow, "'We Want Americans Pure and Simple': Theodore Roosevelt and the Myth of Americanism," ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs,'' Volume 6, Number 1, Spring 2003, pp. 55-78 [http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhetoric_and_public_affairs/v006/6.1dorsey.html in Project Muse]
* Ellsworth, Clayton S. "Theodore Roosevelt's Country Life Commission." ''Agricultural History'', Vol. 34, No. 4 (Oct., 1960), pp. 155-172 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3741109 in JSTOR]
* Dyer, Thomas G. ''Theodore Roosevelt and the Idea of Race'' (1980)
* Fehn, Bruce. "Theodore Roosevelt and American Masculinity." ''Magazine of History'' (2005) 19(2): 52–59. Issn: 0882-228x Fulltext online at Ebsco. Provides a lesson plan on TR as the historical figure who most exemplifies the quality of masculinity.
* Friedenberg, Robert V. ''Theodore Roosevelt and the Rhetoric of Militant Decency'' (1990) [http://www.questia.com/read/71082317?title=Theodore%20Roosevelt%20and%20the%20Rhetoric%20of%20Militant%20Decency online edition]
* Gerstle, Gary. "Theodore Roosevelt and the Divided Character of American Nationalism," ''The Journal of American History,'' Vol. 86, No. 3, (Dec., 1999), pp. 1280-1307 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2568615 in JSTOR]
* Gosnell, Harold F. ''Boss Platt and His New York Machine: A Study of the Political Leadership of Thomas C. Platt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Others'' (1924) [http://www.questia.com/read/9489049?title=Boss%20Platt%20and%20His%20New%20York%20Machine%3a%20A%20Study%20of%20the%20Political%20Leadership%20of%20Thomas%20C.%20Platt%2c%20Theodore%20Roosevelt%2c%20and%20Others online edition]
* Gould, Lewis L. ''The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.'' (1991), standard history of his domestic and foreign policy as president
** Gatewood, Willard B. "The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. by Lewis L. Gould" ''Reviews in American History,'' Vol. 20, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 512-517 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2702868 in JSTOR]
* Havig, Alan. "Presidential Images, History, and Homage: Memorializing Theodore Roosevelt, 1919-1967 ". ''American Quarterly,'' Vol. 30, No. 4 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 514-532 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2712298 IN jstor]
* Johnson, Arthur M. "Theodore Roosevelt and the Bureau of Corporations". ''The Mississippi Valley Historical Review,'' Vol. 45, No. 4 (Mar., 1959), pp. 571-590 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1888711 in JSTOR]
* Millard, Candice. ''River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt's Darkest Journey''. (2005), exploring the Amazon
* Mowry, George E. ''Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement''. (2001) focus on 1912
* Mowry, George E. "Theodore Roosevelt and the Election of 1910," ''The Mississippi Valley Historical Review,'' Vol. 25, No. 4 (Mar., 1939), pp. 523-534 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1892499 in JSTOR]
* Oyos, Matthew M. "Theodore Roosevelt, Congress, and the Military: U.S. Civil-Military Relations in the Early Twentieth Century," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 30, 2000 [http://www.questia.com/read/5001752826?title=Theodore%20Roosevelt%2c%20Congress%2c%20and%20the%20Military%3a%20U.S.%20Civil-Military%20Relations%20in%20the%20Early%20Twentieth%20Century online edition]
* Powell, Jim. ''Bully Boy: The Truth About Theodore Roosevelt's Legacy'' (2006). Denounces TR policies from libertarian perspective; poorly researched
* Rhodes, James Ford. ''The McKinley and Roosevelt Administrations, 1897-1909'' (1922) [http://www.questia.com/read/6404794?title=The%20McKinley%20and%20Roosevelt%20Administrations%2c%201897-1909 online edition]
* Scheiner, Seth M. "President Theodore Roosevelt and the Negro, 1901-1908," ''The Journal of Negro History,'' Vol. 47, No. 3 (Jul., 1962), pp. 169-182 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2716500 in JSTOR]
* Slotkin, Richard. "Nostalgia and Progress: Theodore Roosevelt's Myth of the Frontier," ''American Quarterly,'' Vol. 33, No. 5, (Winter, 1981), pp. 608-637 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2712805 in JSTOR]
* Testi, Arnaldo. "The Gender of Reform Politics: Theodore Roosevelt and the Culture of Masculinity," ''The Journal of American History,'' Vol. 81, No. 4 (Mar., 1995), pp. 1509-1533 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2081647 in JSTOR]
* Watts, Sarah. ''Rough Rider in the White House: Theodore Roosevelt and the Politics of Desire.'' (2003). 289 pp.

===Foreign and military affairs===
* Beale Howard K. ''Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power.'' (1956). standard history of his foreign policy
* Buchanan, Russell. "Theodore Roosevelt and American Neutrality, 1914-1917," ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 43, No. 4 (Jul., 1938), pp. 775-790 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1842528 in JSTOR]
* Burton, David H. "Theodore Roosevelt: Confident Imperialist" ''The Review of Politics,'' Vol. 23, No. 3 (Jul., 1961), pp. 356-377 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1405440 in JSTOR]
* Burton, David H. "Theodore Roosevelt's Social Darwinism and Views on Imperialism," ''Journal of the History of Ideas,'' Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1965), pp. 103-118 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708402 in JSTOR]
* Collin, Richard H. "Symbiosis Versus Hegemony: New Directions in the Foreign Relations Historiography of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft." ''Diplomatic History'' 1995 19(3): 473-497 online in [[EBSCO]]
* Gould, Lewis L. ''The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt.'' (1991), standard history of his domestic and foreign policy as president
* Holmes, James R. ''Theodore Roosevelt and World Order: Police Power in International Relations.'' 2006. 328 pp. case studies of intervention in the Philippines, Cuba, Venezuela, Panama, Santo Domingo, and Morocco
* Marks III, Frederick W. ''Velvet on Iron: The Diplomacy of Theodore Roosevelt'' (1979)
* McCullough, David. ''The Path between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870–1914'' (1977).
* Neu, Charles E. "Theodore Roosevelt and American Involvement in the Far East, 1901-1909," ''The Pacific Historical Review,'' Vol. 35, No. 4 (Nov., 1966), pp. 433-449 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3636977 in JSTOR]
* Oyos, Matthew M. "Theodore Roosevelt and the Implements of War," ''The Journal of Military History,'' Vol. 60, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 631-655 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2944659 in JSTOR]
* Ricard, Serge. "The Roosevelt Corollary." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(1): 17–26. Issn: 0360-4918 [http://www.questia.com/read/5017146446?title=The%20Roosevelt%20Corollary online edition]
* Stillson, Albert C. "Military Policy Without Political Guidance: Theodore Roosevelt's Navy," ''Military Affairs,'' Vol. 25, No. 1 (Spring, 1961), pp. 18-31 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1984220 in JSTOR]
* Tilchin, William N. and Neu, Charles E., ed. ''Artists of Power: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Their Enduring Impact on U.S. Foreign Policy.'' Praeger, 2006. 196 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/113233998?title=Artists%20of%20Power%3a%20%20Theodore%20Roosevelt%2c%20Woodrow%20Wilson%2c%20and%20Their%20Enduring%20Impact%20on%20U.S.%20Foreign%20Policy online edition]
* Tilchin, William N. ''Theodore Roosevelt and the British Empire: A Study in Presidential Statecraft'' (1997)

===Primary sources===
* Auchincloss, Louis, ed. ''Theodore Roosevelt, The Rough Riders and an Autobiography'' (Library of America, 2004) ISBN 978-1-93108265-5; ''Theodore Roosevelt, Letters and Speeches'' (Library of America, 2004) ISBN 978-1-93108266-2
* Brands, H.W. ed. ''The Selected Letters of Theodore Roosevelt.'' (2001)
* Butt, Archie. ''The Letters of Archie Butt, Personal Aide to President Roosevelt,'' (1924) [http://www.questia.com/read/6560284?title=The%20Letters%20of%20Archie%20Butt%2c%20Personal%20Aide%20to%20President%20Roosevelt online edition]
* Gould, Lewis L., ed. ''Bull Moose on the Stump: The 1912 Campaign Speeches of Theodore Roosevelt.'' (2008). 256 pages,
* Harbaugh, William ed. ''The Writings Of Theodore Roosevelt'' (1967). A one-volume selection of Roosevelt's speeches and essays.
* Hart, Albert Bushnell and Herbert Ronald Ferleger, eds. ''Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia'' (1941), Roosevelt's opinions on many issues; online version at [http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/]
* Morison, Elting E., John Morton Blum, and [[Alfred D. Chandler, Jr.]], eds., ''The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt'', 8 vols. (1951–1954). Very large, annotated edition of letters from TR.
* Roosevelt, Theodore. [http://www.bartleby.com/55/ ''Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography ''(1910)]''. online at Bartleby.com.
* Roosevelt, Theodore. ''The Works of Theodore Roosevelt'' (National edition, 20 vol. 1926); 18,000 pages containing most of TR's speeches, books and essays, but not his letters; a CD-ROM edition is available; some of TR's books are available online through [http://www.bartleby.com/people/RsvltT.html Project Bartleby]
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/r#a729 Theodore Roosevelt books and speeches on Project Gutenberg]
* Roosevelt, Theodore. "Theodore Roosevelt on Motherhood and the Welfare of the State," ''Population and Development Review,'' Vol. 13, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 141-147 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972126 in JSTOR]
* Shaw, Albert, ed. ''A Cartoon History of Roosevelt's Career'' (1910) [http://books.google.com/books?id=QEIOAAAAIAAJ full text and cartoons online]

== Notes ==
<references/>

{{USPresidents}}
{{USVicePresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Roosevelt, Theodore}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States|Roosevelt, Theodore]]
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States|Roosevelt, Theodore]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace|Roosevelt, Theodore]]
[[Category:People who were Educated at Home]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[category:Spanish-American War]]
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:New York Governors]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]
[[Category:American war heroes]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Michael P. Murphy

2011-08-13T12:30:21Z

RonLar: Category:Medal of Honor recipients

[[Image:mohmurphy.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy]]
'''Michael Patrick "Murph" Murphy''' (1976 - 2005) was a [[United States Navy]] [[SEAL]] lieutenant posthumously awarded the [[Medal of Honor]] on October 22, 2007.<ref name=>[http://www.navy.mil/moh/mpmurphy/index.html Lt. Michael P. Murphy USN]</ref> for his actions during Operation Redwing. He was the first person and the first member of the [[United States Navy|U.S. Navy]] to be awarded the medal for actions in [[Afghanistan]]. Murphy was also awarded the [[Purple Heart]], Combat Action Ribbon, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Ribbon and National Defense Service Medal.<ref name="bio">[http://www.navy.mil/moh/mpmurphy/bio.html Michael P. Murphy biography]</ref>

==Biography==
Michael Murphy was born on May 7, 1976 in Smithfield, [[New York]] to Dan and Maureen Murphy. He grew up in Patchogue, New York, and had a younger brother named John. Murphy attended Saxton Middle School, and graduated from Patchogue-Medford High School in 1994. He was active in sports, and had a summertime job as lifeguard at Brookhaven town beach in Lake Ronkonkoma in both high school and college.<ref name="bio"/>

Murphy attended Penn State University, graduating with honors in 1998. While attending Penn State, he continued participating in sports, and excelled in ice hockey. Murphy earned two bachelor's degrees, in political science and psychology. Instead of attending one of the several law schools where he had been accepted, Murphy decided to participate in the SEAL mentoring sessions at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy held at Kings Point. In September 2000, Murphy was appointed to the Navy's Officer Candidate School at Pensacola, Florida.<ref name="bio"/>

==Operation Redwing==

On June 28, 2005, Murphy led a four-man special reconnaissance team on a mission to locate a top [[Taliban]] leader. Operating in an extremely rugged enemy-controlled area, the team was discovered by Taliban sympathizers, who revealed their position to Taliban terrorists. As a result, at least 80 enemy fighters besieged the Navy SEAL team. Lieutenant Murphy valiantly led his men in engaging the large enemy force.

The ensuing fierce firefight resulted in numerous enemy casualties, as well as the wounding of all four members of the team. Ignoring his own wounds and demonstrating exceptional composure, Lieutenant Murphy continued to lead and encourage his men. When the primary communicator fell mortally wounded, Murphy repeatedly attempted to call for assistance for his beleaguered teammates. Realizing the impossibility of communicating in the extreme terrain, and in the face of almost certain death, he fought his way into open terrain to gain a better position to transmit a call. This deliberate, heroic act deprived him of cover, exposing him to direct enemy fire. Finally achieving contact with his headquarters, Murphy maintained his exposed position while he provided his location and requested immediate support for his team. After making contact, Murphy was hit in the back by enemy fire, but continued to transmit his unit's location.

The first rescue helicopter to arrive was downed by rocket fire, killing all 16 on board. Before the rest of the rescuers could reach the battlefield, Murphy had been killed. Two other members of the team, Petty Officer 2nd Class Danny Dietz and Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew Axelson, were also killed in the action. They had managed to kill an estimated 35 Taliban. The fourth SEAL, Marcus Luttrell, who was knocked out when a grenade forced him over a cliff, was able to escape with serious wounds, traveling seven miles on foot to a friendly village. A resident made contact with a nearby [[Marine]] base, and Luttrell was rescued on July 2.

Dietz, Axelson and Luttrell were all awarded the Navy's second-highest honor, the Navy Cross, for their part in the battle.

Murphy is buried in Calverton National Cemetery, Calverton, New York.

==Medal of Honor Citation==

On October 22, 2007, [[President]] George W. Bush posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor to Lieutenant Murphy, and presented the medal to his parents, Dan and Maureen Murphy.

:CITATION:

:For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as the leader of a special reconnaissance element with Naval Special Warfare Task Unit Afghanistan on 27 and 28 June 2005. While leading a mission to locate a high-level anti-coalition militia leader, Lieutenant Murphy demonstrated extraordinary heroism in the face of grave danger in the vicinity of Asadabad, Konar Province, Afghanistan. On 28 June 2005, operating in an extremely rugged enemy-controlled area, Lieutenant Murphy's team was discovered by anti-coalition militia sympathizers, who revealed their position to Taliban fighters. As a result, between 30 and 40 enemy fighters besieged his four-member team. Demonstrating exceptional resolve, Lieutenant Murphy valiantly led his men in engaging the large enemy force. The ensuing fierce firefight resulted in numerous enemy casualties, as well as the wounding of all four members of the team. Ignoring his own wounds and demonstrating exceptional composure, Lieutenant Murphy continued to lead and encourage his men. When the primary communicator fell mortally wounded, Lieutenant Murphy repeatedly attempted to call for assistance for his beleaguered teammates. Realizing the impossibility of communicating in the extreme terrain, and in the face of almost certain death, he fought his way into open terrain to gain a better position to transmit a call. This deliberate, heroic act deprived him of cover, exposing him to direct enemy fire. Finally achieving contact with his headquarters, Lieutenant Murphy maintained his exposed position while he provided his location and requested immediate support for his te<m. In his final act of bravery, he continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded, gallantly giving his life for his country and for the cause of freedom. By his selfless leadership, courageous actions, and extraordinary devotion to duty, Lieutenant Murphy reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

:Signed George W. Bush<ref>[http://www.navy.mil/moh/mpmurphy/oc.html Official Citation]</ref>

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Murphy, Michael P.}}
[[Category:New York]]
[[Category:United States Naval Officers]]
[[Category:American war heroes]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]
[[Category:United States Navy]]

Michael Murphy

2011-08-13T12:30:06Z

RonLar: Category:Medal of Honor recipients

{{delete}}

'''Michael Patrick Murphy''' was a [[United States Navy]] [[SEAL]] posthumously awarded the [[Medal of Honor]], for his actions during Operation Redwing. He was the first person to be awarded the medal for actions in [[Afghanistan]] and the first member of the [[United States Navy|U.S. Navy]].

On June 28, 2005, Murphy led a four-man special reconnaissance team on a mission to locate a top [[Taliban]] leader. Operating in an extremely rugged enemy-controlled area, the team was discovered by Taliban sympathizers, who revealed their position to Taliban [[Terrorism|terrorists]]. As a result, at least 80 enemy fighters besieged the Navy SEAL team. Lieutenant Murphy valiantly led his men in engaging the large enemy force.

The ensuing fierce firefight resulted in numerous enemy casualties, as well as the wounding of all four members of the team. Ignoring his own wounds and demonstrating exceptional composure, Lieutenant Murphy continued to lead and encourage his men. When the primary communicator fell mortally wounded, Murphy repeatedly attempted to call for assistance for his beleaguered teammates. Realizing the impossibility of communicating in the extreme terrain, and in the face of almost certain death, he fought his way into open terrain to gain a better position to transmit a call. This deliberate, heroic act deprived him of cover, exposing him to direct enemy fire. Finally achieving contact with his headquarters, Murphy maintained his exposed position while he provided his location and requested immediate support for his team.

In his final act of bravery, Murphy continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded. Two other members of the team were, Petty Officer 2nd Class Danny Dietz and Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew Axelson, were also killed in the action; the survivor, Marcus Luttrell, was eventually rescued. All three of Murphy's men were awarded the Navy's second-highest honor, the Navy Cross, for their part in the battle.

Murphy is buried in Calverton National Cemetery, Calverton, [[New York]].
{{DEFAULTSORT:Murphy, Michael}}

[[Category:American war heroes]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]
[[Category:United States Navy]]

David McCampbell

2011-08-13T12:29:48Z

RonLar: /* Further Reading */

'''David McCampbell''' was the top-scoring fighter pilot of the [[United States Navy]]. During one tour of duty aboard the USS ''Essex'' in [[World War II]], he shot down 34 [[Japanese]] planes and was awarded the [[Medal of Honor]]. He also holds the American record for most planes shot down in a single flight (nine).

David McCampbell was born in Bessamer, [[Alabama]] on January 16, 1910, and was appointed to the [[United States Naval Academy]] at [[Annapolis]] in 1929. He joined the swim team, becoming the Eastern Intercollegiate diving champion in 1932, and graduated in 1933 with a degree in marine engineering. Because regular commissions were limited, McCampbell didn’t get an active assignment until June 1934, as an aircraft gunnery observer aboard a [[destroyer]].

After entering flight training in 1937, he became a naval aviator a year later. He spent two years on the [[aircraft carrier]] USS ''Ranger'' and was then transferred to the USS ''Wasp'', where he served as a Landing Signal Officer until the ''Wasp'' was torpedoed and sunk off [[Guadalcanal]]. After being rescued, he was reassigned to [[Florida]] as an LSO instructor.

In August 1943, he was made the commanding officer of VF-15 (Fighter Squadron 15), flying [[F6F Hellcat|Hellcats]], and in February 1944, he became the commanding officer of Carrier Air Group 15, later known as the “Fabled Fifteen”, which was assigned to the USS ''Essex''. The ''Essex'' had just completed an overhaul and was going into action again against the Japanese Empire. David McCampbell flew his first combat mission as commander of the air group on May 19, 1944, a fighter sweep over Marcus Island, and on June 11, he shot down his first enemy plane, a [[Mitsubishi Zero|Zero]], over [[Saipan]]. He scored his second kill on June 13 when he shot down a Japanese bomber while returning from a strike on a convoy. Six days later, in the [[Battle of the Philippine Sea]], the Essex and the rest of the American fleet around Saipan were attacked by hundreds of Japanese planes in an action that would come to be called, “the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot”. Commander McCampbell racked up seven victories and two probables on this day, five of them during morning patrol, one Zero during afternoon patrol, and while returning from afternoon patrol, he and another pilot from his unit came across two more Zeroes attacking a rescue float plane. Each pilot shot down one Zeke, allowing the float plane to continue on its mission.<ref>''Clash of the Carriers: the True Story of the Marianas Turkey Shoot of World War II'', by Barrett Tillman, New American Library, 2005</ref>

By October, when the Navy was readying for the invasion of the [[Philippines]], McCampbell had raised his score to 19, tying with [[Alex Vraciu]] for top scoring ace of the Navy. On the day of the invasion, McCampbell downed a [[Mitsubishi Ki-46|Dinah]] and a [[Nakajima Ki-27|Nate]], becoming the first US Navy pilot, and the first carrier pilot, to score more than twenty aerial victories. Four days later, Japanese naval units responded to the landings, sparking the [[Battle of Leyte Gulf]], the largest naval battle of World War II. On the first day of the battle, planes from the ''Essex'' sank the battleship ''Musashi'' (sister ship to the ''[[Yamato (battleship)|Yamato]],'' which was damaged in the same action), and McCampbell flew the mission that would win him the [[Medal of Honor]]. After launching a strike on the Japanese ships, the ''Essex'' detected incoming Japanese planes, and McCampbell led seven Hellcats to defend the ship. He and his wingman, Lieutenant Roy Rushing, went high and ran into 40 Japanese fighters ([[Mitsubishi Zero|Zeros]] and [[Nakajima Ki-43|Oscars]]). A running battle followed, with McCampbell and Rushing making repeated passes on the enemy formation. Before dwindling fuel forced them to return to the ''Essex'', McCampbell shot down nine planes (and probably shot down two others), while Rushing downed six. More importantly, not a single enemy plane got close enough to drop a bomb, the surviving planes turning back in the face of the American fighters. The following day, Commander McCampbell coordinated a strike which sank a Japanese aircraft carrier, a cruiser, and two destroyers.<ref>''Aircraft vs. Aircraft'', by Norman Franks, Barnes & Noble Books, 1998</ref>

The ''Essex'' concluded her cruise in November. The “Fabled Fifteen” under McCampbell had established an impressive combat record, with 318 enemy aircraft shot down (34 by McCampbell himself) and 296,500 tons of enemy shipping sunk, including the ''Musashi'', three aircraft carriers, and a heavy cruiser. In addition to the [[Medal of Honor]], McCampbell was awarded the [[Navy Cross]], the [[Silver Star]], and the [[Distinguished Flying Cross]]. Not only was he the top-scoring ace of the U.S. Navy, he holds the American record for most aerial victories in a single tour of duty. If the ''Essex'' had been sent into combat again, it’s entirely possible that David McCampbell would have been the top-scoring fighter pilot in United States history.

After the war, McCampbell continued his naval career. His postings included senior naval aviation advisor to the [[Argentina|Argentine]] Navy for three years, executive officer of the USS ''Franklin D. Roosevelt'', flight test coordinator at the Naval Air Test Center in [[Maryland]], and captain of the carrier USS ''Bon Homme Richard''. In 1960, he took an assignment at the [[Pentagon]] working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and in 1964, he retired, after thirty years in the Navy. David McCampbell died on June 30, 1996 at his home in Palm Beach, Florida, after a long illness. He is interred at [[Arlington National Cemetery]].<ref>''Aces'', by William Yenne, Berkeley Books, 2000</ref>

The Burke-class destroyer USS ''McCampbell'' and the David McCampbell Terminal at the Palm Beach International Airport are both named for him.

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.acepilots.com/usn_mccampbell.html Biography] at Acepilots.com
*[http://www.medalofhonor.com/DavidMcCampbell.htm Biography] at MedalofHonor.com
*[http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/NARG/mccambell.html David McCampbell] at the Warbirds Resource Group

==Further Reading==
*''Hellcat Aces of World War 2'', by Barrett Tillman, Osprey Publishing, 1996

{{DEFAULTSORT:McCampbell, David}}
[[Category:Pilots]]
[[Category:United States Naval Officers]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]

Douglas MacArthur

2011-08-13T12:29:35Z

RonLar: Category:Medal of Honor recipients

{{Military bio
| image =[[Image:Macarthur1.jpg|300px]]
| name =Douglas MacArthur
| birth =January 26, 1880 Fort Dodge, [[Arkansas]]
| parents =Arthur MacArthur Mary Pinkney Hardy
| religion =Christian, non-denominational
| spouse =Louise Cromwell Brooks (divorced, 1928) Jean Marie Faircloth
| children =Arthur MacArthur IV
| death =April 5, 1964 Walter Reed Army Hospital, Washington, D.C.
| burial =MacArthur Memorial Norfolk, Virginia
| education =United States Military Academy West Point, New York
| branch =United States Army
| years =1903–1951
| rank =General of the Army
| commands =United Nations Command (Korean War) Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers Southwest Pacific Area U.S. Army Forces Far East Philippine Department Chief of Staff, U.S. Army Philippine Division Superintendent, West Point 42nd Division 84th Infantry Brigade
| battles =[[Mexican Revolution]] [[World War I]] [[World War II]] [[Korean War]]
| postmilitary =Remington Rand Corporation Chairman of the Board
}}
General '''Douglas MacArthur''' was one of the great military strategists in [[World War II]], and responsible for governing and rebuilding [[Japan]] during the [[Allied]] occupation. A career military officer, he spent his entire adult life in the military.

The son of the senior U.S. Army general, MacArthur graduated first in his class at West Point in 1903. After earning a chestful of medals for bravery in Mexico and the Western Front in World War I, his meteoric career included a stint as superintendent at West Point in the 1920s, where he promoted athletics and modernized the curriculum. He served two terms as the Army's chief-of-staff under Presidents Herbert Hoover (a pacifist) and Franklin Roosevelt (a Navy man). in the 1930s. He retired in 1937, then set out to create a new army for the Philippines, which was in transition to independence. He was recalled to active duty in mid-1941 as war with Japan loomed. Driven out of the Philippines in 1942, he assumed command in Australia of the Southwest Pacific Theater. He battled the Japanese through New Guinea and the Philippines, and was in charge of the invasion of Japan scheduled for late 1945. Instead, he received Japan's surrender in a dramatic ceremony aboard the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay. As supreme commander of the forces occupying Japan, he democratized and reformed Japan, rebuilding the nation and creating a lasting friendship between the former enemies. Unexpectedly given command of United Nations forces at the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, he landed troops at Inchon in a daring amphibious assault that led to a routing of the invading enemy. Ordered to unify Korea, his advance was halted by Communist China in a bitterly cold contest that saw the Americans and their allies retreat. In the wake of bitter disagreements with President Harry Truman about American strategy, he was recalled, his celebrated career abruptly ended. He is considered a hero by conservatives, and a dangerous enemy by liberals.
==Early life==
Douglas MacArthur was the third son of Arthur MacArthur, a senior officer in the U.S. Army and winner of the [[Medal of Honor]] for actions at Missionary Ridge during the [[American Civil War]]. His oldest brother, Arthur III (1876-1923), had a distinguished career in the U.S. Navy, seeing action in the [[Spanish-American War]] of 1898, the [[Boxer Rebellion]], and the First World War. Second son Malcolm was born in 1878, and died at the age of five, which left a mark that Douglas could never forget. "His premature death left a gap in my life which has never been filled," he would write some forty years later. [http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0126.html]

Douglas was born into the Army at Fort Dodge, [[Arkansas]] on January 26, 1880, in a section of the base armory that had been converted to a hospital. His mother, Mary Pinkney Hardy MacArthur, who was affectionately called "Pinky", was a proper Southern lady who was not used to hot and dusty western outposts as a place to raise a family; nevertheless she did, and seeing places like New Mexico's Fort Selden made a great impression on young Douglas. "My first memory was the sound of bugles," Douglas wrote in his ''Reminiscences.'' "It was here I learned to ride and shoot even before I could read or write - indeed, almost before I could walk or talk."

The Army had given Arthur MacArthur many orders over the years, and when Douglas turned six the next set of orders took the family to Ft. Leavenworth, [[Kansas]], where life in civilization could be re-introduced. Three years after that, they were ordered to Washington, where his father was assigned to the War Department, and Douglas got to know his grandfather, Judge Arthur MacArthur. These early years were important in young Douglas' life, for from his grandfather he learned a MacArthur was a gentleman and a scholar, and from his parents he learned a MacArthur was in command. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleevents/pandeAMEX96.html]

==The Army==
Douglas was an average student, but his own intellect was revealed when the family moved to San Antonio, Texas in 1893. The West Texas Military Academy was his school, and he thrived on the combination of academics, religion, military discipline and social graces that were purely Victorian. His excellent record there, the top scores on the qualifying exam, and his family's political connections allowed Douglas in 1898 to receive an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point. Four years later General Arthur MacArthur returned from the Philippines where he was involved with the Spanish defeat and service as military governor, and looked on proudly as his son - with one of the highest and finest records in Academy history - graduated first of his class of 1903. MacArthur would be one of the few theater commanders in [[World War 2]] who was primarily educated in the nineteenth century.<ref>William M. Leary, ''MacArthur and the American Century: A Reader'', p. 471</ref>

His first assignment was to the [[Philippines]], which soon developed into a love for that country. Soon after, he would accompany his father and mother on an extended tour of the Asia rim, visiting eleven countries, and treated like royalty in each. He had developed a theory by then, in fact he was convinced, that America's future lay with Asia.

His next assignments included service to [[Theodore Roosevelt]] as an aide, and engineering assignment in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and then transfer to the War Department where he worked for Chief of Staff General Leonard Wood, who was himself once a protégé to his father. The working relationship was good, and Douglas was promoted to major in 1915. He became the Army's first public relations officer the following year, being credited with selling the Selective Service Act of 1917 to the American people, just as the country moved closer to involvement in the war in Europe. Hugh L. Scott, the Army's Chief of Staff at the time, would note MacArthur's zeal at doing his job. "Major MacArthur is a...high-minded, conscientious and unusually efficient officer, well fitted for positions requiring diplomacy and high-grade intelligence" (Manchester, pg. 89).

It was the [[World War I|First World War]] which gave Douglas MacArthur a taste of fame that he could add to his already excellent record. Promoted to colonel, he took individual National Guard units and created the Rainbow Division out of them, taking it through [[France]] and into the thickest of fighting, and combining a romantic flamboyance with bravery. But when it was threatened that his division would be split up and spread out to augment other divisions, MacArthur cabled members of Congress to prevent it, unfortunately creating resentment within General [[John J. Pershing]]'s staff at circumventing the chain of command. Nevertheless, MacArthur became the most decorated American soldier of the war, receiving the Distinguished Service Medal by Pershing, who remarked that he didn't like MacArthur's attitude regarding the chain of command while pinning the medal on his chest (Manchester, pp. 97-105).

MacArthur was next assigned to the post of Superintendent of West Point, where he dragged the moribund Academy into the 20th century; he had just come out of a very savage, yet very modern war, and he wanted West Point to produce officers capable of leading men into such a war. And he also got married, to Louise Cromwell Brooks, a flapper and heiress. But his West Point job was ended soon after, when Chief of Staff Pershing - who, during the war had an affair with Louise - ordered MacArthur to the Philippines. Although disappointed at the orders, yet glad to be back in his beloved islands, Louise was not happy, as she was used to the glamour and sophistication of the big American and European cities; the end result was the marriage began to go sour, which got worse after their return to the States in 1925. Louise would file for divorce in 1928, and Douglas would return again to the Philippines.

His stay in the Philippines this time would last two years, but he had renewed a friendship with Manuel Quezon, whom he had known since 1903, and was then country's leading political figure. Together they had worked on a bid to make MacArthur governor of the Philippines, but that attempt failed. However, in 1930, President Hoover offered MacArthur the Army's top command: Chief of Staff, and he headed back to Washington. The country was by then deep in the Great Depression, and MacArthur's warnings of a weak defense in the face of spreading fascism went unheeded among Americans whose only thought was getting a job. Although ably leading the Army during this period, troop strength fell to an all-time low, and his reputation was severely damaged when, in 1932, he visibly led a unit of the Army against thousands of impoverished former soldiers (the [[Bonus March]]) who had camped out in the capitol demanding Congress distribute millions of dollars in bonuses that were promised to them for enlisting during the First World War.

==World War II==
In 1935 Manuel Quezon was president of the newly-created Philippine Commonwealth, and invited MacArthur to return to [[Manila]] as head of the American military mission charged with preparing the islands for full independence by 1946. On the way to Manila, he had a stop in Tennessee and met Jean Marie Faircloth of Murfreesboro, falling in love almost immediately, and getting married soon after that; Jean would be instrumental in filling the void when his mother passed away soon after their arrival in the Philippines. And at age 58, Arthur IV was born, making MacArthur an attentive and doting father. These years in the Philippines would prove the happiest of his life, even as they were slowly overshadowed by an expanding, and aggressive, Japan. Money, troops and material from the States would not come in time when Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941; when the Japanese made a simultaneous strike on the Philippines, MacArthur's air force was knocked out, and his army left to retreat to the Bataan Peninsula in tatters. He would sit at his command post on the nearby island of Corregidor, nearly helpless as everything around him crumbled.
[[Image:Surrender at tokyo bay.jpg|thumb|200px|left|MacArthur at Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945.]]
He had intended to fight alongside his men, but President Franklin Roosevelt wouldn't allow it. A direct order from him had MacArthur and his family placed onboard a small PT boat, where he met up with a larger transport to Australia, and from there he began the plans to retake the Pacific from the Japanese, vowing "I shall return" to the Filipino people, a remark which became synonymous with the war effort. MacArthur's war was then a two-front war, as he fought the Japanese forces on one side, and the United States Navy on the other. But his plan, which called for "island hopping" - bypassing Japanese-held islands in favor of those strategically placed for use by American forces - prevailed, as well as his intent to liberate the Philippines as part of it. By October, 1944 America's most famous general made his dramatic landing at Leyte; the remainder of the islands were fully liberated within months. On September 2, 1945, onboard USS ''Missouri'' in Tokyo Bay, he presided over the Japanese surrender, ending World War II. His last remarks on ending the war were simple. "Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always. These proceedings are closed".<ref>http://www.freedomdocuments.com/macarthur.html</ref>

In part of a radio address after the ceremony, MacArthur stated to a world audience,
{{cquote|Today the guns are silent. A great tragedy has ended. A great victory has been won....

As I look back upon the long, tortuous trail from those grim days of Bataan and Corregidor, when an entire world lived in fear, when democracy was on the defensive everywhere, when modern civilization trembled in the balance, I thank a merciful God that he has given us the faith, the courage and the power from which to mold victory. We have known the bitterness of defeat and the exultation of triumph, and from both we have learned there can be no turning back. We must go forward to preserve in peace what we won in war...

Men since the beginning of time have sought peace...Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural development of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.<ref>[http://bjmi.us/usa/macarthur-speeches.html Memorable Speeches of Gen. Douglas MacArthur]</ref>}}

==Governing Japan==
MacArthur, by then one of the leading figures in military history, determined to rebuild Japan as an example of democracy, and in so doing made his greatest contribution. During the next several years he initiated polices for occupation (he stipulated that revengeful soldiers would get five years in prison if they so much as slapped a Japanese citizen), wrote and implemented a constitution, and charted a course for Japan which led it to become an economic and industrial colossus by the 1970's. His rule of Japan is considered fair and progressive, and MacArthur claimed, a greater source of satisfaction to him than his military successes.

==Korea==
[[Image:MacArthur (B).jpg|thumb|200px| A 1973 [[portraits|portrait]] of MacArthur]]
The [[Korean War]] broke out in June of 1950, when the communist North invaded South Korea. Placed in command of United Nations forces, MacArthur executed a brilliant maneuver by invading the port of Inchon behind North Korean lines, and driving the communists back north. Soon after this triumph, bickering would come between himself and President [[Harry Truman]] over how the war was to be fought, and engaging [[China]], as MacArthur believed should happen, or in keeping it a limited war and China out of it, as Truman dictated. The bickering came to a head on April 11, 1951, when Truman, citing his role as Commander in Chief, relieved MacArthur of command, resulting in a firestorm of controversy. He was given a hero's welcome on his return, and the issue over his firing died away quickly after an address to a joint session of Congress, in which he announced his retirement with grace, stating "old soldiers never die, they just fade away," and like the old soldier in that refrain, MacArthur promised to fade away.

==Last years==
MacArthur lived quietly in New York, coming out into the spotlight on various occasions, such as attending graduations at West Point; once he was placed on the Republican ticket for president in 1952 (his former aide, General [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] would get the job). He passed away on April 5, 1964, at Walter Reed Army Hospital near Washington, having lived his entire life, from cradle to grave, in the United States Army. He was buried in the rotunda of the former city hall of Norfolk, [[Virginia]], which had earlier become the MacArthur Memorial. His wife Jean passed away January 22, 2000, and is buried with him.

:''I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all of my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that "old soldiers never die; they just fade away." And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty. Good bye.'' From his Farewell to Congress, April 19, 1951.

==Quotes==
[[File:MacArthur statue in Jayu Park South Korea.jpg|thumb|Gen. MacArthur statue in Jayu Park, Incheon, [[South Korea]].]]
MacArthur was unusually literate and eloquent, and his faith, character, experience and wisdom helped to make his speeches among the most stirring of the twentieth century. MacArthur was also uncommonly (for a general) interested and vocal about domestic policies, as seen in his speeches, which were mostly all were written by him. It was said that few knew history as he did-that he could discuss the lives of famous men as if he personally knew them.<ref>http://www.belcherfoundation.org/macarthur.htm</ref>

Quotes attributed<ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/douglas_macarthur.html</ref><ref>http://www.military-quotes.com/Macarthur.htm</ref><ref>Douglas MacArthur, ''General MacArthur: wisdom and visions'', complied by Colonel Edward T. Imparato (USAF Ret.)</ref> to MacArthur include:

* Build me a son, O Lord, who will be strong enough to know when he is weak, and brave enough to face himself when he is afraid, one who will be proud and unbending in honest defeat, and humble and gentle in victory.

* Never give an order that can't be obeyed.

* It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.

* ...once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.<ref>Address to Congress, Apr. 19, 1951</ref>

* In no other profession are the penalties for employing untrained personnel so appalling or so irrevocable as in the military.

* The world is in a constant conspiracy against the brave. It's the age-old struggle: the roar of the crowd on the one side, and the voice of your conscience on the other.

* In my dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, the strange, mournful mutter of the battlefield.<ref>Sylvanus Thayer Award acceptance speech, 09-12-1952</ref>

* It was close; but that's the way it is in war. You win or lose, live or die — and the difference is just an eyelash.<ref>After flying over Japanese held territory to reach Australia, 1942-03-17</ref>

* ...the enduring fortitude, the patriotic selfabnegation, and the unsurpassed military genius of the American soldier of the World War will stand forth in undimmed luster; in his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me or from any other man; he has written his own history, and written it in red on his enemy's breast. But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and of his modesty in victory I am filled with an emotion I cannot express.<ref>Address to the annual reunion of MacArthur's Rainbow Division in Washington on July 14, 1935</ref>

* No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation.<ref>http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/general+douglas+macarthur</ref>

* In war there is no substitute for victory. There are some who for varying reasons would appease Red China. They are blind to history's clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier wars.

* There is not one incident in the history of humanity in which defeatism led to peace which was anything other than a complete fraud.

* Whether in chains or in laurels, liberty knows nothing but victories.

* Age wrinkles the body. Quitting wrinkles the soul.

* We are not retreating - we are advancing in another direction.

* The United States is a pre-eminently [[Christian]] and conservative nation. It is far less militaristic than most nations. It is not especially open to the charge of imperialism. Yet one would fancy that Americans were the most brutally blood-thirsty people in the world to judge by the frantic efforts that are being made to disarm them both physically and morally...The effect of all this unabashed and unsound propaganda is not so much to convert America to a holy horror of war as it is to confuse the public mind and lead to muddled thinking in international affairs.<ref>Address to the annual reunion of MacArthur's Rainbow Division in Washington on July 14, 1935</ref>

* In the last 3,400 years only 268 -- less than 1 in 13 -- have been free from wars.

* I have known war as few men now living know it. Its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes.

* The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.

* Could I have but a line a century hence crediting a contribution to the advance of peace, I would yield every honor which has been accorded by war.<ref>William M Leary, ''Macarthur and the American Century: A Reader'' (2001)</ref>

* A better world shall emerge based on faith and understanding.

* Talk of imminent threat to our national security through the application of external force is pure nonsense. Our threat is from the insidious forces working from within which have already so drastically altered the character of our free institutions — those institutions we proudly called the American way of life. <ref>Speech in Lansing, Michigan, May 15, 1951</ref>

* It [socialism] discourages development of moral forces which would preserve inviolate our representative form of government, answerable to the will of the electorate.<ref>Opening Centennial celebration, Seattle Wash, 11-13-1951</ref>

* Are we going to squander our limited resources to the point of our own inevitable exhaustion, or adopt commonsense policies of frugality which will insure financial stability in our time and a worthwhile heritage in that of our progeny?

* Are we going to continue to permit the pressure of alien doctrines to strongly influence the orientation of foreign and domestic policy, or regain trust in our own traditions, experience and free institutions, and the wisdom of our own people?

* In short, is American life of the future to be characterized by freedom or by servitude, strength or weakness? The answer must be clear and unequivocal if we are to avoid the pitfalls toward which we are heading with such certainly. In many respects it is not to be found in any dogma of political philosophy, but in those immutable precepts which underlie the [[Ten Commandments]].

* These pressures have already caused us to depart sharply from the course so long held toward national strength and moral greatness. Our economic statute built under the incentive of free enterprise is imperiled by our drift through the back door of confiscatory taxation toward socialism.

* It is a singular habit in this country to raise high the military when war threatens, but to ignore security needs in the pleasanter times of peace.<ref>Cleveland OH, 09-06-1951</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=sfJEP29EXXMC&pg=PA45&dq=general+douglas+macarthur+quotes&ei=dX0pS9CKJ4zIyQTKpdymCw&cd=9#v=onepage&q=&f=false Douglas MacArthur, Edward T. Imparato (USAF Ret.), ''General MacArthur: wisdom and visions'', pp. 43-45]</ref>

* Are we going to preserve the religious base to our origin, our growth and our progress, or yield to the devious assaults of atheistic or other anti-religious forces?<ref>Cleveland OH, 09-06-1951</ref><ref>ibid. p. 125]</ref>

* The people have it in their hands to restore morality, wisdom and direction to of our foreign and domestic affairs, and regain the religious base which in times past assured general integrity in public and private life.<ref>Opening, Centennial celebration, Seattle Wash, 11-13-1951</ref><ref>ibid p. 125</ref>

* ...The spiritual impulse is strong in many American hearts and constitutes a rugged bulwark in the defense of religious morality against the advance of any atheistic immorality.<ref>Salvation army, Waldorf-Astora hotel, New york, NY, 12-12-1951</ref><ref>ibid p. 127</ref>

* Our great strength rests in those high-minded Americans whose faith in God and love of country transcends all selfishness and self-serving instincts.<ref>ibid p. 127</ref>

*There are those who seek to convert us to a form of socialistic endeavor leading directly to the path of Communist slavery.<ref>ibid p. 130</ref>

* There can be no compromise with atheistic Communism - no half-way in the preservation of freedom and religion.<ref>Massachusetts legislature, Boston, 7-25-1951</ref><ref>ibid p. 128</ref>

* We all dream of of the day when human conduct will be governed by the Decalogue and the Sermon and the Mount.<ref>Veterans of the Rainbow (42nd) Infantry Div. WW1, Wash. DC. 7-14-1935</ref><ref>ibid p. 128</ref>

* History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed in to political and economic decline.<ref>America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations</ref>

* I promise to keep on living as though I expected to live forever. Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up interest wrinkles the soul.

* I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within. <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=F-ILUHbWtncC&pg=PA175&dq=I+am+concerned+for+the+security+of+our+great+Nation%3B+not+so+much+because+of+any+threat+from+without,+but+because+of+the+insidious+forces+working+from+within.&ei=SKjPS6WRC4T6zATDtLDOCQ&cd=2 General MacArthur Speeches and Reports 1908-1964‎ - Page 175, Edward T. Imparato]</ref>

==Further reading==
===Biographies===
* Buhite, Russell D. ''Douglas MacArthur: Statecraft and Stagecraft in America's East Asian Policy'' (Biographies in American Foreign Policy) (2008), 188pp; by leading diplomatic historian
* Frank, Richard B. ''MacArthur'' (2009), short summary by leading military historian
* James, D. Clayton. ''The Years of MacArthur, ''The Years of MacArthur Volume I, 1880–1941'' (1970); the standard scholarly biography
** James, D. Clayton. ''The Years of MacArthur, 1941-1945: Vol 2.'' (1975). 939 pp.
** James, D. Clayton. ''The Years of MacArthur. Vol. 3: Triumph and Disaster, 1945-1964'' (1985). 848 pp.
* Leary, William M., ed. ''MacArthur and the American Century: A Reader.'' (2001). 522 pp.; articles by scholars
* MacArthur, Douglas. ''Reminisceses'' (1964), good autobiography; primnary source [http://www.amazon.com/Reminiscences-Douglas-MacArthur/dp/1557504830/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261032050&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Manchester, William. ''American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, 1880-1964'' (1978). 793 pp. lively popular biography that like the general himself is noble and ignoble, inspiring and outrageous, arrogant and flamboyant, imperious, and apocalyptic
* Perret, Geoffrey. ''Old Soldiers Never Die: The Life of Douglas MacArthur.'' (1996). 663 pp. good popular biography; shows the gerneral's extraordinary self-discipline and implacable, inexhaustible willpower
* Petillo, Carol Morris. ''Douglas MacArthur: The Philippine Years.'' (1981). 301 pp.
* Schaller, Michael. ''Douglas MacArthur: The Far Eastern General'' (1989). 320 pp. attack from New Left
===MacArthur's people and campaigns===
* Chwialkowski, Paul. ''In Caesar's Shadow: The Life of General Robert Eichelberger'' (1993). 227 pp.
* Leary, William M., ed. ''We Shall Return! MacArthur's Commanders and the Defeat of Japan'' (1988). 305 pp.
* Rogers, Paul P. ''The Good Years: MacArthur and Sutherland. Vol. 1'' (1990). 380 pp.; ''The Bitter Years: MacArthur and Sutherland Vol. 2.'' (1990). 348 pp. the gernal's powerful chief of staff
* Taaffe, Stephen R. ''MacArthur's Jungle War: The 1944 New Guinea Campaign'' (1998). 312 pp.
===Postwar Japan===
* Cohen, Theodore. ''Remaking Japan: The American Occupation as New Deal.'' (1987). 533 pp.
* Finn, Richard B. ''Winners in Peace: MacArthur, Yoshida, and Postwar Japan.'' (1992). 413 pp.
* Harvey, Robert. ''American Shogun: General MacArthur, Emperor Hirohito and the Drama of Modern Japan'' (2007)

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

== External links ==
*[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleevents/pandeAMEX96.html PBS ''The American Experience'' bio]
*[http://faculty.washington.edu/kendo/macarthur.html Washington University's bio on MacArthur]
*[http://www.macarthurmemorial.org/ MacArthur Memorial, Norfolk, Virginia]
*[http://vvl.lib.msu.edu/record.cfm?recordid=4345 Complete audio file of Japanese Surrender onboard USS ''Missouri'', Sept. 2, 1945, from Vincent Voice Library, Michigan State University]
*[http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0126.html Obituary of MacArthur.]
*[http://www.medalofhonor.com/DouglasMacArthur.htm Medal of Honor]
*[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurfarewelladdress.htm Complete text and audio of his Farewell to Congress, April 19, 1951.]
*[http://korea50.army.mil/history/biographies/macarthur.shtml Douglas MacArthur] The Department of Defense, 50th Anniversary of the Korean War Commemoration.

{{DEFAULTSORT:MacArthur, Douglas}}
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]
[[Category:World War II Commanders]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Japanese History]]
[[Category:American war heroes]]
[[category:United States Army]]
[[category:New Deal]]

Lt. Cmdr. Joseph O'Callaghan

2011-08-13T12:29:10Z

RonLar: Category:Medal of Honor recipients

On March 19,1945, the aircraft carrier ''USS Franklin'' was conducting operations off the coast of [[Japan]] when it was attacked by a Japanese bomber. The ship was hit by two bombs which caused hundreds of deaths and horrific injuries on board. '''Lt. Cmdr. Joseph T. O'Callaghan''', a [[Catholic]] chaplain, gave last rites to the dying sailors, organized firefighting and rescue operations and led men below to wet down magazines that threatened to explode. For his bravery he was awarded the [[Medal of Honor]]. He was a member of The [[Society of Jesus]] and he died in 1964.

==Reference==
[http://www.ussfranklin.org Website of USS Franklin]

[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Military]]
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]

Definition of atheism

2011-08-13T12:27:23Z

RonLar: /* Atheism recognized legally as a religion */ sp

[[File:Atheism.jpg|thumb|alt=atheism|right|175px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789), was an early advocate of atheism in [[Europe]].]]
[[Atheism]], as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philisophy - Atheism and Agnosticism]</ref><ref name="cw">[http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational Is Atheism More Rational?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref><ref>[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm Atheism - Etymology]</ref> "The Merriam-Webster dictionary '''definition of atheism''' is "a disbelief in the existence of deity".<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism</ref>

== Some purported varieties of atheism ==
Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''[[strong atheism]]'' and ''[[weak atheism]]''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.

Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.

Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.

Also, Christians need not deny the existence of the gods of other religions, and hence can not truly be called atheists with respect to them:
*A traditional belief in Christianity (see {{bibleref|1Corinthians|10|20}}) is that the gods of other religions may be demons presenting themselves as gods. So, a Christian may not deny the existence of Zeus, but understand Zeus very differently from how his worshippers back in ancient times would have (as an evil demon rather than as a good spirit)
*Another Christian belief is that other religions are distorted versions of the religion originally revealed by God. As such, they do not believe in different gods, but in the same God as the Christian; but only the Christian has an undistorted view of God, while the other religions are laboring under distorted ideas of His nature. It is like comparing a distorted rumour about a person to an accurate account; the accounts can be so different that they seem like different people, even though they are actually both about the same person (but one is accurate, the other highly inaccurate). So too may it be for the various religions and God.

== Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism ==
[[File:Charles Bradlaugh.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Charles Bradlaugh]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]

[[Charles Bradlaugh]], in 1876, proposed that atheism does not assert "there is no God," and by doing so he diluted the traditional definition of atheism. Since 1979, many atheists have followed Bradlaugh's thinking further and stated that atheism is merely a lack of belief in any god.<ref name="DivCon">http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bradlaugh.htm Positive Atheism's Big List of Charles Bradlaugh Quotations]</ref> The motive for such a shift in meaning appears to be to an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the [[theism]] side.<ref name="DivCon" />

In the article, ''Is Atheism Presumptuous''?, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]] which owns and operates the Secular Web (the Secular Web is a website focused on promoting atheism, [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]] on the internet), states that "I agree (with Copan) that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."<ref name="DivCon" />
In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered. The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods.<ref>[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm Atheism - Etymology]</ref>

The purpose of all these exercises in redefinition is to try to slant the rhetorical playing field in favor of the atheists and against believers:
*By redefining atheism to include agnosticism, they both boost their numbers - there are many non-religious folks who will admit they aren't sure whether God exists, but far fewer who have the presumptousness to claim to know for a fact that He does not - and also make their case easier to make (an agnostic, to justify their agnosticism, need only overcome the positive evidence in favor of God's existence; an atheist, in addition to that, must also find positive evidence against God's existence)
*By redefining atheism so that babies are atheists, they try to falsely paint atheism as some sort of ''natural state'', despite the fact that religion is a universal across human cultures, up until modern times; there is no traditional culture which totally lacks religious beliefs, and religious belief goes back thousands of years
*By ignoring the definition of traditional God (which refers to an omnipotent being, not a more limited being such as that found in Greek mythology), they try to claim that ''Christians are atheists'', with respect to all the gods of mythology. However, this specious argument ignores the fact that these other supposed beings are not Gods, only gods. There can only be one God, when the definition of God includes omnipotence.

== Is atheism a religion? ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]]

Atheists claim that atheism is not a religion; that "calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color". But, to answer this question properly, we need to ask, what actually is a religion? Religion is a difficult concept to define precisely, given the immense variety of different religions that exist. Not all religions believe in God; a good example of this is many forms of Buddhism. So, the mere fact that atheists reject belief in God, does not necessarily imply they are not a religion.

Many of the leaders of the atheist movement (such as [[Richard Dawkins]]) argue for atheism with a religious fervor - atheism plays a role in the life of Dawkins', or other atheist leaders, similar to the role which Christianity plays in the life of a Christian minister or author.

Ninian Smart has identified seven dimensions which make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smart's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism:
*''Narrative'' - this dimension is concerned with stories which explain the origin of the universe and the human life. For Christians, there is the Book of Genesis. For atheists, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, the theory of evolution, etc., play a similar role<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Experiential'' - this dimension is concerned with personal or spiritual experiences. Many religious believers report experiences of being near to God. Many atheists report an experience of "liberation" in the moment when they first rejected God<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Social'' - the social dimension of religion is concerned with religious leadership and community in congregations. Contemporary atheism has its own leadership (authors such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) and social gatherings (e.g. the Global Atheist Convention held in Melbourne, Australia)<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Ethical'' - this dimension is concerned with the ethical teachings of a religion. Logically speaking, if there is no God, how can there be any objective ethics? Ethics is reduced to each person's individual whims. Despite this, the leaders of atheism are insistent that they do have ethics, and even claim to have better ethics than religious people<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Doctrinal'' - this dimension is concerned with the philosophical teachings of a religion, its claims about the ultimate nature of reality. Some of the central dogmas of atheism include the non-existence of God, the non-existence of afterlife or an immortal soul, that all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter ([[materialism]]), and that faith is illegitimate<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Ritual''<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref> - this dimension is concerned with rituals, the celebration of rites, ceremonies or festivals. Although atheism at present has few rituals, there are explicitly atheist versions of rituals to celebrate major life events (birth, marriage, death), and some atheists have proposed annual festivals to substitute for Christmas or Easter, such as Charles Darwin's birthday
*''Material''<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref> - this dimension is concerned with the physical artifacts of a religion, such as buildings, monuments, art, etc., and with physical places considered sacred. Many atheists argue that all nature is sacred
In conclusion, all of these seven dimensions are present for atheism, and hence atheism is a religion under Smartt's model. Although atheism possesses some of these elements more strongly than others, Smart's model does not require all of these dimensions to be present, or present equally, for the existence of religion to be established.

== Atheism recognized legally as a religion ==
In the [[United States]], it is a settled matter of law that atheism is a religion for the purposes of the Constitution:
:In the last sixty years the Supreme Court and other courts have recognized that a number of non-theistic belief systems function in the lives of their adherents in the same manner as traditional theism functions in the lives of its adherents. To ensure that the First Amendment satisfies its non-discriminatory purpose the courts have recognized that these functional equivalents are just as religious as the views of traditional theists. Hence the courts have embraced an inclusive definition that is not confined to just belief in God, but rather includes beliefs about God and other “matters of ultimate concern.” This was explained by the Supreme Court in a 1992 opinion holding that government cannot prefer “theistic over nontheistic religion,” and that the “settled law” is that the “Clause applies ‘to each of us, be he Jew or Agnostic, Christian or Atheist, Buddhist or Freethinker’” [Lee v. Weisman, 1992] The Court has also recognized that “Secular” Humanism is a non-theistic religion. According to the Humanist Manifesto, adherents to the faith include Atheists, Freethinkers, Agnostics, Skeptics, Deists, and other “liberal religions.”<ref>[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf John Calvert, J.D., "Summary of ''Kitzmiller’s Error: Using an Exclusive rather than Inclusive Definition of Religion'', Liberty University Law Review, pp 213-328, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring 2009)", June 22, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf ''KITZMILLER’S ERROR: DEFINING “RELIGION” EXCLUSIVELY RATHER THAN INCLUSIVELY'', 3 Liberty U. L. Rev. 213 (Spring 2009)]</ref>

The [[blog]] [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html shockanwenow] (according to [[User:Conservative]] a blog by [[shockofgod]]) claims that John Calvert - a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent - has said once:
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of [[Evolution|materialistic theories of origins]].<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]</ref>}}
Indeed, John Calvert has repeatedly remarked that there are various rulings which hold atheism a religion ''under the establishment clause''<ref>''Kitzmiller’s error: Use of an exclusive rather than inclusive definition of religion'', Remarks of John Calvert, J.D. Liberty University School of Law, February 6, 2009</ref>: atheists and theists have to be treated equally by the U.S. government.

== See also ==
*[[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic]]
*[[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[[Essay: The question atheists fear|The question atheists fear]]
*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]
*[[Weak atheism]]
*[[Strong atheism]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist] by Professor Ralph McInerny
* [http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/resurrection.htm Atheists and the Resurrection - Framing the Argument] by G. Brady Lenardos
* [http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Atheisms-house-of-cards-Part-3 Atheism's House of Cards]
* [http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d13-Arguments-Built-upon-Assumptions Arguments Built by Assumptions]

General articles on atheism and agnosticism:

* [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/atheism-agnosticism-and-humanism-godless-religions-questions-and-answers Atheism, agnosticism and humanism: godless religions] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
* [http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm Atheism] by [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]]
* [http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm Atheism, Agnosticism, and Skepticism] Synopsis of Understanding Secular Religions by [[Josh McDowell]] and Don Stewart

{{Nb Atheism}}

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Atheism]]

Definition of atheism

2011-08-13T12:26:04Z

RonLar: /* Atheism recognized legally as a religion */rephrasing

[[File:Atheism.jpg|thumb|alt=atheism|right|175px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789), was an early advocate of atheism in [[Europe]].]]
[[Atheism]], as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philisophy - Atheism and Agnosticism]</ref><ref name="cw">[http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational Is Atheism More Rational?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref><ref>[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm Atheism - Etymology]</ref> "The Merriam-Webster dictionary '''definition of atheism''' is "a disbelief in the existence of deity".<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism</ref>

== Some purported varieties of atheism ==
Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''[[strong atheism]]'' and ''[[weak atheism]]''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.

Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.

Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.

Also, Christians need not deny the existence of the gods of other religions, and hence can not truly be called atheists with respect to them:
*A traditional belief in Christianity (see {{bibleref|1Corinthians|10|20}}) is that the gods of other religions may be demons presenting themselves as gods. So, a Christian may not deny the existence of Zeus, but understand Zeus very differently from how his worshippers back in ancient times would have (as an evil demon rather than as a good spirit)
*Another Christian belief is that other religions are distorted versions of the religion originally revealed by God. As such, they do not believe in different gods, but in the same God as the Christian; but only the Christian has an undistorted view of God, while the other religions are laboring under distorted ideas of His nature. It is like comparing a distorted rumour about a person to an accurate account; the accounts can be so different that they seem like different people, even though they are actually both about the same person (but one is accurate, the other highly inaccurate). So too may it be for the various religions and God.

== Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism ==
[[File:Charles Bradlaugh.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Charles Bradlaugh]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]

[[Charles Bradlaugh]], in 1876, proposed that atheism does not assert "there is no God," and by doing so he diluted the traditional definition of atheism. Since 1979, many atheists have followed Bradlaugh's thinking further and stated that atheism is merely a lack of belief in any god.<ref name="DivCon">http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bradlaugh.htm Positive Atheism's Big List of Charles Bradlaugh Quotations]</ref> The motive for such a shift in meaning appears to be to an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the [[theism]] side.<ref name="DivCon" />

In the article, ''Is Atheism Presumptuous''?, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]] which owns and operates the Secular Web (the Secular Web is a website focused on promoting atheism, [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]] on the internet), states that "I agree (with Copan) that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."<ref name="DivCon" />
In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered. The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods.<ref>[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm Atheism - Etymology]</ref>

The purpose of all these exercises in redefinition is to try to slant the rhetorical playing field in favor of the atheists and against believers:
*By redefining atheism to include agnosticism, they both boost their numbers - there are many non-religious folks who will admit they aren't sure whether God exists, but far fewer who have the presumptousness to claim to know for a fact that He does not - and also make their case easier to make (an agnostic, to justify their agnosticism, need only overcome the positive evidence in favor of God's existence; an atheist, in addition to that, must also find positive evidence against God's existence)
*By redefining atheism so that babies are atheists, they try to falsely paint atheism as some sort of ''natural state'', despite the fact that religion is a universal across human cultures, up until modern times; there is no traditional culture which totally lacks religious beliefs, and religious belief goes back thousands of years
*By ignoring the definition of traditional God (which refers to an omnipotent being, not a more limited being such as that found in Greek mythology), they try to claim that ''Christians are atheists'', with respect to all the gods of mythology. However, this specious argument ignores the fact that these other supposed beings are not Gods, only gods. There can only be one God, when the definition of God includes omnipotence.

== Is atheism a religion? ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]]

Atheists claim that atheism is not a religion; that "calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color". But, to answer this question properly, we need to ask, what actually is a religion? Religion is a difficult concept to define precisely, given the immense variety of different religions that exist. Not all religions believe in God; a good example of this is many forms of Buddhism. So, the mere fact that atheists reject belief in God, does not necessarily imply they are not a religion.

Many of the leaders of the atheist movement (such as [[Richard Dawkins]]) argue for atheism with a religious fervor - atheism plays a role in the life of Dawkins', or other atheist leaders, similar to the role which Christianity plays in the life of a Christian minister or author.

Ninian Smart has identified seven dimensions which make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smart's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism:
*''Narrative'' - this dimension is concerned with stories which explain the origin of the universe and the human life. For Christians, there is the Book of Genesis. For atheists, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, the theory of evolution, etc., play a similar role<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Experiential'' - this dimension is concerned with personal or spiritual experiences. Many religious believers report experiences of being near to God. Many atheists report an experience of "liberation" in the moment when they first rejected God<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Social'' - the social dimension of religion is concerned with religious leadership and community in congregations. Contemporary atheism has its own leadership (authors such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) and social gatherings (e.g. the Global Atheist Convention held in Melbourne, Australia)<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Ethical'' - this dimension is concerned with the ethical teachings of a religion. Logically speaking, if there is no God, how can there be any objective ethics? Ethics is reduced to each person's individual whims. Despite this, the leaders of atheism are insistent that they do have ethics, and even claim to have better ethics than religious people<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Doctrinal'' - this dimension is concerned with the philosophical teachings of a religion, its claims about the ultimate nature of reality. Some of the central dogmas of atheism include the non-existence of God, the non-existence of afterlife or an immortal soul, that all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter ([[materialism]]), and that faith is illegitimate<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Ritual''<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref> - this dimension is concerned with rituals, the celebration of rites, ceremonies or festivals. Although atheism at present has few rituals, there are explicitly atheist versions of rituals to celebrate major life events (birth, marriage, death), and some atheists have proposed annual festivals to substitute for Christmas or Easter, such as Charles Darwin's birthday
*''Material''<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref> - this dimension is concerned with the physical artifacts of a religion, such as buildings, monuments, art, etc., and with physical places considered sacred. Many atheists argue that all nature is sacred
In conclusion, all of these seven dimensions are present for atheism, and hence atheism is a religion under Smartt's model. Although atheism possesses some of these elements more strongly than others, Smart's model does not require all of these dimensions to be present, or present equally, for the existence of religion to be established.

== Atheism recognized legally as a religion ==
In the [[United States]], it is a settled matter of law that atheism is a religion for the purposes of the Constitution:
:In the last sixty years the Supreme Court and other courts have recognized that a number of non-theistic belief systems function in the lives of their adherents in the same manner as traditional theism functions in the lives of its adherents. To ensure that the First Amendment satisfies its non-discriminatory purpose the courts have recognized that these functional equivalents are just as religious as the views of traditional theists. Hence the courts have embraced an inclusive definition that is not confined to just belief in God, but rather includes beliefs about God and other “matters of ultimate concern.” This was explained by the Supreme Court in a 1992 opinion holding that government cannot prefer “theistic over nontheistic religion,” and that the “settled law” is that the “Clause applies ‘to each of us, be he Jew or Agnostic, Christian or Atheist, Buddhist or Freethinker’” [Lee v. Weisman, 1992] The Court has also recognized that “Secular” Humanism is a non-theistic religion. According to the Humanist Manifesto, adherents to the faith include Atheists, Freethinkers, Agnostics, Skeptics, Deists, and other “liberal religions.”<ref>[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf John Calvert, J.D., "Summary of ''Kitzmiller’s Error: Using an Exclusive rather than Inclusive Definition of Religion'', Liberty University Law Review, pp 213-328, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring 2009)", June 22, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf ''KITZMILLER’S ERROR: DEFINING “RELIGION” EXCLUSIVELY RATHER THAN INCLUSIVELY'', 3 Liberty U. L. Rev. 213 (Spring 2009)]</ref>

The [[blog]] [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html shockanwenow] (according to [[User:Conservative]] a blog by [[shockofgod]]) claims that John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent has said once:
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of [[Evolution|materialistic theories of origins]].<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]</ref>}}
Indeed, John Calvert has repeatedly remarked that there are various rulings which hold atheism a religion ''under the establishment clause''<ref>''Kitzmiller’s error: Use of an exclusive rather than inclusive definition of religion'', Remarks of John Calvert, J.D. Liberty University School of Law, February 6, 2009</ref>: atheists and theists have to be treated equally by the U.S. government.

== See also ==
*[[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic]]
*[[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[[Essay: The question atheists fear|The question atheists fear]]
*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]
*[[Weak atheism]]
*[[Strong atheism]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist] by Professor Ralph McInerny
* [http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/resurrection.htm Atheists and the Resurrection - Framing the Argument] by G. Brady Lenardos
* [http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Atheisms-house-of-cards-Part-3 Atheism's House of Cards]
* [http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d13-Arguments-Built-upon-Assumptions Arguments Built by Assumptions]

General articles on atheism and agnosticism:

* [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/atheism-agnosticism-and-humanism-godless-religions-questions-and-answers Atheism, agnosticism and humanism: godless religions] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
* [http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm Atheism] by [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]]
* [http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm Atheism, Agnosticism, and Skepticism] Synopsis of Understanding Secular Religions by [[Josh McDowell]] and Don Stewart

{{Nb Atheism}}

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Atheism]]

Talk:Definition of atheism

2011-08-13T12:18:06Z

RonLar: /* The blog post is not listed as being by shockofgod */

Definition of atheism

2011-08-13T11:29:04Z

RonLar: /* Atheism recognized legally as a religion */

[[File:Atheism.jpg|thumb|alt=atheism|right|175px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789), was an early advocate of atheism in [[Europe]].]]
[[Atheism]], as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philisophy - Atheism and Agnosticism]</ref><ref name="cw">[http://creation.com/atheism-is-more-rational Is Atheism More Rational?] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref><ref>[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm Atheism - Etymology]</ref> "The Merriam-Webster dictionary '''definition of atheism''' is "a disbelief in the existence of deity".<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism</ref>

== Some purported varieties of atheism ==
Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''[[strong atheism]]'' and ''[[weak atheism]]''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.

Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.

Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.

Also, Christians need not deny the existence of the gods of other religions, and hence can not truly be called atheists with respect to them:
*A traditional belief in Christianity (see {{bibleref|1Corinthians|10|20}}) is that the gods of other religions may be demons presenting themselves as gods. So, a Christian may not deny the existence of Zeus, but understand Zeus very differently from how his worshippers back in ancient times would have (as an evil demon rather than as a good spirit)
*Another Christian belief is that other religions are distorted versions of the religion originally revealed by God. As such, they do not believe in different gods, but in the same God as the Christian; but only the Christian has an undistorted view of God, while the other religions are laboring under distorted ideas of His nature. It is like comparing a distorted rumour about a person to an accurate account; the accounts can be so different that they seem like different people, even though they are actually both about the same person (but one is accurate, the other highly inaccurate). So too may it be for the various religions and God.

== Attempts to Dilute the Definition of Atheism ==
[[File:Charles Bradlaugh.jpg|thumb|right|195px|[[Charles Bradlaugh]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]

[[Charles Bradlaugh]], in 1876, proposed that atheism does not assert "there is no God," and by doing so he diluted the traditional definition of atheism. Since 1979, many atheists have followed Bradlaugh's thinking further and stated that atheism is merely a lack of belief in any god.<ref name="DivCon">http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bradlaugh.htm Positive Atheism's Big List of Charles Bradlaugh Quotations]</ref> The motive for such a shift in meaning appears to be to an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the [[theism]] side.<ref name="DivCon" />

In the article, ''Is Atheism Presumptuous''?, atheist [[Jeffery Jay Lowder]], a founder of [[Internet Infidels]] which owns and operates the Secular Web (the Secular Web is a website focused on promoting atheism, [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]] on the internet), states that "I agree (with Copan) that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."<ref name="DivCon" />
In short, the attempt to redefine atheism is merely an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need be offered. The attempt to redefine atheism, however, is not in accordance with the standard definitions of atheism that encyclopedias of philosophy employ which is that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods.<ref>[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm Atheism - Etymology]</ref>

The purpose of all these exercises in redefinition is to try to slant the rhetorical playing field in favor of the atheists and against believers:
*By redefining atheism to include agnosticism, they both boost their numbers - there are many non-religious folks who will admit they aren't sure whether God exists, but far fewer who have the presumptousness to claim to know for a fact that He does not - and also make their case easier to make (an agnostic, to justify their agnosticism, need only overcome the positive evidence in favor of God's existence; an atheist, in addition to that, must also find positive evidence against God's existence)
*By redefining atheism so that babies are atheists, they try to falsely paint atheism as some sort of ''natural state'', despite the fact that religion is a universal across human cultures, up until modern times; there is no traditional culture which totally lacks religious beliefs, and religious belief goes back thousands of years
*By ignoring the definition of traditional God (which refers to an omnipotent being, not a more limited being such as that found in Greek mythology), they try to claim that ''Christians are atheists'', with respect to all the gods of mythology. However, this specious argument ignores the fact that these other supposed beings are not Gods, only gods. There can only be one God, when the definition of God includes omnipotence.

== Is atheism a religion? ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism is a religion]]

Atheists claim that atheism is not a religion; that "calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color". But, to answer this question properly, we need to ask, what actually is a religion? Religion is a difficult concept to define precisely, given the immense variety of different religions that exist. Not all religions believe in God; a good example of this is many forms of Buddhism. So, the mere fact that atheists reject belief in God, does not necessarily imply they are not a religion.

Many of the leaders of the atheist movement (such as [[Richard Dawkins]]) argue for atheism with a religious fervor - atheism plays a role in the life of Dawkins', or other atheist leaders, similar to the role which Christianity plays in the life of a Christian minister or author.

Ninian Smart has identified seven dimensions which make up religion: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. It is not necessary in Smart's model for every one of these to be present in order for something to be a religion.<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>. However, it can be argued that all seven are present in the case of atheism:
*''Narrative'' - this dimension is concerned with stories which explain the origin of the universe and the human life. For Christians, there is the Book of Genesis. For atheists, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, the theory of evolution, etc., play a similar role<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Experiential'' - this dimension is concerned with personal or spiritual experiences. Many religious believers report experiences of being near to God. Many atheists report an experience of "liberation" in the moment when they first rejected God<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Social'' - the social dimension of religion is concerned with religious leadership and community in congregations. Contemporary atheism has its own leadership (authors such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) and social gatherings (e.g. the Global Atheist Convention held in Melbourne, Australia)<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Ethical'' - this dimension is concerned with the ethical teachings of a religion. Logically speaking, if there is no God, how can there be any objective ethics? Ethics is reduced to each person's individual whims. Despite this, the leaders of atheism are insistent that they do have ethics, and even claim to have better ethics than religious people<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Doctrinal'' - this dimension is concerned with the philosophical teachings of a religion, its claims about the ultimate nature of reality. Some of the central dogmas of atheism include the non-existence of God, the non-existence of afterlife or an immortal soul, that all which exists is ultimately reducible to matter ([[materialism]]), and that faith is illegitimate<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref>
*''Ritual''<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref> - this dimension is concerned with rituals, the celebration of rites, ceremonies or festivals. Although atheism at present has few rituals, there are explicitly atheist versions of rituals to celebrate major life events (birth, marriage, death), and some atheists have proposed annual festivals to substitute for Christmas or Easter, such as Charles Darwin's birthday
*''Material''<ref>[http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion "Atheism: A religion"], Daniel Smartt, Creation.com</ref> - this dimension is concerned with the physical artifacts of a religion, such as buildings, monuments, art, etc., and with physical places considered sacred. Many atheists argue that all nature is sacred
In conclusion, all of these seven dimensions are present for atheism, and hence atheism is a religion under Smartt's model. Although atheism possesses some of these elements more strongly than others, Smart's model does not require all of these dimensions to be present, or present equally, for the existence of religion to be established.

== Atheism recognized legally as a religion ==
In the [[United States]], it is a settled matter of law that atheism is a religion for the purposes of the Constitution:
:In the last sixty years the Supreme Court and other courts have recognized that a number of non-theistic belief systems function in the lives of their adherents in the same manner as traditional theism functions in the lives of its adherents. To ensure that the First Amendment satisfies its non-discriminatory purpose the courts have recognized that these functional equivalents are just as religious as the views of traditional theists. Hence the courts have embraced an inclusive definition that is not confined to just belief in God, but rather includes beliefs about God and other “matters of ultimate concern.” This was explained by the Supreme Court in a 1992 opinion holding that government cannot prefer “theistic over nontheistic religion,” and that the “settled law” is that the “Clause applies ‘to each of us, be he Jew or Agnostic, Christian or Atheist, Buddhist or Freethinker’” [Lee v. Weisman, 1992] The Court has also recognized that “Secular” Humanism is a non-theistic religion. According to the Humanist Manifesto, adherents to the faith include Atheists, Freethinkers, Agnostics, Skeptics, Deists, and other “liberal religions.”<ref>[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_error_summary.pdf John Calvert, J.D., "Summary of ''Kitzmiller’s Error: Using an Exclusive rather than Inclusive Definition of Religion'', Liberty University Law Review, pp 213-328, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring 2009)", June 22, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Kitzmiller%27s_Error.pdf ''KITZMILLER’S ERROR: DEFINING “RELIGION” EXCLUSIVELY RATHER THAN INCLUSIVELY'', 3 Liberty U. L. Rev. 213 (Spring 2009)]</ref>

According to the [[blogger]] [[Shockofgod]], John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent said once:
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of [[Evolution|materialistic theories of origins]].<ref>[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism]</ref>}}
Indeed, John Calvert has repeatedly remarked that there are various rulings which hold atheism a religion ''under the establishment clause''<ref>''Kitzmiller’s error: Use of an exclusive rather than inclusive definition of religion'', Remarks of John Calvert, J.D. Liberty University School of Law, February 6, 2009</ref>: atheists and theists have to be treated equally by the U.S. government.

== See also ==
*[[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic]]
*[[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[[Essay: The question atheists fear|The question atheists fear]]
*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]
*[[Weak atheism]]
*[[Strong atheism]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist] by Professor Ralph McInerny
* [http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/resurrection.htm Atheists and the Resurrection - Framing the Argument] by G. Brady Lenardos
* [http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Atheisms-house-of-cards-Part-3 Atheism's House of Cards]
* [http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d13-Arguments-Built-upon-Assumptions Arguments Built by Assumptions]

General articles on atheism and agnosticism:

* [http://creation.com/atheism Atheism] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/atheism-agnosticism-and-humanism-godless-religions-questions-and-answers Atheism, agnosticism and humanism: godless religions] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
* [http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm Atheism] by [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]]
* [http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm Atheism, Agnosticism, and Skepticism] Synopsis of Understanding Secular Religions by [[Josh McDowell]] and Don Stewart

{{Nb Atheism}}

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Atheism]]

Talk:Atheism

2011-08-13T11:12:26Z

RonLar: /* statement by John Calvert */

[[Talk:Atheism/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive2|Archive 2]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive3|Archive 3]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive4|Archive 4]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive5|Archive 5]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive6|Archive 6]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive7|Archive 7]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive8|Archive 8]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive9|Archive 9]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive10|Archive 10]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive11|Archive 11]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive12|Archive 12]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive13|Archive 13]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive14|Archive 14]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive15|Archive 15]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive16|Archive 16]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive17|Archive 17]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive18|Archive 18]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive19|Archive 19]]

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
__TOC__
 


== statement by John Calvert ==

''The Supreme Court of the United States held that corporates are persons and therefore they can marry.'' (see [[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]])

This is of course as wrong as the statement:

''The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school.''

In the first case there was a verdict that a corporate has to be treated like a person under the First Amendment, while in the second case it was found that ''atheism'' has to be treated like a religion, again only under the First Amendment. (See [http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20051097419F3d678_11025.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006 KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY 419 F.3d 678 (2005)])

Conservative, you can't be blamed for the deceitful reasoning of John Calvert, but you should have learned over the time that you have to be careful with second-hand quotations - you should go to the original source!

To make it as clear as possible: '''The Seventh Judicial Circuit Of the Court of Appeals of the United States said nothing about the promotion of atheism by a public school''', though this is implied by John Calvert.

Could someone remove John Calvert's deceptive statement, please?

Thanks,
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Motion dismissed. I suggest you appeal your case to [[User:Aschlafly|a Harvard Law School alumni]]. I don't think he will respond and he probably will refuse to hear your case. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:38, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

:An [[appeal to authority]]?
:Could you please explain how the statement ''The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school.'' is not deceptive?
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:53, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I reread the quote. Calvert's website has an email address. It shouldn't be hard to get him to slightly alter the quote to provide some additional clarification although technically the sentence is not incorrect. I did provide some previous footnotes to Calvert in that section, which if memory serves, clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:55, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::''technically the sentence is not incorrect'': that's not good enough for an encyclopedia. You have to ask yourself whether a typical reader (i.e., a high-school student) will interpret this sentence correctly. I dare to say that a significant number will get the impression that the court decided that atheism cannot be promoted by a public school.
::Good luck with getting a less misleading quote from John Calvert. Until then, the least you should do is to add a clarification!
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 01:56, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Quote has been changed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:20, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

:::That is very strange: Which sentence was ''really'' written by John Calvert? ''The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.'' or ''The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.''
:::Or did he write both statement on different occasions?
:::You are citing a secondary source - that is something which should be avoided. But this secondary source ''' is a blog'''. And it doesn't state where the quote comes from, but seemingly feels free to alter it, as you linked it for '''both'' versions. That doesn't sound trustworthy to me.
:::So, either you find a reliable source for John Calvert's statement, or you shouldn't use it at all.
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:11, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Given that [[Shockofgod]] is such a big thorn in the side of internet atheist and has won over 50 debates with atheists, a quote from his blog certainly suffices. Why just recently an atheist dentist converted to Christianity after [[Shockofgod]] co-labored with God. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6xhKQT4XCc VIDEO] At the same time, I can certainly email Calvert to see if he will graciously decided put the quote on his website also. There is certainly no hurry though as the shockofgod blog citation is more than sufficient. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:41, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Given that his states the same quote in two versions without any explanation for the change, such a quote certainly '''doesn't suffice''' - notwithstanding all his other work.
::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:46, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Two versions? Can you show me the other version on the internet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:51, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::In this [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism&direction=next&oldid=898225 revision] you state Shockofgod as a source for the first version of the quote. So, did you misquote Shockofgod? Or did Shockofgod had the first version, too? Both possibilities are disturbing.
:::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:09, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I feel bad that this is so disturbing to you. I hope you don't work yourself into a frenzy and have sleepless nights over this matter. I can tell you that I am not going to lose any sleep over this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:20, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::You shouldn't feel bad for me. You should feel bad for the article. The above is proof that you are working sloppily and/or that you are using dubious sources.
::::::Generally that isn't that problematic at a wiki, as such errors can be corrected by other editors. But this article is your chiefdom, and the usual mechanisms of quality control don't work.
::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:26, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, you should really try to treat our little exchanges like a debate. Above you can see how you have lost just another argument: You made an error and you were found out. Which audience would judge favorably your reaction: ''I don't lose any sleep over this matter''?
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:41, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, instead of feeling sorry for article, I would feel sorry for the atheist community. For example, YouTube atheists have never produced a comprehensive video or series of videos on the current Conservapedia atheism article. Shane Killian's poorly done YouTube video on the Conservapedia atheism article was based on a much earlier version of the article and didn't discuss much of the article if memory serves. YouTube atheist and the Conservapedia atheism article: [http://eword10.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/deer_in_headlights1.gif Click HERE] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:42, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Why would a youtuber want to make a video on this atheism article when their medium is ''video''. They debate/rebut other youtubers. There is no reason to come to Conservapedia. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:56, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Max, for a non-atheist, you sure are interested in my activities relating to atheism at CP. Plus, I established you don't know your Bible and said something unbiblical. Are you sure you are not an atheist? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I find it extremely offensive that you'd question my Christianity. You, sir, are acting in a most unchristian manner with your taunts, jeers, name-calling and the added dishonest claims about no one answering your 15 questions. If I felt you were representative of the conservapedia community then I'd leave without regret however I find Andy, Karajou and RobSmith most pleasant to deal with. Also Iduan. NKeaton and others have been a pleasure to work with. Please do not question my faith in Christ again. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:36, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along." (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:46, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I don't understand what you are getting at but I have given my life to Christ. You sir, are insulting and rude. How dare you question my faith. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:12, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
If you don't understand the Ephesians verses Read this: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html Look at some commentaries on the Ephesians verses: http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:I don't need your help to be a Christian. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:30, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::::All statements must be true and verifiable. There is no record on the internet that Calvert ever made a deceptive statement. Show me it. Changed heading accordingly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Then how about your statements that the 15 questions have not been answered? That is not true because they have been answered! Whether or not the answers are correct or not is another issue. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:42, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

''RonLar, instead of feeling sorry for article, I would feel sorry for the atheist community.''
You may do so all day long. But - alas - this is not the place: on this talk page, the state of the article [[Atheism]] is discussed. And it is recorded that you don't take action when confronted with valid critique of your article.
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:12, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Organisation ==

This page is very long, and has been added to at many different times, with the result that it is somewhat disorganised. I suggest making the information easier to access by grouping related topics together using the following headings:
*About atheist beliefs
*History of atheism
*Atheism today
*Other beliefs associated with atheism
*Atheism in the media
*Notable atheists
*Additional resources and further reading.
Could the page be unlocked so that I can carry out this reorganisation, or could an administrator perhaps undertake it on my behalf?
I am happy to discuss the exact subdivisions, but it's clear that the current structure could be improved. For example, section 35, on the proportion of people who are atheists, should come before and near to related material such as section 18, on people leaving atheism.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Feel free to create [[User: CPalmer/Atheism]]. Please be aware that due to other priorities, I unfortunately will not be looking at it until 2012. However, I am going to make a change in the article in a few minutes based on your recommendation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:27, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, if you are too busy to work on incorporating other people's suggestions for five months, perhaps you should consider unlocking the article so it can be improved, regarding the flow and the occasionally spotty writing quality. This could be a masterpiece if you let those who admire you directly contribute to the article. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:59, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::I can certainly consider that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Excellent suggestion. I will see if I can get round to doing that.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:I have now created the page - [[User:CPalmer/Atheism]] - although there isn't much there yet apart from my proposed headings. Don't worry if you are busy. I understand that we all have other commitments and I'm sure I can get another administrator to help out when the time comes, if necessary.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:42, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== Archiving ==

In [[Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages#Talk pages and Archiving]] we read:

{{QuoteBox|Archiving talk pages is a regular maintenence[sic] chore editors are invited to help with. However, a discussion should not be Archived[sic] until at least seven days have elapsed since the last, or most recent posting in a discussion thread, allowing others to read and comment. }}

So, how can you find out whether there was an edit to a thread during the last seven days? Well, you just look at the signatures in the thread - if you find a date which is less than a week old, you don't archive the section. Or you remember that '''you yourself have commented to the particular thread on the same day'''. It isn't rocket science, you know...

But instead of moving [[Talk:Atheism/archive19#statement by John Calvert |(Deceptive) statement by John Calvert]] back from the archives, I decided to create the following section anew. You're welcome.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:28, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== Dubious quote by John Calvert ==
In earlier revisions of this article we find the following version of a quote by John Calvert:
{{QuoteBox|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]] and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of [[Theory of evolution|materialistic theories of origins]].}}

As a source for this quote, http://www.ohiointelligentdesign.com/Newsviews.html was given - at least from Apr 22, 2008 until Aug 7, 2011. The site is not longer available, so it was correct to give a new source for this quote: http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html This is used for two days.

After I criticized the quotation (see [[Talk:Atheism/archive19#statement by John Calvert |here]]), the quote was altered on Aug 9, 2011. Now it reads

{{QuoteBox|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.}}

Surprisingly, the source of the quotation stayed the same. [[User:Conservative]] should answer the following questions:

*In earlier versions, you state: ''John Calvert ... wrote'', now we read ''John Calvert .. declared''. If he wrote it somewhere, you should find the original source. Why don't you do so?
*Did ''shockawenow'' change the quotation over time?
*Did you misquote ''shockawenow''?
*''shockawenow'' gives no clue where and when John Calvert made this comment, so we have an anonymous blogger claiming that someone said (!) something sometimes. Do you think that this kind of sources befit a trustworthy encyclopedia?

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:28, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Calvert's website has an email address. Calvert was asked to change/clarify the quote and he did. The clarified quote is at Shockofgod's blog and at Conservapedia. Next, via email Calvert said he is experiencing some webmaster challenges and plans on posting the clarified quote (or a clarified equivalent quote) after September 1, 2011 at his website. At the very least, I expect an equivalent quote. The present and past quote is in accordance with Calvert's views which are cited in the previous footnotes of the article so there is nothing unusual/surprising about the quote (In short, this is a tempest in a teapot - especially since, if memory serves, I said I emailed Calvert and he provided a clarified quote).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:*''Calvert's website has an email address.'' That's indeed something you said earlier.
:*''Calvert was asked to change/clarify the quote and he did.'' That's news! Who asked him?
:*''The clarified quote is at Shockofgod's blog and at Conservapedia.'' Nothing at ''Shockofgod'''s blog or at Conservapedia indicates that this quote was the result of a ''personal communication''. You should state so.
:*''Next, via email Calvert said he is experiencing some webmaster challenges and plans on posting the clarified quote (or a clarified equivalent quote) after September 1, 2011 at his website.'' That's news, too. Idea: why not do without the quote for a couple of days and wait till September 1, 2011? Then you could post a well-sourced quote! That shouldn't stress your patience, as you routinely asks your interlocutors to wait up to three years for tiny results...
:*''At the very least, I expect an equivalent quote.'' The quotes aren't equivalent, but vary in their degree of being misleading.
:*''The present and past quote is in accordance with Calvert's views which are cited in the previous footnotes of the article so there is nothing unusual/surprising about the quote'' That a quote is ''in character'' doesn't mean that it isn't necessary to avoid the impression that it was made up!
:*''In short, this is a tempest in a teapot''. It's a minor item, high-lightening your understanding of what it means to be a ''trustworthy encyclopedia''.
:*''especially since, if memory serves, I said I emailed Calvert and he provided a clarified quote'' from the records it seems that your memory doesn't serve you well: I can't find such an announcement here at Conservapedia. Perhaps you said so in another ''personal communication'' with ''shockofgod''?
:*Did you really have to oversight two revisions of this talk-page just to hide the fact that you weren't sure whether you should use parentheses in your short paragraph?
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Correction. I implied I would email Calvert. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:34, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::Correction: you said ''I can certainly email Calvert to see if he will graciously decided put the quote on his website''. Any other comment to the points above? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 03:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==Premature archiving==
It seems some of these discussions are being archived before other internet readers and members of the Conservapedia editing community can keep up, review, or participate. Please allow a discussion thread to remain dormant for 7 days before archiving. Now, this quote,
:*''I can certainly email Calvert to see if he will graciously decided put the quote on his website''
I hope the author can clarify what the thought or intent was. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:29, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Angelo Liteky

2011-08-13T11:07:32Z

RonLar: Category:Medal of Honor recipients

'''Angelo R. Liteky''' was a [[Catholic]] [[priest]] who served as a [[chaplain]] during the [[Vietnam]] war. He was awarded the [[Medal of Honor]] for carrying over twenty wounded men to safety during a savage battle with Vietnamese forces. Much of the time Fr. Liteky was exposed to direct fire by enemy forces.

==External Links==

[http://www.homeofheroes.com/photos/7_rvn/liteky.html Liteky's Photo and Citation]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Liteky, Angelo}}
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]
[[Category:Clergy]]
[[Category:Vietnam War]]

Neel Kearby

2011-08-13T11:07:15Z

RonLar: Category:Medal of Honor recipients

'''Neel Kearby''' was a [[P-47]] pilot in the Pacific Theater of [[World War II]], and the commanding officer of the 348th Fighter Group. Before his death in combat in 1944, he scored 22 aerial victories and won the [[Medal of Honor]], one of only three USAAF fighter pilots (and the only P-47 pilot) in the Pacific Theater to do so.

Before Neel Kearby, a native of [[Texas]], joined the war with the 348th FG, he was assigned to the [[Panama Canal]] Zone, flying patrols in [[P-39 Airacobra|P-39 fighters]]. He was one of the first pilots of the group to be checked out in the P-47 Thunderbolt, and was immediately impressed with it, convinced that the large and powerful fighter was superior to any [[Axis]] plane. He, along with the rest of the fighter group, arrived in [[Australia]] in June 1943. The [[P-38 Lightning]] had been the premier Allied fighter in the area for close to a year, and the Lightning pilots looked down on the stubby, heavy Thunderbolt. The story goes that Kearby himself proved the P-47’s fighting prowess in a mock dogfight with a P-38. Operationally, however, the P-47s were still handicapped by their relatively short range, though this was alleviated partially by new external tanks.

Kearby opened his score on September 4, 1943 with a [[Mitsubishi G4M|G4M “Betty” bomber]] and a [[Nakajima Ki-43|Ki-43 “Oscar”]], and followed this up ten days later by shooting down another twin-engined bomber, a [[Mitsubishi Ki-46|Ki-46 “Dinah”]]. On September 23, he was promoted to full colonel, but October 11 turned out to be Kearby’s biggest day ever. Kearby led four P-47s on a fighter sweep over the Japanese base at [[Wewak]], [[New Guinea]], and ran into 40 Japanese Army fighters. The ensuing combat lasted close to an hour, and when it was over, Colonel Kearby had shot down six fighters (four Oscars and two [[Kawasaki Ki-61|Ki-61 “Tonys”]]). Two other pilots had downed three Tonys between them for a total of nine Japanese fighters splashed without so much as a scratch on any of the Thunderbolts. This made Kearby the first P-47 [[Flying ace|ace]] of the Pacific Theater, and set an Army Air Corps record for most victories in a single mission (The American record is nine, set a year later by Navy ace [[David McCampbell]]).<ref>Col. Kearby's record would later be broken within the USAAF as well, when [[P-51 Mustang|P-51]] pilot [[William Shomo]] downed seven Japanese planes in a six-minute fight over the Philippines in January of 1945.</ref> Upon hearing of this one-sided victory, General [[George Kenney]], head of American Army air forces in the Pacific, recommended Neel Kearby for the Congressional Medal of Honor, which was presented to him by General [[Douglas MacArthur]] himself in January of 1944. It was the first time in World War II that the MOH had been awarded to an Army Air Corps fighter pilot.

{{quotebox|Despite its weight, its clumsiness at low altitudes, and its slow rate of climb, the Thunderbolt could be deadly when tactically deployed. Kearby would leave it to lighter, more nimble fighters to dog-fight at low altitudes. Proper use of the Thunderbolt meant free-roving flights at high altitude, where they were designed to fly, and where they could track enemy formations unseen. When the moment came for combat the Thunderbolt's unequalled diving speed would put its guns within range of destroying that formation, long before the enemy even knew American pilots had spotted them. [http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part2/11_kearby.html ]}}

By this time, Kearby had become one of the top scoring pilots in the theater, having downed a [[Mitsubishi Ki-21|Ki-21 bomber]] and a [[Mitsubishi Zero|Zero]] on January 3 for his 18th and 19th victories. He was kicked upstairs to desk duty at Fighter Command Headquarters for the theater, partly to keep him out of combat. Kenney was well aware of the good publicity of the exploits of a top-scoring ace, but he was equally aware of the bad publicity if that ace got himself killed. Kearby was highly unsatisfied with his new duty, and took every opportunity to fly again. Kenney allowed this, but kept him restricted to two combat flights per week or less (emphasis on the “or less”) and further told him that if he scored a kill on one of these flights, he was to immediately break off and leave the action. Kearby scored a double on January 9, raising his score to 21 and tying him for the lead with P-38 pilot [[Richard Bong]]. The magic number was 26 victories, the score of the top American ace of [[World War I]], [[Eddie Rickenbacker]]. The first Army Air Corps pilot to break the record would assure his place in the history books. On February 15, Bong scored his 22nd victory, a Tony, making Kearby even more eager to return to the fight. On March 5, Bong scored again, and 24 hours later, Kearby was in the air.

Kearby led two other veteran pilots on another fighter sweep near Wewak. There are two different versions of what happened next. One version is that they came across three bombers (identified at the time as [[Mitsubishi G3M|G3M “Nells”]] but more likely Ki-48 “Lilys”). Each pilot flamed one, but an [[Nakajima Ki-43|Oscar]] came in behind Kearby and shot him down with a long burst to the cockpit. One of Kearby’s wingmen, William D. Dunham, downed the Oscar, but the damage was done.<ref>''Mustang and Thunderbolt Aces of the Pacific and CBI'', by John Stanaway, Osprey Publishing, 1999</ref> The other version is that they ran into fifteen Japanese aircraft, and attacked. Kearby immediately downed one, and contrary to General Kenney’s order, went back to get another, but was jumped by three Zeros and shot down.<ref>''Aces'', by William Yenne, Berkeley Books, 2000</ref> Both stories agree on the important details, however: on March 6, 1944, Colonel Neal Kearby was shot down and killed after scoring his 22nd victory. His score remained the highest of any P-47 pilot in the Pacific Theater.

==References and Notes==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part2/11_kearby.html Neel Kearby] at Wings of Valor
*[http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_kearby.html Neel Kearby, Giant in a Jug] at AcePilots.com

==Further Reading==
*''Kearby’s Thunderbolts: The 348th Fighter Group in World War II'', by John Stanaway, Schiffer Publishing, 1977

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kearby, Neel}}
[[Category:Pilots]]
[[Category:Military Personnel]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]

Robert M. Hanson

2011-08-13T11:07:01Z

RonLar: Category:Medal of Honor recipients

[[Image:Robert M. Hanson.jpg|right|200px]]
'''Robert M. Hanson''' (1920 - 1944) was a fighter pilot and [[Flying ace|ace]] with the [[United States Marine Corps|US Marines]] in [[World War II]]. He was the top-scoring [[F4U Corsair|Corsair]] pilot of the war (25 aerial victories, all in the F4U), and was awarded the [[Medal of Honor]] for heroism.

Bob Hanson lead an interesting life even before the war began. He was born in [[India]] on February 4, 1920, to missionary parents, and became the heavyweight [[wrestling]] champion of India’s United Provinces in the mid 1930’s. He later toured Europe by bicycle, and was passing through [[Austria]] when that country was annexed by [[Germany]]. After America entered the war, he enlisted in the Marine Corps and earned his wings.

In 1943, Hanson was assigned to VMF-214, then active in the [[Solomon Islands]] campaign, and he flew his first combat mission on August 4. His weeks with the 214 were productive ones, and he shot down two [[Japanese]] fighters during his time with that unit.<ref>[http://www.acepilots.com/usmc_aces2.html USMC Corsair Aces of WWII]</ref> Hanson was transferred to VMF 215 just in time to support the Allied landings on the island of [[Bouginville]]. On the day the Marines landed, November 1, he became an ace by downing two [[Mitsubishi Zero|Zeros]] and single-handedly attacking a flight of six [[Nakajima B5N|“Kate” torpedo bombers]], destroying one of them and forcing the others to jettison their bombs. He was shot down himself in that action, but was rescued by a destroyer and returned to duty. In the month of January 1943, Hanson had an amazing run, shooting down 20 enemy aircraft in 17 days. On January 24, Lt. Hanson was cut off from his division while on a high cover flight when he saw Japanese Zeros massing to attack a flight of American bombers. He attacked, shooting down four of them, and disrupted the enemy formation.

On February 3, 1944, VMF-215 was on a mission to attack targets of opportunity over Japanese-held New Ireland. Hanson was strafing a [[lighthouse]] used by the enemy as an observation post when he was hit by anti-aircraft fire, and went down with his plane.<ref>''Aces'', by William Yenne, Berkeley Books, 2000</ref>

He was awarded posthumously the [[Medal of Honor]] for his actions of November 4, 1943 and January 24, 1944.

== See also ==

*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.marines.com/ US Marine Corps]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hanson, Robert M.}}
[[Category:Pilots]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]

Michael Estocin

2011-08-13T11:06:34Z

RonLar: Category:Medal of Honor recipients

'''Michael Estocin''' (April 27, 1931 – April 26, 1967) was a [[United States Navy|U.S. Navy]] pilot who flew the [[A-4 Skyhawk]] in [[Operation Rolling Thunder]] during the [[Vietnam War]]. He won the [[Medal of Honor]] for heroism, and was shot down in 1967.

Estocin was an A-4 pilot on the aircraft carrier USS ''Ticonderoga''. He specialized in “Iron Hand” missions, missions against [[North Vietnam]]ese SAM sites. On April 20, 1967, during a strike against thermal power plants in [[Haiphong]], Lt. Commander Estocin destroyed three SAM sites in spite of the fact he was hit between the second and third attacks. Badly damaged and low on fuel, he managed to perform an aerial refueling, a hundred mile flight, and a perfect landing back on the ''Tico''.<ref>[http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/vietnam-a-l.html Medal of Honor Recipients]</ref>

On April 26, Estocin was tasked to support another mission to Haiphong. He was escorted by an [[F-8 Crusader]] piloted by John “Pirate” Nichols. Besides protecting Estocin against MiGs, Nichols was to strafe threatening [[Surface-to-air missile|SAM]] sites with his four 20 mm cannons after Estocin had hit them with his [[AGM-45 Shrike|Shrike missiles]]. Before departing, both pilots had briefed to expect trouble from Site VN-99, a SAM battery NNW of the target area. The main strike proceeded as planned, with the North Vietnamese radars remaining quiet. As the strike planes were leaving the area, however, VN-99 went active, and launched a SAM. Both planes took evasive action, but the missile hit Estocin’s A-4, setting it aflame. The plane plunged nose first into the ground, and no ejection was seen. It was thought for a time that he might have survived and become a [[POW]], but when the American POWs were returned in 1973, Estocin was not among them. Two decades later, the Joint Casualty Resolution Committee investigated, and in 1993, concluded that Michael Estocin had in fact never ejected, and died in the crash.<ref>''Fast Movers: Jet Pilots and the Vietnam Experience'', by John Darrell Sherwood, St. Martin’s Paperbacks, 1999</ref>

Estocin was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions on April 20 and April 26, the only Navy jet pilot to be so honored during the Vietnam War. In 1978, a guided missile frigate was commissioned in his name.

John Nichols survived the war, although the Estocin incident haunted him for a long time. He served a second tour of duty aboard the ''Tico'' in 1968, and scored an aerial victory in July, a [[MiG-17]], for which he was awarded the [[Silver Star]]. He would later write a book about his experiences called ''On Yankee Station''.

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=9708 Michael Estocin] at Find a Grave.
*[http://members.tripod.com/~Firebase_Freedom/pow.html The Michael Estocin page]
*[http://www.taskforceomegainc.org/e031.html Estocin, Michael John]
*[http://navysite.de/ffg/FFG15.HTM USS Estocin]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Estocin, Michael}}
[[Category:United States Naval Officers]]
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]
[[Category:Pilots]]
[[Category:Vietnam War]]

James Doolittle

2011-08-13T11:06:10Z

RonLar: Category:Medal of Honor recipients

[[Image:Doolittle.jpg|thumb|200px|right|James H. "Jimmy" Doolittle, General, United States Air Force]]
'''General James H. Doolittle''', [[United States Air Force]], was a military officer noted for his record-breaking civilian flights and air racing victories, but is forever linked to one of the most audacious military actions during World War II: the air raid over Japan on April 18, 1942 that bears his name.

==Early life==

James Harold Doolittle was born in Alameda, [[California]], on December 14, 1896. After graduating from high school in [[Los Angeles]], he received his higher education at the Los Angeles Junior College and the University of California. He enlisted in the Army's Signal Corps Reserve in October 1917, received flight training and was commissioned in March 1918. During the [[World War I|First World War]], Lieutenant Doolittle instructed Air Corps students in aerial gunnery and tactics.

During the 1920s, Doolittle's military aviation achievements made him famous. He made a record-breaking trans-continental flight in September 1922; won the Schneider, Bendix and Thompson air racing trophies; and played an important role in the development of instrument flying. In addition to flying exploits, in mid-decade he obtained Master of Science and Doctor of Science degrees from the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]].

Doolittle left Army Air Corps (as the Air Force was known prior to being established as a separate branch in 1947) active service in 1930, though he remained active as a Reserve officer. Working in private industry, he was instrumental in improving aviation fuels and became the president of the [[Institute of Aeronautical Science]] in 1940. In July of that year, he returned to active duty with the Air Corps, subsequently working to convert the automobile industry to military production.

==The Doolittle Raid==

The raid had its roots in a chance observation that it was possible to launch Army twin-engined bombers from an aircraft carrier, making feasible an early air attack on Japan. Appraised of the idea in January 1942, U.S. Fleet commander Admiral [[Ernest J. King]] and Air Forces leader General [[Henry H. Arnold]] greeted it with enthusiasm. Arnold assigned the technically-astute Doolittle to organize and lead a suitable air group. The modern, but relatively well-tested [[B-25 Mitchell|B-25B "Mitchell"]] medium bomber was selected as the delivery vehicle and tests showed that it could fly off a carrier with a useful bomb load and enough fuel to hit Japan and continue on to airfields in [[China]].
[[Image:Doolittle1.jpg|thumb|200px|right|April 18, 1942: the Doolittle Raid about to launch from USS ''Hornet''.]]
Gathering volunteer air crews for an unspecified, but admittedly dangerous mission, Doolittle embarked on a vigourous program of special training for his men and modifications to their planes. The new carrier USS ''Hornet'' was sent to the [[Pacific Ocean|Pacific]] to undertake the Navy's part of the mission. So secret was the operation that her Commanding Officer, Captain Marc A. Mitscher, had no idea of his ship's upcoming employment until shortly before sixteen B-25s were loaded on her flight deck (Most of Doolittle's men also had no idea what they were doing, even as they were being trained by a Naval officer on short take-offs prior to their arrival in Alameda). On 2 April 1942 Hornet put to sea and headed west across the vast Pacific.

Joined in mid-ocean on 13 April by Vice Admiral [[William F. Halsey]]'s flagship ''[[USS Enterprise]]'', which would provide air cover during the approach, Hornet steamed toward a planned 18 April afternoon launching point some 400 miles from [[Japan]]. However, before dawn on 18 April, enemy picket boats were encountered much further east than expected. These were evaded or sunk, but got off radio warnings, forcing the planes to take off around 8 AM, while still more than 600 miles out.

Most of the sixteen B-25s, each with a five-man crew, attacked the [[Tokyo]] area, with a few hitting [[Nagoya]]. Damage to the intended military targets was modest, and none of the planes reached the Chinese airfields (though all but a few of their crewmen survived). However, the Japanese high command was deeply embarrassed. Three of the eight American airmen they had captured were executed. Spurred by Combined Fleet commander Admiral [[Isoroku Yamamoto]], they also resolved to eliminate the risk of any more such raids by the early destruction of America's aircraft carriers, a decision that led them to disaster at the [[Battle of Midway]] a month and a half later.

==After the raid==

Decorated by President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] with the [[Medal of Honor]] and promoted to the rank of Brigadier General after the Japan raid, and later to Lieutenant General, Doolittle commanded the Twelfh and Fifteenth Air Forces in the North African and Mediterranean Theaters in 1942-43. During 1944-45, he led the Eighth Air Force in both the [[Europe]]an and Pacific Theaters. He returned to private industry following World War II and remained an prominent figure in the aeronautics field. In 1985, he received four-star rank on the Air Force Retired List. General James H. Doolittle died in 1993.
==see also==
* [[World War II in the Air]]

==Links==
*[http://www.medalofhonor.com/JimmyDoolittle.htm MedalofHonor.com bio of Doolittle]
*[http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/citations_1940_wwii/doolittle.html Medal of Honor citation]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Doolittle, James}}
[[category:World War II]]
[[Category:Medal of Honor recipients]]

[[category:Air Power]]