Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-08-18T01:11:33Z

Sachaztan:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive6]] 

== What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? ==

It strikes me that dedicated Wikipedia editors might seek to restore their image by rooting out bias. Hypothetically speaking, if an item on this list is later repaired by an editor so that it is no longer true, should it be forgiven and removed from the list, or kept as a reminder of past transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: If the correction reflects bias, as in removing smears against [[Democrats]] but not against [[Republicans]], then obviously that is another instance of bias. How about an unbiased commitment by [[Wikipedia]]??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:: And if the correction does not reflect bias? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, if the bias is cleaned up, then I'd love to eliminate the examples and reduce the size of this list, hopefully even to zero. But I'm not naive about the liberal bias at Wikipedia, and I doubt an unbiased clean-up effort is even possible there. Feel free to prove me wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Perhaps other editors disagree with your stance. Some entries are written in past-tense, implying that Wikipedia has since cleared instances of bias from at least those articles. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 04:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

It isn't actually possible to reduce this list to zero, partially because of incomplete info and partially because some of the examples are past issues. Without getting into arguing about what's valid or not...
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>3 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>4 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>5 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>8 has been corrected. Twice.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>30 is no longer true as worded. (It may still stand as a criticism if rephrased.)
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>34 is no longer true. That said, looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act&diff=120080583&oldid=120073659 a version from March 3] I can't find this call to participate in a political march. Am I missing it?
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>35 is the description of a past sequence of events; it is uncorrectable.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>38 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>42 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>43 is no longer true; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism that article] is now only in an eponymous category and a handful of maintenence/cleanup categories.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>44 has since been corrected; it even cites Conservapedia.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>47 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>49 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>52 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>56 has since been partially corrected: the article now mentioned his daughter in the lead, wikilinks "double first" to explain it to unfamiliar readers, his time as Dean of Christ Church is now in his article (it was in the Christ Church, Oxford article), the grammatical error in the lead is gone, and the Britannica 1911 source is now made explict. His lineage is still described in detail.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>60 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.

There are seventeen examples on the list that have either been corrected or lack sufficient information to be acted upon. This is not including the criticisms that have been made by third parties (and thus persist even if they have been acted upon).

To say that Wikipedia is able to reduce this list by cleaning up the articles in question is a bit disingenuous. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 06:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Arguing without end, and discussing the wallpaper (what if's) while the house is flooded, is another form of [[deceit]]. The fact that hundreds of Adminstrators allowed the bias to begin with, and in most cases added to it, is indictment enough. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:09, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Are you opposed, then, to Aschlafly's suggestion that in the unlikely event that Wikipedia manages to satisfactorily remove bias from an article referred to on this list, that its entry on the list may deserve to be forgiven in favour of focusing on remaining and future transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: I am confident that Sysop TK and everyone else here would welcome an end to the lynch-mob approach by Wikipedia, and we would let bygones be bygones '''if there is a real change''' there. That would entail an unbiased cleaning of the smears and errors and perhaps a rule change at Wikipedia to prevent recurrence.

: Obviously that has not happened, and probably won't because of the intense [[liberal]] bias of the Wikipedia editors. In the above list of alleged corrections, only 3 out of the most important 29 examples have been corrected by Wikipedia. Two of those corrections were concerning powerful individuals, and thus may simply reflect Wikipedia's protecting its self-interest. So that leaves only one genuine correction out of 29. That's a far cry from a sincere effort by Wikipedia to stop its National Enquirer-stuff. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Out of interest, which are the most important 29 examples? [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 12:49, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: You can't be serious. Try 1-29.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:01, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I was entirely serious. The list does not indicate that it is in order of importance, and it seems that new entries are added to the start of the list, so I assumed they were in roughly chronological order. Thanks for clarifying. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps what needs to be "worked on" is thinking like that shown above? Instead of just tackling the problem, the discussion is diverted by a need to rank which items are the most important! Surely one cannot believe that sort of obsessive need to become completely mired in endless discussions about the discussions, serves WP or its readers well? Wiki's (all wiki's), in general, seem to attract users who use debating tricks too much, and pay too little attention to doing what is forthright, IMHO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Today's front page asks when Wikipedia will clean up its sixty-five instances of bias. I'm sure there's some overlap between Conservapedia editors and conservative Wikipedia editors, who would be more than happy to try and improve Wikipedia. What guidelines do you suppose Wikipedia should follow in order to absolve itself from this list of complaints? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates, I cannot see that happening. It is like trying to push a Donkey Cart uphill, along with the Donkeys. Possible, but extremely difficult, unless he is now prepared to state some "absolutes" of right and wrong, truth and fiction. This he has been resistant to do, deciding to run with the sixties commune style of mobocracy, where a 14 year old editor has equal weight, in theory as well as practice, with that of a Nobel Laureate. Without that, people there will continue to be "rat-packed" by the roving bands of thought police, demanding a world-view, secular progressive agenda, and getting it by tying everything they disagree with into a never-ending argument and a series of arbitrations, panels, commissions and reviews, all the while personally attacking them, second-guessing their posts, etc. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Many of these aren't even legitimate cases of bias. If #1 is, then Conservapedia is guilty of the same sort of thing on its [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (linking John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them). A bunch are instances of past vandalism that have been corrected (ie #4, #34), though obviously the past cannot be undone. #6 is a legitimate criticism, but hardly an example of liberal bias. In #7 the instances are hardly comparable (the former being a news blurb for a day, the latter being a substantial issue that has been widely referenced, nor would I compare an illegal act with someone's sexual orientation). For a site that complains that Wikiepdia isn't concise enough (and I generally agree with that) there's an awful lot of criticism for not mentioning certain details (#11, #23). #32 is flawed, as it compares 8% athiests with 35% atheists, agnostics, seculars, etc., nor is the references Wikipedia page a stastically relevent scientific survey. #41 highlights an unnecessary detail included in a Wikipedia article, but if referenced is hardly "gossip" (and still not bias). The newspapers really have to take the rap for #63; no newspaper should use Wikiepdia, or any wiki (or probably any encyclopedia) for a source without backing up the claims elsewhere. They would have been rightly criticized for using Conservapedia as well. As for #45 (many of Wikipedia's articles having no educational value), I've come across ''many'' articles here that are too brief to really have any educational value at all. On top of that, the number of articles on pop culture here is growing rapidly (as I thought it would). I haven't even looked at most of the examples (and I'll get a bunch of a certain amount of legitimacy to them). If you're going to put this on your front page you should probably look into it a bit more closely. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*As for "pop culture" articles, I delete many on sight, but you do have a good point. Comparing that particular thing, on a new wiki like CP, as compared to an established and mature one like WP, is a bit unfair, no? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:27, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Well, many comparisons are going to be inequitable. Wikipedia's more serious offenses (Seigenthaler, Zoeller) are due to its too big to completely police for cases of vandalism and malevolent edits. Conservapedia can do a much better job, being much smaller. As for pop culture, this brings up a question: what is Conservapedia's deletion policy? I haven't seen one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:53, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Daily Historical Quote:
'''"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law."'''-- Sir [[Winston Churchill]]
--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:04, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I take it from the use of that quote that you don't have a deletion policy. And I take it from your other statement that sysops can delete at will any article that they feel is inappropriate. Fair enough. However, I don't think this policy (or lack thereof) is sustainable. As you clearly have [[Monty Python|some articles on pop culture]] and [[Transformers|not others]] it seems only a matter of time before there is serious disagreement among sysops as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Eventually something will have to be hammered out that addresses these subjective descrepencies. While ten thousand regulations might be too much, I feel you will need more than 8. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 19:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Very true. If you have too many rules, how can you expect people to obey them all? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't really feel like getting into a debate about whether such-and-such points are right or not. My point is merely that it's disingenuous to say that Wikipedia can do anything to reduce the length of this list, since when corrections ''are'' made, the criticisms turn into "Well, you didn't fix it until we pointed it out." [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly so! So, if their policies were changed by Jimbo himself, that wouldn't be happening nearly so much, that long delay in righting wrongs posted as fact. The point is, the built in bias of the Adminsistrators there, too many cloned from the same idealogical POV, leads them to ignore such items, as they assume them to be correct. That is what a mob school of thought is. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:58, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

No, "ManInBlack", I've been clear that a sincere effort at reform by Wikipedia would result in deleting entries from this list. We hope and pray for that sincere reform. Obviously that has not yet happened, starting with example 1 here and proceeding to dozens of other examples. Isolated, biased corrections by Wikipedia, such as its acting in self-interest to remove smears of powerful people, is not sincere reform.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:What sort of sincere effort for reform would lead to the removal of #49 or #52? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Hm, I've been thinking. Item #4 on the list refers to Fuzzy Zoeller, who sought to take legal action against the editor or editors who posted the smears, since it's the editor rather than the Wikimedia Foundation who would be liable for making the edits. This would suggest that it's only the editors who made the smears against "powerful people" who have anything to worry about, not Wikipedia itself. In that case, surely editing Wikipedia to remove smears on powerful people can only be in the interest of the editors who added those smears, not Wikipedia or the editors who removed them later on. Am I missing something? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:47, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Folks, this discussion is getting tiresome. I've been clear already, and we don't waste our time here on frivolous chatter. Look again at our Point 1. Enforce Wikipedia's own rule against guilt-by-association and clean it up there. If you can't even do that, then please don't waste our time here. If you can do that, then do it and let's then efficiently clean up and remove the remainder. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:The problem with Wikipedia is that it does not acknowledge its [[liberal bias]]. It is so concerned with achieving "consensus" on policy, that it forgets that it is not possible to have a consensus on [[fact]]s. Originally, Larry and Jimbo agreed that Wikipedia would remain neutral when there is a dispute over what the facts are about anything. That eventually and gradually turned into allowing groups of users to create a "consensus version" of an article with a point of view which '''cannot be overturned'''.

:The new policy is that even if an article has a POV, no one is allowed to create another article with a different POV - even if the sole reason the extra article is created is to fix the bias in the first article. The alternate POV can be "legally" suppressed: one can neither create an alternate article to ''describe'' another POV, nor can one wedge the alternate POV into the first article. This is how they perpetuate the bias in key articles such as theory of evolution (in favor), intelligent design (they're against it), and global warming (they insist there's a [[scientific consensus]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes. "What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates" as I said above, and nobody can refute that, because it is indeed factual. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think the issue is that the title of the article is being confused with the subject. Many of the entires here are factual omissions or other problems that don't reflect bias so much as the potential for vandalism or simply the fact that Wikipedia isn't a complete project. The lead even acknowledges this; "silly gossip and blatant errors" aren't bias, and neither are unconscious omissions. (Otherwise, the absence of CP articles on figures like [[John C. Frémont]], [[George Wood Wingate]], [[Nelson W. Aldrich]], and [[Thomas Edmund Dewey]] would establish that WP is more conservative than CP, which is plainly silly.)

It may be helpful to better organize this list, categorizing each entry (or ordering it chronologically, or dealing with it in prose instead of as a numbered list), so it isn't quite as much a grab-bag of randomness. Right now, it feels a lot like a nitpicky rant, and it's very difficult to sift through it to find a way to fix things (or even to tell what's new).

Many of the things on this list can (and generally have) been fixed uncontroversially. It would be helpful to make it easy as possible to identify points that still need to be fixed and/or are new and make it clear why they're a problem, if your genuine goal is to enact change on Wikipedia. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ah yes, that's the ticket. Excuse us, this article is still a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::Indeed, I'm not on any crusade to whitewash commentary on Wikipedia; I just want to use that commentary to is utmost. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

ManInBlack, take a look at Point 1. If you can't or won't fix it on Wikipedia, then don't waste our time here.

You're like an apologize for a lynch mob who says something good about the mob. It's still a lynch mob hanging people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think I could make the case that associating someone with the John Birch Society is smearing them, I'm sorry. It's taken as assumed here that such association is a smear, with no real stated reasoning behind it. (I guess it's self-evident if you're familiar with the politics in that area?)

:It's not as though I haven't looked at this list for things to fix; I fixed some of the Henry Liddell stuff, removed a bunch of ridiculous unsourced allegations from an article on TBN, and (while I didn't get the idea from here) I was the one who closed the final AFD that got rid of the disgraceful Brandt article.

:I am broadly sympathetic to criticism of Wikipedia, and I try to act on it when I can. The organization of this list, with open and closed cases mixed freely, and different - often contradictory - problems scattered all over, does not lend itself to use.

:It comes down to your goal. If your goal is to make Wikipedia look bad, mission accomplished. That a big, impressive-looking list and its nature lends itself to nothing on the list getting resolved ever because nobody can make heads nor tails of it. If your goal is to enact change on Wikipedia, then some organization would make it significantly more useful. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:37, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, here's some criticism you can fix: the link to the ''New American'' at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism of Berlet] has been broken for two years and nobody's fixed it. I'd fix it, but they'd only add another year to my ban. And personally, I think they deliberately want the link broken. Here's why: It links to an article entitled ''Propagandizing the Police'' [http://www.jbs.org/node/735] which says this,
:::" Berlet published a column in ''Overthrow'', an organ of the militant, far-left Youth International Party (Abbie Hoffman’s “Yippies”)..."

::Now considering [http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=yip this site] says Yippies are a [[terrorist]] subsidiary of the National Lawyers Guild, of which Berlet was VP, it's not surprising he'd write for their journal. And what would happen to Berlet's status as the inhouse resident expert on politcal affairs, if it was discovered he was published in an extreme and terrorist publication?

::So, beware if you dare fix that link, you will be a marked user, stalked and harassed, if your contributions do not tow the party line. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So, um, what's the problem and why? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The text of the Berlet entry uses the John Birch Society's ''New American'' allegedly to give balance & criticism. The quoted text even puts Berlet at odds with the Anti-Defamation League. But when you click on the link to read the source document, the link is broken. The source document, ''Propagandizing the Police'', cites Berlet as having written for extremist publications. I was banned likewise for using a different source that cited Berlet writting for another extremist publication (See [[Guardian]], here in CP). If Berlet writes for extremist publications, he cannot be used as a source for anything other than his own organization, Politcal Research Associates. Yet Berlet literally authored the entire Dominionism series (look at the Template under "critics" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dominionism] or you can check the contribs any page in the series).

::::IOW, Berlet cannot be cited for anything in Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia's attribution policies, written by SlimVirgin, which state, "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I [SlimVirgin] was the author of'''." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

::::Oddly, SlimVirgin is Berlet's staunchest defender.

::::Oh, as to the smear in the Brandt entry, the neologism "conspiracist" has been documented to be Berlet's own invention. Berlet created Wikipedia's "Conspiracist" entry, and cited himself. Berlet called Brandt a conspiracist, so using his own neologism is another policy violation in the Brandt case (all this I called attention to ArbCom, Jimbo, and Foundation two years ago). The John Birch Society in WP is slandered with Berlet's neologism as "conspiracist." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Okay, short version. What link is broken, and where should it link? I'm not diving into all of this for your sake, but if there's a broken link, I'll fix that. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 01:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Footnote 15 here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet] should link to this [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]. Good luck. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:14, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Right now, the link links to a New American article, so I don't see the problem. I'm not really comfortable digging deeper, as I know nothing about the subject matter. (This is part of why the list could stand to be better organized; I'm patient enough to dig through it for stuff I can fix; others may not be.) [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 00:32, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Yah but the link is broken, a 404 dead end page comes up. I provided the link to the cited article above. You're not telling me you're afraid of a bunch of [[Stalinist]]s, are you? Stalin's dead, the KGB is defunct (moreless) and these people are just a bunch of bullies and wannabe's. So what if the ArbCom Chairman & Berlet go back 37 years [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision&diff=29531355&oldid=29476030|] to that KGB front organization, the [[National Lawyers Guild]], it's not like the old days where they'd arrange an accident for you or ship you off to the [[Gulag]]. All they can do is ban you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:38, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't make a practice of intervening in situations where I don't feel I can practically explain my actions. There's a difference between taking a risk of getting in a big fight because I honestly believe in the cause and doing the same on the frankly confusing say-so of someone else. I'm sorry. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Face facts. You're afraid of SlimVirgin.

::::::::::What more evidence do we need, of WP high level Admins in the Cabal bullying people, promoting disinformation, and getting clones and cronies to coverup thier dirty work than your appearance here on this talk page? You've been presented the facts, and the evidence, yet refuse to do a simple maintance chore of fixing a simple broken link. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Generally, it's more effective to respond to "I don't feel I have enough information to help you" with more information, not vague insinuations of cowardice. I didn't come here to get into a fight about subjects I'm not well-informed about, either. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 15:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::<s>Ok, so there's a broken link here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#_note-14 (footnote 15)] that is supposed to link here [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]. Simple maintance chore. It's been broken for two years.</s> [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:38, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Nevermind. Some courageous soul fixed it. I'd love to find out who, and follow the remainder of his editing career. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:42, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::It was WP editor SallyForth123 yesterday. Didn't take long to get a response, they're accusing her of being a robot. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SallyForth123#Your_edits_to_Chip__Berlet Your_edits_to_Chip__Berlet] And the revert war is on in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=148678523&oldid=148678342 ''Criticism of Berlet'']. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:49, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
<---

Typical. Look at the reactions. ''Deja vu'' all over again:

:"I suggest you explain '''what you plan to do on the talk page first'''... doing these massive edits... you have introduced errors, and you have also added unsourced material. Since this is a biographical article of a living person, you need to tread very carefully. I suggest you discuss your proposed changes first on the talk page, and try to get consensus....

::"My edits were not massive: they were all trivial....

:"I suggest you take it easy on this article – if you want to edit it, do it in small bits, that are easy for others to inspect and follow. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SallyForth123#Your_edits_to_Chip__Berlet]
[[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:59, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Here's some material User:SallyForth123 could insert. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChip_Berlet&diff=28878750&oldid=28868907#CounterSpy]

== Number 1 ==

The "guilt-by-association" charge seems to rely on the [[John Birch Society]] being a Bad Thing. [[Liberal|Some]] people may think the JBS isn't a Good Thing; but on the whole, it seems, (to the well informed) a group of like minded individuals similar in message and scope as [[Eagle Forum|some]] other conservative groups. Being associated with it, even by simply being a member or having gained some measure of support from the society for a position or an act of some sort, doesn't seem to render one less desirable. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 15:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am old enough to remember the JBS back in the sixties. Since then, I haven't found it particularly in the forefront of "Conservative" groups, nor particularly relevant to most Conservatives. I believe the membership numbers show this to be true. But I do see it mentioned often in Liberal blogs, and whenever Liberals wish to point up something about Conservative's being "fringe" or out of the mainstream political thought. Odd. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia itself says that guilt-by-association is against the rules when debating someone. Yet Wikipedia supports and defends the use of guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] in their entries. Wikipedia adheres to rules and ethics about as much as a lynch mob does. Guess what: intelligent people abandon both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Per WP's own rules, the JBS is not an extreme group, or it's publication, ''The New American'' considered extremist. Under WP attribution policies, an extreme source can only be used to when writing about the same organization. The citation to the ''New American'' in the criticism section of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism] has been there for years, and I doubt very much if even Berlet's defenders would allow it to be removed, if anyone is familiar with this long running controversy. In fact, if anyone cares to investigate it, I would wager that John Birch Society publication was placed there by SlimVirgin herself. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==hypocricy?==
As I pointed out above, if "guilt" by association is such a problem at Wikipedia (still not sure what exactly the "guilt" is in this case), then it should be removed here. The [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page links John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them. ''Exactly'' the sort Wikipedia is criticized for. I'd change it but the page is locked. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:52, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:PortlyMort, the National Humane Society reference is *not* in the entry about John Kerry. Wikipedia does smear conservatives with guilt-by-association in their own entries. And [[liberals]] insist on keeping those smears there, despite its own rules against it. Bottom line: no credibility for Wikipedia anymore. No intelligent contributor is going to be part of a guilt-by-association smear machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::So guilt by association is okay here as long as it's only in certain articles? So it's not in the Kerry article, but it's still in Conservapedia. I wouldn't care myself (it's certainly arguable if mentioning a politician's score from a special interest group is a smear or simply reporting statistics; saying "Senator Fancypants has a 85% rating from the Seirra Club" or "Congressman Popcorn has a 90% rating from the NRA" doesn't seem terribly unfair, though context would be a fator), but this site seems to think it's some sort of cardinal sin. And if it is then you should remove the Kerry reference. So it's not on Kerry's page, It's on the [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (ironic, as it seems to illustrate some hypocricy here). [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 19:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: PortlyMort, you miss the point. Guilt-by-association is a smear when it appears in the entry for the target of the smear. This is what [[Wikipedia]] does, and intelligent contributors will continue to leave [[Wikipedia]] as long as it continues that practice. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::It seems I do miss the point. Why is ''only'' a smear when it appears in the entry for the target, but not on any other page? This is making up the rules as you go along. A smear is a smear, regardless of what page it appears on. If it were in the debate or conservapedia or talk space you'd certainly have a point, but it's right there in an article. Are you saying if "Senator Noodle closely associates with Nazis" appears on the Senator Noodle page it's a smear, but if on the Nazi page it says "Nazis have been known to associate with Senator Noodle" it's not? I really do not follow that logic at all. And I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 13:39, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

===the facts===
User:SlimVirgin wrote:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF]

: "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I was the author of''' back in March. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

User:SlimVirgin authored in the Chip Berlet mainspace:
: "these groups compile lists of organizations and individuals for police intelligence divisions, and then the police are expected to use that information to keep tabs on such people, who may have done nothing more than express a political view the ‘watchdogs’ disagree with," Wilcox told ''The New American'', which is published by the [[John Birch Society]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=9210097&oldid=9210042 diff]

Hence, according to the author of Wikipedia's own Attribution policy, the John Birch Society and it's publication ''The New American'' are acceptable, mainstream sources for Wikipedia, and cannot be considered extreme. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::It's related to this. [http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?FormMode=Detail&ID=161&EID=174780-8192004] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Number 65==

*''<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.''
:This is directly related to Wikipedia longstanding dispute with Daniel Brandt, and the Wikimedia Foundations unwillingness to require certain "priviliged experts" (a) be required to following WP policies, and (b) refusal of ArbCom to take sanctions against the most blatant and incivil conduct.

:The reference you cannot find is available right from CP's main space page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921] Let's extract it, and count the violations of Wikipedia's own policies. Further, this slander and defamation, which [[Jimbo Wales]] himself was aware of, stood for ''at least'' 18 months. Extracted:

::''"Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including [[Chip Berlet]], resigned or were removed after complaining that another board member, [[L. Fletcher Prouty]], was '''openly working with and defending [[Liberty Lobby]] and the Holocaust denial group the [[Institute for Historical Review]]''', which republished Prouty's book ''Secret Team''. '''According to Berlet, Brandt defended Prouty, and brushed off complaints that he (Brandt) was promoting alliances with right-wing [[conspiracy theory|conspiracist]] groups, some of which Berlet considered antisemitic or even pro-fascist'''. <ref>Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," ''Lobster'', No. 24 (December 1992); Chip Berlet, "Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected," Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1991.[http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-23.html]</ref>

:Look who inserted the information, Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet. I personally was banned for one year for '''citing ''Washington Post'' criticism of a publication Berlet was working for, the editor of which was on Berlet's Board of Advisors.''' And my citation of the ''Washington Post'' criticism was adjudicated as '''a personal attack''' against another user. Let's count the number of WP violations of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff,]which Jimbo Wales was aware of, that were allowed to remain for 18 months.
:#personal attack against another user
:#citing self
:#violation of BLP
:#violation of Reliable Sources
:#using a self publishing source
:#using a marginal, fringe, or extreme source
:#Wikipedia is a not a battleground
:#Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self promotion
:#experts do not occupy a position of privilge
:Wikipedia has a long way to go before it cleans this one up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Have you been to the Daniel Brandt article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=138512310 lately]? The Brandt situation was disgraceful, and I'm ashamed to say it persisted for so long, but that issue is finally resolved. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*"Resolved" according to whom? And after such a horrible, long process of obfuscation and denial, who can say there was any fair resolution at all? Justice delayed is indeed justice denied. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:00, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should note the situation persisted for a year and half until I posted #65 here; then it was rather quickly resolved, because I exposed exactly the root and core of the a dispute as cited above. Now, what action has been taken against blatant violations of policy CP exposed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff]? As another editor stated somewhere above, "there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Chip_Berlet] Widespread indeed. The first action that probably needs to be taken is him being banned permanetly, and then ''all'' his contributions meticulously reviewed. I would venture to say, Berlet has had a hand in numerous examples cited on this list.

::The problem in WP isn;t just a flawed edit here or there, it is an institutional problem, a policy stance that allows some editors to slander and promote disinformation with immunity, even when it's brought to the attention of ArbCom. the Trustees, and the benevolent dictator. And when it is exposed, the reprisal and banning happens to the whistleblowers. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::My hunch was exactly correct: Bias #1 states, "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples include:
:::*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[2]

:::This guilt-by-association was written & inserted by none other than Mr. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, 13:27, 1 April 2005 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Birch_Society&diff=11776105&oldid=11760190]

To answer the question, "What action has been taken against blatant violations of policy[...]in [such and such diff]", the article is now long-gone, and Wikipedia has enacted a strict policy to try and deal with articles about living people.

The entire Brandt article debacle was a disgrace to Wikipedia by any standards. I misunderstood the somewhat vaguely-written and -attributed listing in #65, taking it to mean that it was a separate, additional issue with the PIR article. As far as I can tell, the list still hasn't changed, and misattributes the mess to the PIR article, without making the context clear. It's certainly a fair criticism and belongs on any list of Wikipedia's failings (although I'm not entirely sure how it establishes some sort of bias), but the current version of this list doesn't make it clear what actually happened to someone who doesn't already know. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Berlet has a long stream of slander victims, ArbCom knows he does this, so does the Board of Trustees, and so does Jimbo. And SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and Will Beback all work as a tag team with him. Fred Bauder, ArbCom Chairman. is a fellow former National Lawyers Guild member and has known Berlet for almost 40 years. When Berlet's malicious conduct is brought before ArbCom, the accusers are banned, And Berlet feels even more justified & reinvigorated.

:Who else are known vicitms? Dr. Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Payul Weyrich, Tim LaHaye for starters. Last winter I was in correspondence with User:Baby Dweezil, whom Berlet was trying to get banned. Every indication is is that Baby Dweezil is most probably Dr. Lenora Fullani, not only the first black, or the first black woman, but the first and only women who achieved ballot status in all 50 states for the office of President of the United States. This woman is a living historical figure, yet Berlet has been viciously slandering her for 20 years. When she tried to mitigate the slanders in WP, the old lynch mob led by Berlet & SlimVirgin got rid of her. And then Berlet has the audacity to claim he's for minority and women's rights. It's outrageous the way Wikipedia embraces this fraud. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Article talks only of American statistics==
There are conservatives outside the US. All the statistics here say things like "n% of people in are not athiests" as some kind of claim for bias, however the statistics for other countries are different, particularly in Europe. {{unsigned|Mrescher}}

== 65 Findings of Bias ==

With nearly two million entries on Wikipedia finding 65 that are claimed (claim leaves room for disagreement on whether these are actual cases of bias) to be biased is really remarkable. That leaves a bias rate of .0000325 percent. A truly remarkable rate given the free wheeling nature of what they do and provide. I beleive that such a rate doesn't prove that Wikipedia is biased but rather proves what a great job they do to maintain an open, factual online reference. I would challenge Conservapedia to meet such a high standard while maintaining an open and free environment for all voices.

--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 14:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't be ridiculous. You know that nobody has read every single article on Wikipedia. 65 reflects the number found out of the representative number reviewed. This is the method that sysop (and former WP bureaucrat) Ed Poor used to compare CP and WP: picking a certain number of random articles from each. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:50, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:You're not trying to say that those 65 examples were all found using a random article search, are you? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:21, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The vast majority of Wikipedia is either (1) copied directly from an out-of-date public domain encyclopedia, (2) complete junk about rock music, Hollywood figures, or obscure towns, or (3) pornography. Wikipedia welcomes this stuff to try to drive up its internet traffic for the for-profit search engine that its leaders are building. Our examples of bias here do not draw upon this vast majority (and useless) portion of Wikipedia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Actually, very few articles are copied from public sources: it was about 8% several years ago, and as Wikipedia has more than doubled in size since then. Included in that figure (in fact, the ''vast'' majority) of that 8% are articles on "obscure towns", mostly pulled directly from the 2000 census. Since Wikipedia has grown, and the number of small towns has not, that figure is probably closer 3%. Rock music and Hollywood figures are certainly well-covered, but nowhere near the "majority". Going through 30-some random articles just now I found maybe 5 that fit the bill (a pretty large number, but nowhere near the majority). As for porn, well, I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly Wikipedia covers all sorts of sexual stuff that Conservapedia does not, and it has articles on many porn stars (too many, certainly), but combined they are a miniscule amount of the nearly 2,000,000 total entries on the site. Even this stuff would not meet most people's definitions of "pornography". In any case, my question wasn't answered as to whether Dan was implying that the random article generator was used to make the list, because it clearly was not. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:48, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You're clueless about what drives traffic to Wikipedia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:52, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Hmmmm, let's see, what drives traffic to Wikipedia? Well, google for one. Also people who want to look up stuff on all sorts of topics but don't want to pay the fees commercial encyclopedias charge, or want to find stuff on the "fluff" that the othres don't cover at all (yes, I'm sure looking up Pokemon, Harry Potter, rock bands, and the like does bring a lot of traffic to Wikipedia, but not all of it by any means). And anyone who wants to look for porn will be ''very'' disappointed with Wikipedia. There are so many places to find porn on the internet; searching an encyclopedia would be silly (unless someone gets their jollies out of reading prose text giving colorless definitions of sexual acts, but most people are looking for photos and video of hardcore bonking). So what does drive traffic to Wikipedia? You seem to be an expert on it. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:00, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh really? Then explain why you have articles on [[homosexuality]], [[Molly Ringwald]], [[Rush]] and [[Hebden Bridge]]. Would this be an example of [[deceit]]? [[User:Noemi|Noemi]] 17:47, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::There's one other source, this [http://www.publiceye.org/research/biblio/Right_Chrono_Bib.html this stuff], the author of whom we've proven writes for extremists publications, inviolation of WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. Yet the Foundation wants this junk in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I checked twenty random pages - probably not statistically accurate but I thought it might give some idea. We have six people (1 sportsperson, 3 historical figures, 1 fictional character, 1 celebrity) two european buildings, two American cities or states, two video games and one music album. We also have a Christian musical award, a year of the Islamic calendar, a mental disorder, an asteroid, a political foundation in India and an oil company in Vietnam, and a racehorse.
::::: Now, I do the same on Conservapedia. We have four articles on science (one each of genetics, physics, chemistry and medicine), three on geography or foreign nations (including Islam and the Middle East), three articles on religion, two articles on history, and two on law or law enforcement. We also have one conservative think tank, a neoconservative writer, a Shakespearean play, an animal, a rock band, and one other.
::::: From this small sample set, it should be clear that Conservapedia has quite a different approach than Wikipedia. If nothing else, the people it attracts are more likely to be interested in traditional encyclopedia material like science and history, than in stuff like video games and cartoons. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 08:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Interesting, although what your study does not take into account is that Wikipedia also has entries (probably much more complete ones) on the subjects you found in Conservapedia. At least, I'd wager they do; I can't be sure without knowing specifically what they are. Wikipedia has nearly 2 million entries (I say "entries", not "articles") compared to Conservapedia's 15,000 entries. Your study shows that Wikipedia has much mroe fluff. Of course it does; no one denies that. The implication that therefore Conservapedia has more serious topics, because more come up in a random search, is erroneous. If even 2/3 of Wikipedia's articles were fluff or substantially problematical (and that is by no means true), it would still have more than 600,000 more articles on encyclopedic topics than Conservapedia, most of them containing ''much'' more information (I certainly agree that Wikipedia could really use some more conciseness, but many articles here are grossly inadequate). And keep in mind that your pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse. Most people go to encyclopedias to look up a specific topic, not to hit the random article button. If someone looks for and finds a decent article on the [[Battle of the Nile]], fine. That it may share hard drive space with thousands of articles on albums doesn't really matter. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I have to come to the defense of [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. If the question is which encyclopedia has the higher fraction of serious topics, the approach is actually a good start. If you however want to measure the relative quality, you might want to do the following: First get a random sample in Conservapedia, and then lookup the corresponding article in Wikipedia, and compare those. And then get a random sample in Wikipedia, and compare those article with the corresponding ones in Conservapedia. But I still think that getting random samples is a good start. Maybe we should in the future agree on an experiment before we conduct it. [[User:Order]]
::::::::I did this before. The result was that Wikipedia's articles tended to be much longer and more comprehensive. However, Wikipedia's had a sizeable head start, it's been argued and a longer entry isn't necessarily better. Some of the Wikipedia articles are more verbose than strictly necessary. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:51, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::I am glad to see that finally someone has started to get actual numbers, even if 20 is an admittedly small sample. Kudos [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. This is much better than second guessing and hearsay. [[User:Order]] 31 July 22:25

::::: The real test of an "encyclopedia" is how clearly and concisely it explains something to an inquiring student or adult. Any objective evaluation of Wikipedia entries in terms of their ability to teach has to give Wikipedia an "F". I know that may sound harsh, but as a teacher who once used Wikipedia entries in a course, I see that as the inescapable, and unfortunate, conclusion.

::::: The famous, widely publicized comparison between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in ''Nature'' in 2005 missed the most important measure of an encyclopedia: its ability to educate in an efficient manner. While the publicized report claimed that Wikipedia was superior to the Britannica in terms of accuracy, in fact there is no question that Britannica is infinitely better than Wikipedia in its educational value. But that news report, which bordered on defamation, ignored that key measuring standard and as a result destroyed the Encyclopedia Britannica. The loss is everone's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Actually, the report found that Britannica was more accurate, as everyone expected it would be. The surprise was that they were realitively close. Of course, the study looked at specific articles in a specific field; it was hardly very broad or comprehensive. And the accuracy of the study itself has been criticized. This, however, does start to address the ''real'' problems of Wikipedia, not the "it's nothing but porn and rock bands" fallacy. I'm sure Britannica is more accurate; the advantages of Wikipedia are that it's free and it has many more articles. Additionally, some believe that Wikipedia's longer (on the average) articles cover more information, and are therefore better. Of course, this is highly debatable, and I tend to disagree, in many cases at least. Sometimes more is better. To pick a random article, I'd say the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_book the Domesday Book] is better than [[Domesday Book|the one here]]. It has more information, and if it's more than someone needs, they can stop reading after the first couple paragraphs. And lest anyone in a glass house strat throwing stones, Conservapedia has articles from the way too "[[George VI|concise]]" to the [[USS Achernar (AKA-53)|overly wordy]]. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

"And keep in mind that '''''your''''' pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse." Nice to see by the use of "your" what you are here for, PortlyMort. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 10:50, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Example of Pro-Gay Bias==

The category allowing users to self identify as heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007#Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007#Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. We should add this to the list.[[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:24, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

*I agree. Added. That entire list has many interesting items. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:42, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. If anything, having only a "homosexual" group brands them as abnormal, as everyone else is assumed to be normal and heterosexual. There's a homosexual group without a heterosexual group for the same reason that there are gay bars but not "straight bars". All bars are by default assumed straight, and so are editors. It's an interesting case of what could possibly be bias, but it's not really pro-gay.

--[[User:Choronzon|Choronzon]] 00:06, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
:Sheeesh, don't people ever get tired of talking about homosexuality? Yes. It exists. It alsways has, and it always will. And no, it has not always been regarded as acceptable conduct. Yes, the Greeks and other ancients were opnely gay,and there '''''is''''' a reason ''why'', based upon human experience, that gay behavior was legislated against by ''both'' God, and man.

:Why can't we leave the discussion at that? Every day, gay gay gay gay gay gay gay is all we hear? Really, it gets quite tiresome. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:53, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

==Anti-Homeschool bias==

Another category that was deleted was the list of users who are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007#Category:Wikipedians_who_homeschool homeschooled]. Again, the claim was that the category wasn't useful, but I think that wiki wants to prevent homeschoolers from organizing so that we can't share ideas. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:27, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== A word about wikipedia ==

It is '''people''' who write the articles, and since many (as you Americans call liberals) are using wikipedia and editing it, it is simply unavoidable that a small bias will show. Do take into account the VAST numbers of articles and compare them to the ones that are biased I am pretty sure it wont be a big percantage. How can this be corrected? By going in there and editing for yourself and make sure that you can back up your claims with reliable sources. Obvious transgresions by the administrators of wikipedia can be taken higher up, all the way to the top. And if someone believes that every single administartor all the way to the top is currupt advocate of the devil who only wishes to hide the truth...then I can only say your probably paranoid. --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 20:40, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I know Jimbo, and so does Ed Poor. He sets the marching orders for institutionalized Liberal bias, on the part of the very top echelons of Bureaucrats. They in turn advance users who they trust and share like interests and ideas to Sysops. It is only natural. However this is why they have the entrenched bias they do. Biased articles about Conservatives and those whose POV they disagree with, languish unchanged for days or weeks, and endless arguments and reviews are oftentimes needed to remove the bias vandalism. And that is why Conservapedia exists, and other wiki-type encyclopedias and information sites. I think that is a good thing. Does bias exist here on CP? Of course it does. So if there is left-leaning bias on some WP articles, and right-leaning bias here at CP, that is a good example of a free marketplace, no? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:06, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

**Have you done anything to reduce the liberal bias on wikipedia? --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 21:11, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Asatru

2007-08-18T01:02:02Z

Sachaztan: New page: "Among pagan religions practiced in modern times, Asatru is one of the most conservative. For example, military service is highly respected by the heathen community, and the right to keep ...

"Among pagan religions practiced in modern times, Asatru is one of the most conservative. For example, military service is highly respected by the heathen community, and the right to keep and bear arms is not considered a legalistic abstraction to quibble over."

Asatru has its roots in Scandinavia and I can tell you that that it is not true in those parts of the world. --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 21:02, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Neo-Paganism

2007-08-18T00:58:29Z

Sachaztan:

"Neo-paganism is prohibited by the Bible."

Cant remember reading that anywhere in the bible...reference please?--[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 20:58, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Neo-Paganism

2007-08-18T00:58:13Z

Sachaztan: New page: "Neo-paganism is prohibited by the Bible." Cant remember reading that anywhere in the bible...reference please?

"Neo-paganism is prohibited by the Bible."

Cant remember reading that anywhere in the bible...reference please?

Capital punishment

2007-08-18T00:54:32Z

Sachaztan: Added working on sundays as biblical offense

'''Capital punishment''', also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes. Such crimes are known as '''capital crimes''', and tend to be grave [[crimes against persons]] (such as [[premeditation|premeditated]] [[murder]] or [[rape]]) or [[treason]].

== In the world today ==
Of the developed main countries, only the [[United States]], [[China]] and [[Japan]] have capital punishment. [[Western Europe]] and [[Canada]] no longer allow its use. It is also practiced in most Shari'a states (those whose legal systems are based on the [[Muslim]] legal philosophy), as well as many other countries which are not yet considered to be developed.<ref>EU: [http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances]</ref><ref>Encarta: [http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543496/Capital_Punishment_Worldwide.html Capital Punishment Worldwide]</ref>

According to officially released governmental figures, [[Amnesty International]] estimates that Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, at 13.65 hangings per 1,000,000 residents. Saudi Arabia has the second-highest rate, at 4.65 per 1,000,000.

=== In the United States ===
Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis, and several states' laws do not allow for executions.
The practice appears to be on the wane, as appeals and stays of execution create a backlog on death row. [[Pennsylvania]] has hundreds of people on death row, though only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws. One man has been on death row in [[Texas]] for 31 years. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deathrow28jan28,1,1271967.story?coll=la-headlines-nation</ref>

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by age 30+ males who are Caucasian and [[Republican]].<ref>ABC News/Washington Post poll: [http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1015a3DeathPenalty.pdf Death Penalty]</ref>

==== Methods in the United States ====

[[Lethal injection]] is the official method of capital punishment in almost all of the 38 states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. [[Nebraska]] is the only state of these that does not have lethal injection. [[Electrocution]] is the official method of execution there. Several botched electrocutions in [[Florida]] in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the [[electric chair]], which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Both firing squads were conducted in [[Utah]], most recently in 1996. The three hangings took place in [[Washington]] and [[Delaware]], most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The [[gas chamber]], which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow, gruesome deaths, has been used in [[California]], [[Arizona]], [[Nevada]], [[Mississippi]], and [[North Carolina]] since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type. The United States has never used the [[guillotine]], which was very popular in [[France]]. The last use of the guillotine in France was in 1977. Thereafter, capital punishment in France was abolished.

===In Canada===
[[Canada]] does not employ capital punishment, and it has not been a possible sentence in Canada since 1998.

Canada long employed capital punishment as a punishment for [[murder]] or [[treason]], typically executing prisoners by [[long drop hanging|long drop]] [[hanging]] in the case of civilians, and by [[firing squad]] in the case of soldiers or other military. (In particular, 25 soldiers were executed for various crimes during [[World War I]].) Canada had several notorious executioners, particularly [[Arthur B. English]], also known as "Arthur Ellis", after whom [[Arthur Ellis Awards|a Canadian literary award]] for mystery writing is named.

While Canada's use of capital punishment was inherited from the legal system of the [[United Kingdom]], opposition to capital punishment began to arise in the late 1950s, and came to a head in 1959, when [[Steven Truscott]], a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder, with a recommendation from the [[jury]] for mercy. The judge passed down a sentence of execution by hanging, then the only legal punishment for murder in Canada.

While Truscott's death sentence would later be commuted in 1960, his case galvanized public opinion, and in 1961 Canada reclassified capital murder, defining it as a murder that involved [[premeditation]], murder during the commission of a violent crime, or the murder of a [[police officer]] or [[prison guard]]. This marked the beginning of the decline of capital punishment in Canada, as the last executions would be in [[December]], 1962. The government of Canada routinely [[commutation|commuted]] any death sentence passed thereafter (indeed, the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] made opposition to capital punishment a part of their [[platform (politics)|platform]]).

In 1976, this [[de facto]] state of affairs became law, when the [[Parliament (Canada)|Canadian Parliament]] abolished the use of capital punishment under the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]. Executions were still permitted under the [[National Defense Act (Canada)|National Defense Act]] until 1998, when they were similarly abolished.

Currently, Canada's [[Supreme Court of Canada|Supreme Court]] does not allow the [[extradition]] of criminals who may be executed for their crimes.

==Religious views of capital punishment==
===Christianity===
==== Biblical View ====
The [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] has several passages that recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

According to the Old Testament, these are the offenses which merit the [[death penalty]]:

# Working on Sundays ([[Exodus]] 35:2)
# [[Murder]] ([[Exodus]] 21:12, 21:15)
# Kidnapping to sell into slavery ([[Exodus]] 21:16)
# Cursing Parents ([[Exodus]] 21:17)
# Bestiality ([[Leviticus]] 20:15)
# Desecrating the [[Sabbath]] ([[Exodus]] 31:15)
# [[Adultery]] ([[Leviticus]] 20:10, [[Leviticus]] 19:20)
# Sacrificing children to Molech ([[Leviticus]] 20:2)
# [[Blasphemy]] ([[Leviticus]] 24:16)
# Incest ([[Leviticus]] 20:11)
# [[Homosexual]] intercourse ([[Leviticus]] 18:22, 20:13)
# [[Witchcraft]] ([[Exodus]] 22:18, [[Leviticus]] 20:27)
# False [[Prophecy]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:5)
# Worshiping a false god ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:6-10)
# Sex with a woman betrothed to another ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:25)
# False witness in a capital crime ([[Deuteronomy]] 19:16-20)
# Daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9)
# Juvenile delinquency ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
# Sacrificing to false gods ([[Exodus]] 22:20)
# Un[[chastity]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:21-24)

Few people support capital punishment for non-murder offenses, and a number of Christians oppose the death penalty in all cases. Apologist [[JP Holding]] argues that the Bible including the [[New Testament]] nowhere repudiates the use of capital punishment, but that it does not necessarily mandate its use, either. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/cappun.html</ref>

==== Catechism of the Catholic Church====

While not specifically saying it should be banned in all cases, the Catholic Church favors life over capital punishment as it gives the chance for redemption.

2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

<ref>http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref>

==Deterrent==

Studies conducted since the start of the new millennium have consistently shown a deterence factor in the United States based on use of the death penalty. It has been calculated that each person executed saves the lives of anywhere from 3 to 18 innocent people.<ref>Studies: Death penalty discourages crime http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html</ref>

One primary argument against deterrence holds that no one committing a murder expects to be caught. Therefore, the murder is committed irrespective of the consequences.

== See also ==
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Guillotine]]
*[[Hanging]]
*[[Lethal injection]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55990 Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy], By Michael Ireland, ''WorldNetDaily,com'', June 2, 2007.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:politics]]
[[category:law]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-08-18T00:40:57Z

Sachaztan: A word about wikipedia (see buttom)

Talk:Sweden

2007-08-01T00:05:55Z

Sachaztan: New changes

Why did you erase the information from MissisppiMud?

'Sweden is highly socialistic, and poorer than Mississippi. The suicide rate is extremely high. The citizens of Sweden must pay most of their income to the government.'

I think they are worth knowing.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 09:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

No references to the poorer than Mississippi part. I don't think it's true. The same goes for the part about the suicide rate. Even though Sweden is far mote socialistic than the US there has been a change of direction in Swedish politics lately to a more rightwing government. /What

Suicide rates per 100 000 by country, year and sex
Year Male Female
01 18.9 8.1 (Sweden)
01 17.6 4.1 (US)

According to the WHO

Although it is true that Sweden has some of the highest suicide rates in the world however Sweden is one of the richest country’s in the world.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 16:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:
== Removed ==
I removed the part which said something along the lines of: The swedes pay about 65% in taxes, if counting all taxes.
This is simply not true as they use a scaling system if ones income is above a certain amount. I've written this.

== Writing style ==
This article {{hide personal remark|looks like it was written by a semi-literate child copying from a pamphlet. It}} could use a very thorough re-write from an expert.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Too much opinion and editorializing ==

I agree that this article is poorly written, but it appears to contain grammatical and syntactical errors related to English not being the writer's native language.

If this site is going to be taken seriously, it cannot show such obvious bias, opinion and editorializing. If the articles just stick to facts, the people who use this site can draw their own conclusions. This article can discuss the state of religion and the general position of Swedes on social issues without commenting that these things are somehow "bad." The conservative reader can draw this conclusion on his or her own without being told this is how he or she is supposed to think.
--[[User:Vonratt|Vonratt]] 16:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"however, most of the population have been taught in the state-administered schools that socialism is a superior economic system." Removed this sentence. It's just not true. Even if Sweden is a country where socialism is strong, this is not something thougth in school. Education in Sweden may be liberal, but it is not that biased. Christianity, for example, is still a part of the eduction, together with the other major religions of the world. Socialism is also taught, together with the other political systems. --[[User:What|What]]

::true but Sweden follows a more moderate version of socialism called the social democracy which seeks to reform capitalism rather than destroy or abolish it.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 16:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweden IS not a democracy ==
"What", just tell me: Are you living in Sweden? I'm living in Sweden and I'm studying in a swedish school 5 days/week, I know what I'm talking about.
The trade unions would'nt "possibly" strike, they would SURELY strike, because they are idiots and they are going to burn in hell forever!
How can you call a country were the trade union rules over everything, a democracy?!
/JohnG

I wrote nothing about trade unions and nothing about democracy. I simply didn't delete it, someone else wrote it. If you have reliable sources to back your claims with, then edit the article. [[User:What|What]] 08:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

while Sweden really is a social democracy.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 12:46, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:We need an article on [[Democracy]] which would tell our readers what a [[social democracy]] is; and whether the [[United States]] is a "democracy".

:Is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a democracy? Is a regime which is "democratically elected" a democracy? Does that have any bearing on whether the people have the right to alter or abolish it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

A [[social democracy]] is a economic and political system which is a moderate form of [[socialism]] which aims to reform capitalism in order to remove its perceived injustices and often has a democratic government.

'''In general, most modern social democrats support''':
* A [[mixed economy]], consisting mainly of [[private enterprise]] but with government owned or subsidized programs of [[education]], [[healthcare]], [[child care]] etc for all citizens.
* Regulatory systems over [[private enterprise]] in the interests of workers, [[consumers]] and fair [[competition]].
* Advocacy of [[fair trade]] over [[free trade]].
* An extensive system of [[social security]] (though usually not to the extent advocated by [[democratic socialist]]s or other socialist groups), notably to counteract the effects of poverty and to insure the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
* Moderate to high levels of [[taxation]] (through a [[progressive taxation]] system) to fund government expenditure.
* [[Environmental protection]] laws (although not always to the extent advocated by [[Greens]]), such as combating [[global warming]] and increasing [[alternative energy]] funding.
* [[Immigration]] and [[multiculturalism]].
* A [[secular]] and [[progressive social]] policy, although this varies markedly in degree. Most social democrats support [[gay marriage]], [[abortion]] rights and a liberal [[Recreational drug use|drug]] policy, while others are either non-committed or opposed to these policies.
* A [[foreign policy]] supporting the promotion of [[democracy]], the protection of [[human rights]] and where possible, effective [[multilateralism]].
* As well as [[human rights]], social democrats also support [[social rights]], [[civil rights]] and [[civil liberties]].
--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 16:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Readability ==

Eugh. This article reads like a fifth grade project, with short sentences in need of expansion. Even if this article was written by somebody with ESL (as in a Swede who speaks English second), there would be more expansion on many of the points. This article is not academic in any way, shape or form. I re-wrote politics to bring the readability up, but it needs a lot of work overall. "Sweden has high taxes. Swedes pay about 30% in taxes, and 20-25% more if they make over..." --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== My edit ==

Made two changes as of now --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 19:43, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* Removed the text saying that Sweden is a big country in western Europe. Who wrote that? Could that person please explain what he meant with that? Both the population and the land size are small compared to nearly all other western European countries. One thing that Sweden do is, is a country of major influence worldwide, but finding a source explicitly saying that would be hard to come by.

* Added information to the history section. Sources for my claims are the two new at the bottom.

New changes --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 19:43, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* Forgot to add signature in last Talk page edit

* Fixed the currency

* Took away a highly biased, non confirmable part of the politics area. The reasons for the outcome of the recent election is very complicated and using a party's website as a source is not acceptable in this context. The outcome can also simply be a result of Swedish voting habits that resembles a cycle. First Social Democrats will have the power for a long time, then the people will get fed up and vote for Moderats which will have power for a short time. Then the people get fed up with them and the cycle repeats itself.

New changes --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 20:05, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* Added Culture section. One source has been provided, but it is in need of more sources.

Sweden

2007-08-01T00:05:03Z

Sachaztan: See talk page

[[Image:Swedenmap.jpg|200px|thumb|right]]'''Sweden''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital city is [[Stockholm]], which is also the largest city. Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants. With an area of 173,750 square miles (450,000 square kilometers).

Sweden is a constitutional [[monarchy]] and a parliamentary [[democracy]]. The prime minister of Sweden is 41 year old Fredrik Reinfeldt, leader of the Moderates. The Swedish parliament has 349 seats. [[Carl XVI]] is the current king.

== Swedish Viking History ==

In Sweden the [[Viking]] Age was getting under way by the 9th century, and vast repositories of Roman, Byzantine and Arab coins attest to the wealth and power Swedish Vikings accumulated over the next century. Vikings traveled mostly to the east, making their mark in Russia, as well as trading with (and pillaging) Byzantine territories. They also traveled west and there is considerable evidence of artifacts (such as coins) on the North American continent. Vikings pillaged villages all over Ireland, and are the antecedents of many living Irish men and women, such as the former Taoiseach of Ireland, Charles Haughey and his cousin Sile de Valera, pop stars Bob Geldof and Phil Lynott, and artist Charlie Whisker. Remnants of a small settlement (called Ektorp) exist on Newfoundland which include the remains of small dwellings, deteriorated furniture and cooking utensils.

Christianity only took root in the 11th century.

== History ==

Sweden officially remained neutral throughout [[World War II]], although it helped both sides during the war. During the period 1939-1943 when the Axis powers looked like the winning side Sweden supplied Germany with much needed Iron ore. The Iron ore made sure that the German war machine could keep on going and become such an issue that Great Britain considered invading Sweden to destroy the mines up north in Kiruna. Sweden also transported German soldiers on leave from Norway and reinforcements going to Finland. After 1943 when Germany started to face defeat after defeat and it became clear that Germany would not win the war Sweden started to help the Allies by providing them with intelligence. Sweden also began to take some steps toward rescuing [[Jews]] around 1944. One of the most significant of these actions was the sending of diplomat [[Raoul Wallenberg]] to German-occupied territory to obtain passports for Jews.

== Christianity in Sweden ==

80% of the inhabitants belong to the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] of Sweden named The Swedish Church (Svenska kyrkan in Swedish). This church is very different to other churches because it has decided to marry [[homosexuality|homosexuals]]. This Church is considered a [[liberal]] Church and does not protest against abortions, divorce, and other conservative issues. About 5% of the Swedish population belong to "conservative" Christian churches. Many Swedes are [[atheists]].

Sweden has 18 weeks of free [[abortion]] and 4 weeks during which women need to get special permission to be allowed an abortion. Swedish politicians are currently discussing whether foreign women should be allowed to have an late term abortion in Sweden, and much suggests that the parliament will vote in favor of that proposition. In the 1960's the government decided to reduce in school education about [[Christianity]]. In 2000, the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] and the government were separated. Before that, all children were born members of the church, except those whose parents took an active decision against it and both left the church. Even if a child were not christened, he or she became a member for life, having to pay a small tax to the church.

In 2005 a Swedish Baptist priest, [[Ake Green|Åke Green]], was charged with, and found guilty of hate speech, when preaching Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality. He was imprisoned for one month and then acquitted.

== Politics ==

Sweden has high taxes and strong trade unions. Despite recently electing a new government, is still a country where socialism is strong. Fredrik Reinfeldt says that he is not going to destroy the Swedish model - in fact he says he likes that model - he only wants make some small changes. Although one of the parties in the government alliance is named "The Christian Democrats", no decisions have been made to make Christianity stronger in Sweden.

Swedes are paying approximately 30% in taxes and additional 20-25% if ones salary exceeds 300 000 SEK (1$=6.75SEK) a year - approximately the same rate of income tax and social security tax as in the [[United States]].
A lot of the money that comes from taxes goes to social welfare. Everyone in Sweden has the right to a home, food, water and clothes.

== Economy ==

Major economic sectors include the iron and steel industry, shipbuilding, motor manufacturing (notably the Saab and Volvo corporations), and 'forest industries' (timber, woodpulp, paper and packaging). The Swedish company IKEA has achieved worldwide reach (and inspired imitators) with its inexpensive 'Scandinavian style' furniture and housewares

== Culture ==

A typical Swede is taciturn, calm and polite. This is often misinterpreted as coldness, arrogance, stupidity and general lack of knowledge. All though that is sometimes true, it is rarely the case. Swedes behave in this way as being polite and to give the other person some space which is very important in Sweden. Boasting and general loud-mouthnes is generally frowned upon in Sweden.

Most swedes also have liberal conception about nudity and sex. A typical swede for an example looses his/her virginity at about 16 years of age and not having sex before marriage is very rare and mostly constricted to roman catholics. The porn industry on the other hand is not as big as in USA and about the same level as most other European countries.

Bigotry is not accepted at all in Sweden, with two notable exceptions:
Americans are generally seen as stupid, loud-mouthed and arrogant. There is several reasons for this but the history of Jingoism and modern days activities that are viewed as "world policing" such as the war in Iraq has greatly contributed to this. This view of Americans is also very common in all other Scandinavian countries.

Immigrants are viewed with suspicion by a large portion of the population due to the recent successes of semi-racist parties like Sverige Demokraterna (Swedish democrats)

==Some Notable Swedes==
* [[Alfred Nobel]], instigator of the [[Nobel Prize]]
* Greta Garbo, actress
* ABBA - comprised of Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus, Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog. At one time ABBA were considered the largest corportion in Sweden, and bigger than Volvo.
* Roxette
* Dag Hammarskjöld
* [[Anders Celsius]]
* Astrid Lindgren
* Carl von Linné
* Fredrik Ljungberg
* Henrik Larsson
* Stellan Skarsgård
* Saint Bridgid
* Lars Magnus Ericsson
* Gustavus Adolphus (king, founder of Gothenburg etc, died 1632 in the Thirty Years War)
* Björn Borg, tennis player
* Olof Palme
* Ingemar Bergman

==References==
*[http://www.sweden.se SWEDEN.SE]
*[http://www.svenskakyrkan.se Svenska Kyrkan]
*http://www.lo.se
*http://www.moderaterna.se
*http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=913&a=324428
*http://www.gluefox.com
*[http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/sweden.html History of Sweden]
* Forte, Angelo. Oram, Richard. Pedersen, Frederik. ''Viking Empires''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005
* Hudson, Benjamin. ''Viking Pirates and Christian Princes: Dynasty, Religion, and Empire in North America''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
* http://www.livetsord.se/default.aspx?idStructure=918
* http://perkornhall.se/LivetsOrd/index-eng.htm
* http://www.skattebetalarna.se
* http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html
* http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/index.html
* http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____12355.aspx

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Scandinavian Countries]]

Talk:Sweden

2007-07-31T23:43:00Z

Sachaztan: New changes

Sweden

2007-07-31T23:34:13Z

Sachaztan: See talk page for details

[[Image:Swedenmap.jpg|200px|thumb|right]]'''Sweden''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital city is [[Stockholm]], which is also the largest city. Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants. With an area of 173,750 square miles (450,000 square kilometers).

Sweden is a constitutional [[monarchy]] and a parliamentary [[democracy]]. The prime minister of Sweden is 41 year old Fredrik Reinfeldt, leader of the Moderates. The Swedish parliament has 349 seats. [[Carl XVI]] is the current king.

== Swedish Viking History ==

In Sweden the [[Viking]] Age was getting under way by the 9th century, and vast repositories of Roman, Byzantine and Arab coins attest to the wealth and power Swedish Vikings accumulated over the next century. Vikings traveled mostly to the east, making their mark in Russia, as well as trading with (and pillaging) Byzantine territories. They also traveled west and there is considerable evidence of artifacts (such as coins) on the North American continent. Vikings pillaged villages all over Ireland, and are the antecedents of many living Irish men and women, such as the former Taoiseach of Ireland, Charles Haughey and his cousin Sile de Valera, pop stars Bob Geldof and Phil Lynott, and artist Charlie Whisker. Remnants of a small settlement (called Ektorp) exist on Newfoundland which include the remains of small dwellings, deteriorated furniture and cooking utensils.

Christianity only took root in the 11th century.

== History ==

Sweden officially remained neutral throughout [[World War II]], although it helped both sides during the war. During the period 1939-1943 when the Axis powers looked like the winning side Sweden supplied Germany with much needed Iron ore. The Iron ore made sure that the German war machine could keep on going and become such an issue that Great Britain considered invading Sweden to destroy the mines up north in Kiruna. Sweden also transported German soldiers on leave from Norway and reinforcements going to Finland. After 1943 when Germany started to face defeat after defeat and it became clear that Germany would not win the war Sweden started to help the Allies by providing them with intelligence. Sweden also began to take some steps toward rescuing [[Jews]] around 1944. One of the most significant of these actions was the sending of diplomat [[Raoul Wallenberg]] to German-occupied territory to obtain passports for Jews.

== Christianity in Sweden ==

80% of the inhabitants belong to the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] of Sweden named The Swedish Church (Svenska kyrkan in Swedish). This church is very different to other churches because it has decided to marry [[homosexuality|homosexuals]]. This Church is considered a [[liberal]] Church and does not protest against abortions, divorce, and other conservative issues. About 5% of the Swedish population belong to "conservative" Christian churches. Many Swedes are [[atheists]].

Sweden has 18 weeks of free [[abortion]] and 4 weeks during which women need to get special permission to be allowed an abortion. Swedish politicians are currently discussing whether foreign women should be allowed to have an late term abortion in Sweden, and much suggests that the parliament will vote in favor of that proposition. In the 1960's the government decided to reduce in school education about [[Christianity]]. In 2000, the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] and the government were separated. Before that, all children were born members of the church, except those whose parents took an active decision against it and both left the church. Even if a child were not christened, he or she became a member for life, having to pay a small tax to the church.

In 2005 a Swedish Baptist priest, [[Ake Green|Åke Green]], was charged with, and found guilty of hate speech, when preaching Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality. He was imprisoned for one month and then acquitted.

== Politics ==

Sweden has high taxes and strong trade unions. Despite recently electing a new government, is still a country where socialism is strong. Fredrik Reinfeldt says that he is not going to destroy the Swedish model - in fact he says he likes that model - he only wants make some small changes. Although one of the parties in the government alliance is named "The Christian Democrats", no decisions have been made to make Christianity stronger in Sweden.

Swedes are paying approximately 30% in taxes and additional 20-25% if ones salary exceeds 300 000 SEK (1$=6.75SEK) a year - approximately the same rate of income tax and social security tax as in the [[United States]].
A lot of the money that comes from taxes goes to social welfare. Everyone in Sweden has the right to a home, food, water and clothes.

== Economy ==

Major economic sectors include the iron and steel industry, shipbuilding, motor manufacturing (notably the Saab and Volvo corporations), and 'forest industries' (timber, woodpulp, paper and packaging). The Swedish company IKEA has achieved worldwide reach (and inspired imitators) with its inexpensive 'Scandinavian style' furniture and housewares

==Some Notable Swedes==
* [[Alfred Nobel]], instigator of the [[Nobel Prize]]
* Greta Garbo, actress
* ABBA - comprised of Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus, Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog. At one time ABBA were considered the largest corportion in Sweden, and bigger than Volvo.
* Roxette
* Dag Hammarskjöld
* [[Anders Celsius]]
* Astrid Lindgren
* Carl von Linné
* Fredrik Ljungberg
* Henrik Larsson
* Stellan Skarsgård
* Saint Bridgid
* Lars Magnus Ericsson
* Gustavus Adolphus (king, founder of Gothenburg etc, died 1632 in the Thirty Years War)
* Björn Borg, tennis player
* Olof Palme
* Ingemar Bergman

==References==
*[http://www.sweden.se SWEDEN.SE]
*[http://www.svenskakyrkan.se Svenska Kyrkan]
*http://www.lo.se
*http://www.moderaterna.se
*http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=913&a=324428
*http://www.gluefox.com
*[http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/sweden.html History of Sweden]
* Forte, Angelo. Oram, Richard. Pedersen, Frederik. ''Viking Empires''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005
* Hudson, Benjamin. ''Viking Pirates and Christian Princes: Dynasty, Religion, and Empire in North America''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
* http://www.livetsord.se/default.aspx?idStructure=918
* http://perkornhall.se/LivetsOrd/index-eng.htm
* http://www.skattebetalarna.se
* http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html
* http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/index.html

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Scandinavian Countries]]

Talk:Sweden

2007-07-31T23:28:32Z

Sachaztan: My edit

Why did you erase the information from MissisppiMud?

'Sweden is highly socialistic, and poorer than Mississippi. The suicide rate is extremely high. The citizens of Sweden must pay most of their income to the government.'

I think they are worth knowing.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 09:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

No references to the poorer than Mississippi part. I don't think it's true. The same goes for the part about the suicide rate. Even though Sweden is far mote socialistic than the US there has been a change of direction in Swedish politics lately to a more rightwing government. /What

Suicide rates per 100 000 by country, year and sex
Year Male Female
01 18.9 8.1 (Sweden)
01 17.6 4.1 (US)

According to the WHO

Although it is true that Sweden has some of the highest suicide rates in the world however Sweden is one of the richest country’s in the world.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 16:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:
== Removed ==
I removed the part which said something along the lines of: The swedes pay about 65% in taxes, if counting all taxes.
This is simply not true as they use a scaling system if ones income is above a certain amount. I've written this.

== Writing style ==
This article {{hide personal remark|looks like it was written by a semi-literate child copying from a pamphlet. It}} could use a very thorough re-write from an expert.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Too much opinion and editorializing ==

I agree that this article is poorly written, but it appears to contain grammatical and syntactical errors related to English not being the writer's native language.

If this site is going to be taken seriously, it cannot show such obvious bias, opinion and editorializing. If the articles just stick to facts, the people who use this site can draw their own conclusions. This article can discuss the state of religion and the general position of Swedes on social issues without commenting that these things are somehow "bad." The conservative reader can draw this conclusion on his or her own without being told this is how he or she is supposed to think.
--[[User:Vonratt|Vonratt]] 16:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"however, most of the population have been taught in the state-administered schools that socialism is a superior economic system." Removed this sentence. It's just not true. Even if Sweden is a country where socialism is strong, this is not something thougth in school. Education in Sweden may be liberal, but it is not that biased. Christianity, for example, is still a part of the eduction, together with the other major religions of the world. Socialism is also taught, together with the other political systems. --[[User:What|What]]

::true but Sweden follows a more moderate version of socialism called the social democracy which seeks to reform capitalism rather than destroy or abolish it.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 16:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweden IS not a democracy ==
"What", just tell me: Are you living in Sweden? I'm living in Sweden and I'm studying in a swedish school 5 days/week, I know what I'm talking about.
The trade unions would'nt "possibly" strike, they would SURELY strike, because they are idiots and they are going to burn in hell forever!
How can you call a country were the trade union rules over everything, a democracy?!
/JohnG

I wrote nothing about trade unions and nothing about democracy. I simply didn't delete it, someone else wrote it. If you have reliable sources to back your claims with, then edit the article. [[User:What|What]] 08:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

while Sweden really is a social democracy.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 12:46, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:We need an article on [[Democracy]] which would tell our readers what a [[social democracy]] is; and whether the [[United States]] is a "democracy".

:Is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a democracy? Is a regime which is "democratically elected" a democracy? Does that have any bearing on whether the people have the right to alter or abolish it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

A [[social democracy]] is a economic and political system which is a moderate form of [[socialism]] which aims to reform capitalism in order to remove its perceived injustices and often has a democratic government.

'''In general, most modern social democrats support''':
* A [[mixed economy]], consisting mainly of [[private enterprise]] but with government owned or subsidized programs of [[education]], [[healthcare]], [[child care]] etc for all citizens.
* Regulatory systems over [[private enterprise]] in the interests of workers, [[consumers]] and fair [[competition]].
* Advocacy of [[fair trade]] over [[free trade]].
* An extensive system of [[social security]] (though usually not to the extent advocated by [[democratic socialist]]s or other socialist groups), notably to counteract the effects of poverty and to insure the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
* Moderate to high levels of [[taxation]] (through a [[progressive taxation]] system) to fund government expenditure.
* [[Environmental protection]] laws (although not always to the extent advocated by [[Greens]]), such as combating [[global warming]] and increasing [[alternative energy]] funding.
* [[Immigration]] and [[multiculturalism]].
* A [[secular]] and [[progressive social]] policy, although this varies markedly in degree. Most social democrats support [[gay marriage]], [[abortion]] rights and a liberal [[Recreational drug use|drug]] policy, while others are either non-committed or opposed to these policies.
* A [[foreign policy]] supporting the promotion of [[democracy]], the protection of [[human rights]] and where possible, effective [[multilateralism]].
* As well as [[human rights]], social democrats also support [[social rights]], [[civil rights]] and [[civil liberties]].
--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 16:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Readability ==

Eugh. This article reads like a fifth grade project, with short sentences in need of expansion. Even if this article was written by somebody with ESL (as in a Swede who speaks English second), there would be more expansion on many of the points. This article is not academic in any way, shape or form. I re-wrote politics to bring the readability up, but it needs a lot of work overall. "Sweden has high taxes. Swedes pay about 30% in taxes, and 20-25% more if they make over..." --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== My edit ==

Made two changes as of now

* Removed the text saying that Sweden is a big country in western Europe. Who wrote that? Could that person please explain what he meant with that? Both the population and the land size are small compared to nearly all other western European countries. One thing that Sweden do is, is a country of major influence worldwide, but finding a source explicitly saying that would be hard to come by.

* Added information to the history section. Sources for my claims are the two new at the bottom.

Sweden

2007-07-31T23:21:38Z

Sachaztan: See talk page for details

[[Image:Swedenmap.jpg|200px|thumb|right]]'''Sweden''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital city is [[Stockholm]], which is also the largest city. Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants. With an area of 173,750 square miles (450,000 square kilometers).

Sweden is a constitutional [[monarchy]] and a parliamentary [[democracy]]. The prime minister of Sweden is 41 year old Fredrik Reinfeldt, leader of the Moderates. The Swedish parliament has 349 seats. [[Carl XVI]] is the current king.

== Swedish Viking History ==

In Sweden the [[Viking]] Age was getting under way by the 9th century, and vast repositories of Roman, Byzantine and Arab coins attest to the wealth and power Swedish Vikings accumulated over the next century. Vikings traveled mostly to the east, making their mark in Russia, as well as trading with (and pillaging) Byzantine territories. They also traveled west and there is considerable evidence of artifacts (such as coins) on the North American continent. Vikings pillaged villages all over Ireland, and are the antecedents of many living Irish men and women, such as the former Taoiseach of Ireland, Charles Haughey and his cousin Sile de Valera, pop stars Bob Geldof and Phil Lynott, and artist Charlie Whisker. Remnants of a small settlement (called Ektorp) exist on Newfoundland which include the remains of small dwellings, deteriorated furniture and cooking utensils.

Christianity only took root in the 11th century.

== History ==

Sweden officially remained neutral throughout [[World War II]], although it helped both sides during the war. During the period 1939-1943 when the Axis powers looked like the winning side Sweden supplied Germany with much needed Iron ore. The Iron ore made sure that the German war machine could keep on going and become such an issue that Great Britain considered invading Sweden to destroy the mines up north in Kiruna. Sweden also transported German soldiers on leave from Norway and reinforcements going to Finland. After 1943 when Germany started to face defeat after defeat and it became clear that Germany would not win the war Sweden started to help the Allies by providing them with intelligence. Sweden also began to take some steps toward rescuing [[Jews]] around 1944. One of the most significant of these actions was the sending of diplomat [[Raoul Wallenberg]] to German-occupied territory to obtain passports for Jews.

== Christianity in Sweden ==

80% of the inhabitants belong to the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] of Sweden named The Swedish Church (Svenska kyrkan in Swedish). This church is very different to other churches because it has decided to marry [[homosexuality|homosexuals]]. This Church is considered a [[liberal]] Church and does not protest against abortions, divorce, and other conservative issues. About 5% of the Swedish population belong to "conservative" Christian churches. Many Swedes are [[atheists]].

Sweden has 18 weeks of free [[abortion]] and 4 weeks during which women need to get special permission to be allowed an abortion. Swedish politicians are currently discussing whether foreign women should be allowed to have an late term abortion in Sweden, and much suggests that the parliament will vote in favor of that proposition. In the 1960's the government decided to reduce in school education about [[Christianity]]. In 2000, the Evangelical [[Lutheran Church]] and the government were separated. Before that, all children were born members of the church, except those whose parents took an active decision against it and both left the church. Even if a child were not christened, he or she became a member for life, having to pay a small tax to the church.

In 2005 a Swedish Baptist priest, [[Ake Green|Åke Green]], was charged with, and found guilty of hate speech, when preaching Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality. He was imprisoned for one month and then acquitted.

== Politics ==

Sweden has high taxes and strong trade unions. Despite recently electing a new government, is still a country where socialism is strong. Fredrik Reinfeldt says that he is not going to destroy the Swedish model - in fact he says he likes that model - he only wants make some small changes. Although one of the parties in the government alliance is named "The Christian Democrats", no decisions have been made to make Christianity stronger in Sweden.

Swedes are paying approximately 30% in taxes and additional 20-25% if ones salary exceeds 300 000 swedish kronar a year - approximately the same rate of income tax and social security tax as in the [[United States]]. According to figures released by the new government, the jobless rate 17%. This figure is said to include everyone between the ages of 18 and 65, that is out of job, but physically able to work. The former government lost the election for a number of reasons, with the strongest being that they had misrepresented the jobless rate, making it look lower than it actually was.
A lot of the money that comes from taxes goes to social welfare. Everyone in Sweden has the right to a home, food, water and clothes.

== Economy ==

Major economic sectors include the iron and steel industry, shipbuilding, motor manufacturing (notably the Saab and Volvo corporations), and 'forest industries' (timber, woodpulp, paper and packaging). The Swedish company IKEA has achieved worldwide reach (and inspired imitators) with its inexpensive 'Scandinavian style' furniture and housewares

==Some Notable Swedes==
* [[Alfred Nobel]], instigator of the [[Nobel Prize]]
* Greta Garbo, actress
* ABBA - comprised of Benny Andersson, Björn Ulvaeus, Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog. At one time ABBA were considered the largest corportion in Sweden, and bigger than Volvo.
* Roxette
* Dag Hammarskjöld
* [[Anders Celsius]]
* Astrid Lindgren
* Carl von Linné
* Fredrik Ljungberg
* Henrik Larsson
* Stellan Skarsgård
* Saint Bridgid
* Lars Magnus Ericsson
* Gustavus Adolphus (king, founder of Gothenburg etc, died 1632 in the Thirty Years War)
* Björn Borg, tennis player
* Olof Palme
* Ingemar Bergman

==References==
*[http://www.sweden.se SWEDEN.SE]
*[http://www.svenskakyrkan.se Svenska Kyrkan]
*http://www.lo.se
*http://www.moderaterna.se
*http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=913&a=324428
*http://www.gluefox.com
*[http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/sweden.html History of Sweden]
* Forte, Angelo. Oram, Richard. Pedersen, Frederik. ''Viking Empires''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005
* Hudson, Benjamin. ''Viking Pirates and Christian Princes: Dynasty, Religion, and Empire in North America''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
* http://www.livetsord.se/default.aspx?idStructure=918
* http://perkornhall.se/LivetsOrd/index-eng.htm
* http://www.skattebetalarna.se
* http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/MacKinder/mackinder.html
* http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-NWE-Norway/index.html

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Scandinavian Countries]]

Al Qaeda

2007-07-31T22:57:59Z

Sachaztan: Added title

{{expand}}

== Al-Qaeda (Arabic-القاعدة‎ Translation-The Base) ==

[[Image:al_qaeda.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Osama bin Laden with Al-Qaeda members]]
'''Al-Qaeda''' is an international Islamist [[terrorism|terrorist]] organization founded in the late 1980s to fight the [[Red Army]] of the [[Soviet Union]] in [[Afghanistan]], during the 1980-89 [[Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan]]. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Osama bin Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States,<ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism''], pg. 56.</ref> which only provided funding to indigenous Afghan ''mujaheddin'', which al-Qaeda was not. It is currently led by [[Osama Bin Laden]] and is predominantly composed of fanatical [[Sunni]] [[Islam|Muslim]]s.

Al Qaeda is responsible for the September 11, 2001 attack on the [[World Trade Center]] and [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]], the bombings of American embassies in [[Kenya]] and [[Tanzania]] in 1998, the October 2000 bombing of the [[USS Cole]], and numerous smaller attacks. The group's wing in Iraq is believed to be responsible for many of the attacks and bombings there. The 9/11 Commission Report has tied al-Qaeda to the government of [[Ba'ath Party|Ba'athist]] government of [[Saddam Hussein]],<ref>9/11 Commission Report, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism''.</ref> specifically the alleged harboring of al-Qaeda second-in-command [[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi]] and cooperation in Saddam's war against the kurds. the 9/11 Commission Report cites Bin laden meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in Khatroum as early as 1995. Bin Laden declined reported Iraqi offers of a safe haven, instead settling in Afghanistan. Friendly contacts between Iraqis and Bin Laden continued.

It is unclear if Iraq was funding al-Qaeda operations prior to the [[War in Iraq|2003 invasion]]. "Al Qaeda" is roughly equivalent to "the base" ( القاعدة) in [[Arabic]].

"However difficult the fight in Iraq has become, we must win it," Mr. Bush said during a commencement speech at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn. "Al Qaeda is public enemy No. 1 for Iraq's young democracy. Al Qaeda is public enemy No. 1 for America as well." <ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070523-115137-6054r.htm</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2001/war_on_terror/default.stm BBC Profile of Al-Qaeda]
*[http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070523-115137-6054r.htm Bush shares al Qaeda plans] - Jon Ward, ''Washington Times'' - May 24, 2007

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Terrorists]]

Talk:Terrorism

2007-07-31T22:54:57Z

Sachaztan: Al Qaeda, leftist terrorist organization?

{{Protect|Hojimachong}}

==A definition==
Here's the definition as of March 13, 2007: "Terrorism is a term used to refer to violence (usually against civilians) instigated to further a certain political or ideological goal."

That's obviously not a good definition, unless you want to include ''all'' armed action. By saying ''usually'' against civilians, violent action against armies is not ruled out as a form of terrorism. For example, by that definition George Washington's fight at Valley Forge would be considered terrorism (because it was violent and it sought to further a political goal). I assume that's not what the person who wrote that definition intended.

It's also not a good definition because it seems some terrorist violence is not intended to further political or ideological goals. For instance, were the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway a form of terrorism, and if so, what political or ideological goal did they support? --[[User:Rotifer|Rotifer]] 05:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I OBJECT to the inclusion of the IRA as a terrorist group. Some splinter groups of the IRA have committed terrorist attacks, but for most of its history the IRA was a group of freedom fighters. The British government occupied Ireland against the Irish people's will, and Irish people (regular folks and leaders) banded together to fight (yes, with weapons, violence, etc.) against the occupying troops and police forces of the British. Attacking civilians is a different issue. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's simply untrue. An argument could be made that the IRA of 1916-1921 weren't terrorists. But at least since 1956 they have been. Indiscriminate killing of civilians who were in the wrong store or the wrong bar or restaurant at the wrong time certainly fits the definition. Yes they targeted soldiers and policemen, but most of those they killed were civilians. La Mon, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Baltic St, Canary Wharf.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Like Rotifer said, could someone please try to come up with a correct definition of terrorist? The definition so far seems to include freedom fighters as if they are terrorists. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Freedom Fighters are Terrorists our government likes. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about freedom fighters since it is misleading - terrorism and freedom-fighting are not mutually exclusive. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait a minute!!! You seem to be implying that conservatives are sometimes in favor of terrorism!!! That's not what you meant to imply, is it? I'm putting the statement about the difference between terrorism and freedom-fighting back in. You are very, very, welcome to clarify it... I think the whole page needs clarification... But we can't allow confusion between terrorism and freedom fighting in this page. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terrorism and freedom fighting are not "opposites", Terrorism is a tactic, or method. So "Terrorists" might be freedom fighters, or might not be, and "Freedom fighters" might employ terrorism, or might not. You can say that the IRA were freedom fighters, but you can't deny that they committed terrorist acts. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The "freedom fighter" definition needs work. I've commented on its talk page, but it's also relevant to this discussion.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 04:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

New to this site so not sure as to the talk protocol but I'd like to point out the truism that one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter" and that a objective analysis based on political affiliation is incredibly biased. And, as a UK resident, I'd object to anyone wishing to remove the IRA from the list of terrorist organisations. From personal experiance, the Manchester bombing carried out by the IRA purely targeted civillians which would label them firmly as terrorists.--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:To agree with what has been said above on the '''Terrorist/Freedom Fighter''' debate, these are subjective labels depending on your opinion of the groups under discussion, whereas "terrorism" is a defined military/paramilitary tactic, regardless of '''who''' uses it, whether for freedom, national self-determination, religious hatred or anything. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 23:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighters==

I think what needs to be pointed out is what somebody did say before: terrorism is a tactic; freedom fighters are people. Freedom fighter can be a terrorist, but a terrorist does not have to be a freedom fighter. There is an enthymeme there, but I don't have time to go into it just now. I will come back to discuss this later on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== IRA ==

I have added Continuity IRA and Real IRA as they are both considered to be terrorist organizations by the British and American governments.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Government==
'' A government can support a terrorist, or the terrorist's goals, but cannot itself be terroristic. ''

The Nazi regime was not terroristic? Saddam putting people in woodchippers is not terrorism? The Soviet, Chinese, Korean & Cuban gulag systems are not employing terrorism to intimidate the populace and keep them in check? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yknow, I didn't like the way that was originally written, but I disagree more with the re-edit. Governments can engage in terroristic activities. Thats why we have the term "State Sponsored Terrorism."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The term is not accurate. "State sponsored terrorism" is an [[oxymoron]]. States, by definition, cannot be terroristic (including the Nazis, or whomever else you want to name) because their forces are ALWAYS military. Calling state actions terrorism is the equivalent of saying the US Navy Seals are state sponsored terrorists-- does that make it more clear? The term SST entered the lexicon probably in the same way "irregardless" did, as a useless modifier. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It is possible for states to harbour, fund or support terrorists due to the fact that, although not being part of the state, they are considered to have the same aims as the controlling party of said state. Hence whilst not strictly "state sponsored terrorism" this could be construed as "state sanctioned terrorism".--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT) offtopic, I need to remember to sign my contribs ; )

::Please sign your posts with four tildes "[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)" I understand that states can harbor terrorists, but they cannot be terroristic. Terrorism, by definition (which is admittedly difficult) is not a state act. Look at a country like Somalia, they essentially have no government, but are they a nation of terrorists? They can't be a '''nation''' is the problem. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Flippin, So is it just my imagination this document exists ([http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf pgs. 171 - 178 pdf]), or are denying the legitimcay of US State Dept. authority to publish it?

:An excerpt:

Chapter 6

STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR OVERVIEW

Iran and Syria routinely provide unique safe haven, substantial resources and
guidance to terrorist organizations.

State sponsors of terrorism provide critical support to non-state terrorist groups. Without state sponsors, terrorist groups would have much more difficulty obtaining the funds, weapons,
materials, and secure areas they require to plan and conduct operations. Most worrisome is
that some of these countries also have the capability to manufacture WMD and other
destabilizing technologies that can get into the hands of terrorists. The United States will
continue to insist that these countries end the support they give to terrorist groups. --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I am saying the distinction is rhetorical, not ideological. In 2008, the terms will probably change. Look at the recent episode with the "global war on terror" language. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This is still an issue of semantics. Whether a state is complicit in acts that would be viewed as terrorism (therefore rendering it not an act of terrorism) or whether it "merely" supports their aims and provides a haven, it makes little difference in the end. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 18:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::It makes a great deal of difference. The problem is this: when a state acts it is not terrorism. Simply put, that is like saying putting one foot in front of the other and moving your body is walking. So, every time I put one foot in front of the other I am walking. So, cross country skiing becomes a form of walking. OR every time I move forward, I am walking. If I am in a car, moving forward, we don't call that walking. Semantics are important in this case. When a state acts, the resulting action is from their military force-always. If a state is complicit in acts of terrorism, they are declaring war because that is a military action. This distinction is key to why our country is divided on what to do about Iraq right now. Terrorists act outside the state--they may have the same goals, but if they act within the state they are not terrorists, they are troops. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So Saddam gassing the Kurds (including infants) was not an act of terrorism? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, neither was Hitler gassing the Jews. They were acts of genocide, they were atrocious and vulgar, but definitely not terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Citations needed==

We need citations for each one of these:
* [[Al-Qaeda]]
* [[Contra]]
* [[Mujahadeen el-Khalq]]
* [[SAVAK]] (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)
* [[FRAPH]] (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried to give the following references, but someone else was working on the article (someone who actually knows how to use the 'reference' tags!) and there was an edit conflict, so ill put them here for now:

* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm Al-Qaeda]
* [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html Contra]
* [http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html Mujahadeen el-Khalq ]
* [http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/savak.htm SAVAK (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)]
* [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,449923,00.html KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) ]
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1163909,00.html FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)]

[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 01:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Now added to the article [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 02:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Orgone, Thank you, and good job. Now two problems exist; (1) the al Qeade reference is unacceptable in the regard, the source state unequivocally "Al-Qaeda....was created in 1989 ....
The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism". It was [[Mujahideen]] that recieved support, not al Qeade. (2) Subhead reads, "Groups Considered to be Terrorist Organizations Funded by the United States"; '''''considered by whom?''''' we need a source for this claim.

Finally, as a word of caution, whatever the cause of the error of represnting al Qeade with this
claim false claim, I highly recommend having the proper research in place before posting such a controversial inclusion. There is nothing wrong with bringing valid, highly controversial material to light like this; however, when something is as easily disprovable as a claim like this one, it does reflect upon the credibility of the editor who placed it. So as to avoid being accused of wreckless partisanship or other things that can undermine true scholarship and research, please have the material properly orgainized and cited, and faulty inclusion of this nature then can be regarded as good faith errors as opposed to naked propagandizing. Thank you for your attention to this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
===al Qaede===
''reverted material:''
* [[Al-Qaeda]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm ''Al-Qaeda's origins and links''], BBC News, July 20, 2004.</ref>

===Contras===
Here's another one; the Reagan State Dept. did not have ''Contra's'' on the terrorist watch list. This is now example two of bad use of sources and sloppy research methodology. I think we have to revert the subhead now due to its controversial and unsourced claim.

* [[Contra]]<ref>National Security Archive, [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html ''The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983-1988''] 1990.</ref>

===SAVAK===
The claim SAVAK "received US funding" is highly questionable, being that (a) it was a bureau of the Iranian government. (b) Iran's oil wealth hardly necessitates US subsidies to run an internal bureau. ''Prima facia'' this claim appears bogus, but it will be researched. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

==img==
Good img. Why don't we move it up to the top? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Good idea. Done. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, bad image. I really think this ought to be deleted. Terrorism is not just a political strategy, but a rhetorical one. This image '''is''' the reason many Americans died, but the image itself was what the terrorists wanted us to see. THIS image is their achievement and by putting it on this page, font and center, you endorse their message (which is: we can do this to even the most powerful nation on earth.) Ask yourself this one question: Had you, or your neighbors ever heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11? Most likely not. THIS image made them a household name. It really must be removed. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if the 9/11 picture 'endorses' the terrorists' message, do pictures of starving Jewish prisoners from the Holocaust endorse Hitler's message? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, the message with Hitler was military and political. With 9/11 the point was for everyone to see the terrorists strength--their ability to bring us to our knees, and all that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree... but what sort of image would you recommend if this one is not good enough? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

A picture of something that does not connote the terrorists' values. So, no images of them with Nick Berg, that sort of thing. Honestly, the best approach might be something like the picture of the guy on the balcony in Munich, 1972. Gives the image, without the current debate. That would be a good example. The other is simply too much, too soon. I appreciate your consideration on this. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[Image:Terrormunich.jpg]] This the image you're referring to? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 14:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I think it gives the impression of the what the page will discuss without the rhetorical issue I mentioned before. Thanks. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==IMG X2==
Wow, looks great. Thanks! [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==source for edit==
http://www.amazon.com/Terrorist-Myths-Illusion-Rhetoric-Reality/dp/0139068015/ref=sr_1_1/104-9898859-8430311?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178134302&sr=1-1 Peter Sederberg's book is the first I found to directly address the issue of defining terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Link for edit ==

At "See also"

[[Yasser Arafat]]

::Only problem is, he wasn't a terrorist. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 19:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Spectrum theory==
Elmadri, while the recent inclusion are ambitious, some of it warrants discussion. This appears to be an effort to re-establish the old [[political spectrum theory]] and apply it to terrorist thinking, motives, and ideology. Let's examine this for example,

*''[Leftist] radicals believe that they are currently being oppressed by some current government, idealogy or regime, and therefore they should overthrow that oppressor and install a better government.''

*''[Rightist} Reactionary terrorist violence is an attempt to regain the lost government and return to "order" and status quo.''

And we see [[al-Qaeda]] placed under "Leftist." Leftist then proceeds to propound Marxist-Leninist motivations. Now, it can be argued Al-Qaeda can fit under either of these definitions, but debating which is more appropriate may not be helpful. The fundamental problem is the spectrum theory itself. And this simply appears, once again, of trying to pigeon-hole a square peg into a round hole.

So, while some, if not most of the material is good, it probably needs reorganization. That is, we should probably remove the subheads and not try to assign some or all extreme terrorist groups to an ideological class defined by the spectrum theory. While discussion of tradition Marxist-Leftist terrorism is valuable, nonetheless, the spectrum theory is not definitive of all politcal motivations. Some groups come together simply out of the practical necessity of the moment, irregardless and irrespective of an underlying ideology of its members, that is to say, not all political activity (in this case, I'm referring to extremist political activity) is ideologically driven. This is the fundamental flaw of the spectrum theory. Therefore, we should not perpetuate a flawed theory by assigning questionable motives to groups on other pages outside the [[Political spectrum]] article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be quite frank, I'm working from some of my textbooks here. Now the thing is, that they do address the changes in though about terrorism, and I want to rewrite some of it to take into account what you are talking about. Obviously, there has been changes in how terrorist operate and how we view terrorism, and what I've put in doesn't reflect that, but rather more the post Cold War view. I was going to go in and put that stuff in, but I think I upset Andy with the article on the Patriot Movement, which was my bad. I wasn't thinking at the time. Therefore, I'm trying to kinda stay away from the more politically charged stuff for the time being. Feel free to go in and change stuff of course, but I would like it if you left the the stuff in and perhaps simply categorized it as spectrum theory and added that its a little outdated.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:34, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Thank you. If you've read the [[political spectrum theory]] article, you'd probably see how difficult it is to label persons, groups, and even ideologies as "left" or "right", and never was this more true than in the post-Cold War era. The simple fact is, not all poltical action is ideologically driven. Take the [[NRA]] for example, widely regarded as the most powerful special interest group in the US, yet nonetheless, it's broadbased grassroots come from a huge cross section. A woman who carries a gun in self defence to protect herself against rape, can hardly be pigeon-holed into an ideological mold.

:::Being that the question is so unsettled, and "left/right" spectrum theory really is little more than journalistic shorthand to argue prejudices without having to discuss issues, I suggest we just drop it from the article. We can come up with better subheads. I'll be a little busy in the early part of this week, but by mid week should be able to focus a little closer and help you out. Thanks again. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:18, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

AL QAIDA is not leftist.

Anyone care to explain exacly how al Qaida qualifies as a LEFTIST terrorist group?

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:Good observation PF, and we are discussing it. The idea here is to eliminate the ideological groupings, and fund some other system of classification. Perhaps reviewing some of the source websites would be helpful. Care to assist? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::Why do you consider imposing a system of classification so important? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Terrorism, as of the last decade or so, has undergone a radical shift in how it operates. We're starting to see a breakdown of the old system that RobS was pointing out. For example, it is getter hard to classify terrorists within a political spectrum, as the world is no longer really divided between communism and capitalism anymore. Also, terrorist are changing their goals and strategies. Where once, a terrorist would choose a target that would be symbolic and surgical, now terrorist are concerned with indiscriminate destruction. Also, now rather than operating in clandestine groups, they choose to operate in this small cell network. Like I said, I was planning on retooling it, but at the moment, I was more concerned with getting the most information in as possible.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:29, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Here's some ideas, we could use these classifications:

*Communist/Socialist
*Environmental
*Nationalist/Separatist
*Racist
*Religious

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

And in the meantime, you've still got Al Qaeda incorrectly listed as a "leftist" terrorist group. Why is that grossly inaccurate "information" allowed to remain? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:00, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

*I think you have fallen victim, Fox, to a world view, globalist mentality! If Al Qaeda isn't leftist aligned, what in the world is it aligned with? Rightist governments? All of the governments I see supporting it are socialist and communistic, not right-wing. And we have already dealt with the silly idea, and Big Lie that Facists are right-wing. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==PKK==
Should the [[PKK]] be added to the list of terrorist groups in this article? Its recognized as one by the [[United States]] and [[EU]], and it has had significant impact on Turkey and the U.S. mission in Iraq.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 12:49, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

*I agree it possibly should, and defer to RobS on this. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:12, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== Al Qaeda, leftist terrorist organization? ==

Never heard of anyone referring to Al Qaeda as a Left wing terrorist organization and I don't understand why it's being labeled as one. First of all they fought against Communists, which are rather much to the left. Second, Al Qaeda is a religious terrorist organization with a ideological belief that pretty much contradicts Left wing ideologies. Suggest that the classifications as proposed by RobS should be used --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 18:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Al Qaeda

2007-07-31T22:46:08Z

Sachaztan: Leftist terrorist organisation?

That State Department citation is misleading in it's title, because in reading it, it clealry answers the queastion as "no". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:55, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:The passage is "According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Osama bin Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States" (which answers NO), and the state department citation answers NO. The title is an ambiguously worded question, and does not infer yes or no. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
::Can we agree that A). The USA provided funding/training to indigenous Afghan ''mujaheddin'', and that B). Bin Laden and his cronies were ''not'' indigenous ''mujaheddin'', but foreign fighters. Can this be agreed upon? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:05, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:::A) yes but this may not be the place to do it. B) Definitely. I propose we use the 9/11 Report cited as this basis for this page. That document is more/less the definitve open source account up to that time. It is very interesting reading, and ambiguos in points. We should not accept ''all'' of it as doctrinaire, but serious students could learn much from a reading of that document about government secrecy, classifications, how to read reports of this nature, and when to investigate further. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:51, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== 9-11 Report ==

Rob - if the part of the report that says that "cites Bin laden meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in Khartoum as early as 1995" is citable, why is the part on page 66 saying that " . . . to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" something that has no place in this encyclopedia? It's from the exact same document, after all. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 12:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:Read what your cite says; while the early cite reports on a known fact, the later does not deny facts, it only refers to an unknown--they have seen no evidence. Hence, it is inconclusive. Obviously al-Qaede operates under secrecy, and it is '''very well known''' of America's intelligence incompetence, and failures. To include that reference from the 9/11 Report, implying a conclusion of no relationship, is false and misleading. In the immortal words on Don Rumsfeld, "There are things that we know, there are things that we don't know, and there are things that we don't know that we don't know". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

==Some comments==

Ok, some comments. This is the al-Qeade entry, it is not the [[9/11]] entry, nor the [[Incompetence of US Intelligence Community]] entry, nor the [[Criticism of the Bush administration and neo-con agenda]] entry. The value of the 9/11 Report gives us what studied movements and contacts of al-Qeada are known to US intelligence agencies, and the citations that are either (a) accessible through [[FOIA]], or (b) remain classified. Also, the compilers of the Report were required by law to maintain operational integrity of on-going intelligence operations, i.e. the identity of sources. (Also, we must assume or allow for the plausibility that some sources and/or documents were withheld from the 9/11 Report). So, the value of the Report as it pertains to this article simply gives us a very thorough picture of al-Qaeda operations and movements ''that were known'' to (a) US Intelligence, and (b) made public through this report. PERIOD.

It is not possible to make any claims of "conclusions", etc. because of the gapping holes that the Report itself admits exists. Therefore, when the Report uses phrasing such as, "there is no evidence", this DOES NOT IMPLY ANYTHING in the way of expunging or excusing or rehabilitating or denying or ANYTHING. It is simply an area where either (a) information does not exist because an event never occurred, or (b) we are waiting for the discovery of information, or (c) the event occurred but will never be known.

So, to attempt to make this article into some sort of criticism of policy will not happen. This is an article about al-Qeade, and what is known of its history. PERIOD. It is not a disguised vehicle for criticism of policymakers & intelligence failures. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

* To settle the controversy and prevent another edit war, I'd like to determine the veracity of the statement made by the previous editor: ''"Although friendly contacts between Iraqis and Bin Laden continued, the Report determined that there was no evidence of any operational cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda leading up to 9/11."'' Is this statement true, or false? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:27, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

:*The report did not make a determination. If you feel the report is being misread, please cite the page and passage where a "determination" was made. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::* So the word "determination" appears to be the sticking point. Is it thus the case that the Report merely found no evidence of operational cooperation, a statement which does not preclude the existence of operational cooperation having taken place in secret? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:22, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*I think you have the idea; to simply say "the official report found no evidence..." is misleading for possibly two reasons, (a) incompetence of the report investigators; and (b) withheld information. Either way, the report ''does not'' preclude complicity, as is often how its misquoted. So we need a simple, straight forward narration of facts, which the Report gives, yet is still not detminative in certain areas. While it is perhaps the best guide we can use, on the hand, we can not give what still may be accomplices a clean bill of health, based upon the Report. The Report does not do so, it only says, 'we don't know'. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::::*Interesting. Are there other instances where the 9/11 commission is widely considered by experts to have been written by incompetents, or it is considered likely that information has been withheld, perhaps due to it being classified? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Read it yourself. They keep saying "we just don't know." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:57, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Wait what ==

This article says at the top, "This article needs to be expanded. Please write more!" However, the page is currently locked! How are we supposed to expand the article if it's locked? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:05, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:It's unprotected now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::I still cannot edit it? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:::It's unprotected now. Sorry about that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:58, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Leftist terrorist organization? ==

Couldn't help to notice that Al Qaeda is referred to as a leftist terrorist organization on the [[Terrorism]] page. This is not mentioned in this article at all and frankly I have never heard of it before. --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 18:46, 31 July 2007 (EDT)