Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Date of creation

2007-09-16T03:09:08Z

Samwell: Undo revision 294051 by Special:Contributions/Conservative4Life (User talk:Conservative4Life)

Calculating the '''date of creation''' has exercised many minds for hundreds of years.

== Notation ==
Any year that purports to date from creation as an [[epoch]] is labeled '''AM''', for '''Anno Mundi''', which is [[Latin]] for "In the Year of the World."

== Basis of calculation ==

The Bible contains [[chronogenealogies]] from [[Adam]] to [[Abraham]], listing the age at which each person in the genealogy gave birth to the next person in the list, thus allowing by simple addition a determination of how many years passed between [[creation story|creation]] and Abraham. There are other chronological indications also, allowing that calculation to be extended into the times of the kings, when the dates can be correlated with other events in history for which the absolute date is known. By this means, in theory, one can calculate the date of creation.

There are, however, some uncertainties in this. For example, Genesis lists the age of Terah when the first of his sons was born, but was Abraham this son, or the second or third son?
Different researchers have proposed different answers to this and similar problems, but none of these problems change the result by a very significant amount.

An objection that has often been raised is whether the chronogenealogies were ''intended'' to be used this way, or whether, for example, generations have been missed.
[[Henry Morris]], a pioneer of modern creationism, allowed for the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, but claimed that it was unreasonable to stretch the date back further than about 10,000 B.C.
In more recent times, however, creationists have concluded that there is no reason to think that there are gaps, and this view is supported by the consensus of the experts, according to [[James Barr]], then regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], and not a young-Earth creationist (he also wrote a book attacking [[biblical inerrancy]]), who wrote in 1984: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/ Biblical chronogenealogies], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>

Old-earth creationists do not accept this date, proposing that there may be gaps in the genealogies.<ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/primeval_chronology.shtml Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?], by William Henry Green.</ref>

== Calculated dates ==

The best known date of creation is the one calculated by Archbishop [[James Ussher]] in the 17th century - namely 6:00 p.m. Saturday, [[October 23]], [[4004 BC]].<ref name=Ussher>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pgh. 1ff.</ref> Ussher calculated the date of Creation by the following means:
*He accepted the date of the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]] of Babylon at 562 BC.<ref>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]],'' pgh. 891</ref>
*He then assumed that Evil-Merodach began to reign in that year.<ref>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]],'' pgh. 892</ref>
*King [[Jehoiachin]] received a pension from Evil-Merodach beginning in this year, and that he was taken captive 37 years before then, or in 599 BC.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=II_Kings|chap=25|verses=27-30}}</ref> (The final [[Fall of Jerusalem]] occurred eleven years later; hence Ussher places the Fall of Jerusalem in 588 BC, not 586 BC as most secular archaeologists assume.)
*From that anchor point, Ussher worked backward through the king lists of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and [[Southern Kingdom|Southern]]. See I and II Kings.
*He worked backward further to set the dates-of-reign of King [[Solomon]], and calculated the [[Exodus of Israel]] at 480 years earlier than the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]], which was in Solomon's fourth year.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_Kings|chap=6|verses=1}}</ref> This fell in 1012 BC, and so Ussher fixed the Exodus at 1491 BC.
*Based on his interpretation of {{Bible ref|book=Galatians|chap=3|verses=17}}, Ussher then fixed the date of the entry of [[Abraham]] into [[Canaan]]. This was in 1921 BC.
*Ussher here made a key assumption that is in great dispute. We read that Abraham was 75 years old when he embarked into Canaan.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=12|verses=4}}</ref> We also read that [[Terah]] was 70 years old when he "begat" Abraham, [[Nahor]] (the younger), and [[Haran]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=26}}</ref> Ussher's assumption, which added another sixty years to the reckoning of Creation, was this: that Abraham did not embark on his own ''until after Terah had died'' at the age of 205.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=32}}</ref> This would mean that Terah was actually 130 years old, not 70, when Abraham was born--and presumably that Nahor the Younger or Haran was born when Terah was 70. Ussher's sole warrant for this assumption is that the Bible describes Abraham's departure after it describes Terah's "death." But Terah's "death" might be spiritual rather than physical, in that Terah had originally intended to take all his family out of [[Ur]] of the [[Chaldees]] and into Canaan, ''but forgot his purpose'' and grew too accustomed to worldly enticements in the country of Haran. If that is the case, then Abraham might have departed when Terah was still alive--which is what the inventors of the present Hebrew calendar assumed.

*Ussher then backtracked the pedigree of Abraham to [[Arphaxad]], born to [[Shem]] two years after the [[Great Flood]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11}}</ref> He therefore concluded that the Great Flood happened in 2349 BC.
*Finally, Ussher backtracked the genealogy of Shem to Adam.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5}}</ref> He further concluded that Creation must have occurred during the Autumnal [[Equinox]], which in fact is the favorite start of many of the world's [[Calendar|calendars]], ancient and modern. He ''also'' assumed that the ancient Hebrews ''did not'' attempt to synchronize their [[month]]s with the [[moon]] until ''after'' their exile into [[Babylonia]]. He thus calculated the date of creation at October 23, 4004 BC according to the [[Julian calendar]].

James Ussher's calculation was the best-sourced calculation in all of Christendom at the time. Ussher also spoke with authority, and from a position of authority. For those reasons, his dates for various Biblical events appeared in the margins of [[King James Version|King James]] and other Bibles for centuries, until the last quarter of the twentieth century, when publishers abandoned this practice. Sir [[Isaac Newton]] defended Ussher's date.<ref>Cited in Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/141 Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth?], ''Creation'' 25(3):36–40, June 2003.</ref>

Another to calculate the date of creation was [[Johannes Kepler]], who worked it out to be 3992 B.C.

Such calculations in fact date from at least the Middle Ages, and offer a range of dates from around 5000 to 4000 BC. Judaic tradition reckons the date of creation at 3760 BC. Another calculation, beginning with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem known from secular history and working backwards, arrives at 4163 BC. <ref> http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html Biblical age of the Earth</ref>

== Geological dating ==
Based on [[geology|geological]] dating methods (which include certain assumptions which are questioned by creation scientists)<ref>For example, see Batten, Don, et. al., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf The Creation Answers Book, chapter 4], 2007</ref>, secular scientific research dates the formation of the Earth to around 4.5 [[billion]] (4.5 * 109) years ago.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html USGS, ''Geologic Time: Age of the Earth.''] Accessed April 18, 2007.</ref> According to the [[Big Bang Theory|Big Bang theory]], the [[universe]] began even earlier, about 13.7 billion years ago. <ref>http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html, ''Age of the Universe''</ref>

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:Creationism]]

9/11 conspiracy theories

2007-09-16T02:39:22Z

Samwell: Undo revision 294017 by Special:Contributions/Yujo (User talk:Yujo)

'''9/11 conspiracy theories''' are claims that the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] did not happen in the way they are traditionally thought to have happened. Most theories state that, in one way or another, the [[United States]] government attacked it's own country.

The evidence provided by the conspiracy theorists, also known as "[[9/11 truthers]]" has been widely debunked. Some information about specific theories is provided here.

==World trade Center #7==
There are claims that WTC #7 was brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11. Supporters of this theory show photographs of the building from a misleading angle (it omits the smoke that seemed to pour out of the building due to fires inside). Many more photos exist that show massive fires burned throughout the building.

Some quote an owner of WTC #7 as saying they demolished the building. These people say that when he said in an interview that they decided to "pull" the building, he meant demolish. However, in this instance, "pull" does not mean demolish; it means to pull-out.

[[Rosie O'Donnell]] recently said that she believes WTC #7 was brought down by the government.<ref>http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272612184.shtml</ref>

==Black smoke==
Black smoke was seen coming out of WTC #7 and other places on 9/11. A common conspiracy theory says that black smoke means that a fire is starved of oxygen, and therefore can easily be put out. It is said that the firefighters did not attempt to put out the fire, in this case. In the past, this might have been true, but petroleum burns very hot and is difficult to put out, and yet it also gives off black smoke. There was probably petroleum in the seventh tower.

==See Also==
Popular Mechanics, ''Debunking the 9/11 Myths'' [http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Conspiracy Theory]]

Buddhism

2007-09-16T01:58:59Z

Samwell: /* View of God */ Undo POV edit

[[Image:China B.jpg|right]]
'''Buddhism''' is the fifth largest religion in the world. It is a belief system which teaches that desire causes suffering and if desire is eliminated, enlightenment and [[Nirvana]] are attained. Buddhism is a [[Dharmic religion]]. The term buddha means "the enlightened one."

==Founder==

Buddhism's foundations lie with an [[India|Indian]] prince, [[Siddhartha Gautama]], who, after being sheltered until adulthood, finally observed the suffering of his people. After that he worked to discover the reason for suffering and pain. He studied a number of the disciplines of the day, seeking ultimate truth. After finding other approaches to understanding lacking, he went into meditation for 49 days, vowing not to move until he had attained enlightenment. After great personal struggle he achieved enlightenment, and began to teach the principles that are now associated with Buddhism.

The philosophy has its roots in [[Hinduism]] and Vedic religion, to which Gautama belonged until the foundation of Buddhism.

==View of God==

Buddhist scriptures acknowledge that gods exist, but does not consider that knowledge crucial to an individual's practice of Buddhist teachings. The Buddha taught that we should not speculate about what we cannot know, and that speculation about [[God]] is pointless. Buddhists' priorities are release from suffering and direct experience of the true nature of reality. Many modern strains of Buddhism are [[atheist|atheistic]] in nature, thus creating a paradox as to why they are called a religion. They can be considered to be philosophies of life. Certain denominations, such as the Mahayana tradition, believe in [[Bodhisattvas]], or quasi-divine cosmic beings that seek to benefit others by remaining in a state of [[Samsara]], or eternal rebirth. These are prayed to, for advice and spiritual guidance, and often venerated.

==Teachings==

The highest ideal for a Buddhist is the state of Nirvana, or release from eternal rebirth, a state beyond conceptual thought described by the Buddha as follows:
<blockquote>''"There is O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, o monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. ~ Udana, 80-81"''</blockquote>

Buddhism is a very practical [[philosophy]], which teaches us to focus our attention on personal experience, to determine what is the cause of our discontents ("dukkha") and to find a way to liberate ourselves from these, all the while expressing "metta", which is universal, unconditional love, and "karuna", which roughly translates to "compassion", towards others. These teachings are encapsulated in the "Four Noble Truths".<ref>[http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/four_noble_truths.htm Four Noble Truths]</ref>

Regardless belief in Buddhist teachings does not exclude belief in other religions. For example there are Buddhist [[Christians]] who follow the religious teachings of [[Christ]] and also incorporate the philosophical teachings of Buddhism.

==See Also==
*[[Nihilism]]
*[[Upanishads]]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Buddhism]]

Talk:Buddhism

2007-09-16T01:53:53Z

Samwell: Talk first, then edit.

One element of Buddhism is it is completely non-sectarianistic, so I took the liberty of switching "In order to attain nirvana, one must follow the eightfold path" to something more appropriate to their practice of tolerance, they also acknowledge that nirvana does not need come from any doctrine or specific guide - Buddhism is simply a spirit guide. not an answer to life.

And it is not a "religion" in the strict sense of the word.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

I would agree Alan. Especially as practiced in America, Buddhism has always seemed to be more of a philosophy than a religion, but still allows people to claim a religious or 'spiritual' affiliation. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:53, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

==Possible connection to Christianity==
There are many who have explored the idea that the LORD Jesus Christ may have been exposed to buddhist ideas in his youth, during the years not mentioned in the bible. With the exception of reincarnation, many of Christ's teachings are very similar to those of the Buddha. --Proposed edit by [[User:Mijolner]]

:Yes, there has been some speculation in this regard for quite some time. But such speculation is outside the scope of this project.[[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 21:53, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Buddhism

2007-09-16T01:50:41Z

Samwell: Undo revision 293994 by Special:Contributions/Mijolner (User talk:Mijolner) moving to talk

Socialized medicine

2007-09-15T23:44:02Z

Samwell: Undo revision 293926 by Special:Contributions/Iamliberaldeceit (User talk:Iamliberaldeceit)

'''Socialized medicine''' is [[health care]] as supplied by a [[monopolistic]] or heavily-[[subsidized]] and regulated [[health care system]].

[[Pierre Lemieux]] wrote:
*Health care has to be rationed either by the market or by political and bureaucratic processes. The latter are no more just than the former. We often forget that people who have difficulty making money in the market are not necessarily better at jumping queues in a socialized system. [http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html]

[[Category:Medicine]]
[[Category:Socialism]]

Aegean Sea

2007-09-15T22:12:35Z

Samwell: cat

The Aegean sea is a branch of the [[Mediterranean Sea]]. It is located between Asia Minor and the Greek peninsula and is approximately 380 miles long and 186 miles wide.

[[Category:Geography]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-15T22:07:52Z

Samwell: /* "philanthropist" */ spelling

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
 
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2|Archive 2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3|Archive 3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4|Archive 4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5|Archive 5]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive6|Archive 6]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive7|Archive 7]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive8|Archive 8]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive9|Archive 9]]
 

----
== The following have been corrected at Wikipedia ==

Thank God! At least that's a few less instances of bias and slander Wikipeda will try to pass off as truth. On the other hand, I suppose it's only fair to now remove them from the list...

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.
*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...
*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.
*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.
*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".
*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.
*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

Evidently examples 5, 6, 7, and 10 have been corrected some time ago, but I suppose they should be kept for posterity's sake?

Also, for example 8 and 16... it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia has an anti-intellectual slant and no respect for experts (a 14-year-old dropout has as much weight on a subject, if not more, than an actual professional or researcher in the domain). But does that really constitute "[[bias]]" per se, according to Conservapedia's definition? I just wasn't quite clear on that...

Hopefully keeping up the pressure will force Wikipedia to correct the rest of these errors - or even better, convince people to come to Conservapedia instead.

[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:39, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

*We will wait and see how long they remain fixed.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:06, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll start at your beginning and if your claims of correction don't hold true for the first few, then I'm going to stop wasting time on your list:

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.

:: Deceit does not have the same meaning as lie. That redirect is improper, misleading, and illustrates the merit of the complaint.

*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...

:: The JBS reference in the Fred Schwarz has been removed, but the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons still has the JBS reference. Your statement to the contrary is false.

*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.

:: The association is not justified. It's plainly an improper attempt at guilt-by-association.

*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.

:: The Zach Johnson entry does finally admit that he credited [[Jesus Christ]], but the [[liberal]]s on [[Wikipedia]] insert a "citation needed" to try to discredit Johnson's quote. The effect remains similar to before.

*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".

:: The John Birch Society entry does continue to smear unrelated people.

*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.

::I didn't bother rechecking this, but why is Jimmy Wales given preferential treatment in an entry about Conservapedia? He has no connection with Conservapedia, and it's unclear he's even spent any time on this site.

*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

:: The rewording continues to obscure the timing of Operation Eagle Claw during unpopular Carter's difficult primary battle with [[Ted Kennedy]] for the [[Democratic]] nomination. The new explanation seems determined to confuse the political implications of the operation as the old explanation did.

:: I stopped at this point, and see no need to change the examples of bias on the above points. The changes often did not occur as stated, and where changes did occur they merely underscore the bias further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I apologize then... particularly for the JBS reference in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons article, I don't know how I missed that one. As for the "deceit" example, I thought deceit and lie might be essentially synonymous, hence Conservapedia not needing an article on "lie"... but you're right, claiming they are one and the same is misleading. Sorry, I genuinely thought these might constitute valid corrections.

:::[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:02, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== Planning to add a few new examples ==

It's about time to add a few new examples to the list here. Please make suggestions here. A point about the new attorney, apparently liberal, who has taken the helm is appropriate, and his callous attitude towards the smears and gossips (while editing his own entry). Another point about the anti-Christian entries is needed. An update about how the leadership of Wikipedia is trying to cash in on the traffic with their for-profit search engine may be appropriate. Other suggestions? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I was just about to point out link 14 above after noticing it as a major headline on a news site. The fact that US government computers have been caught editing Wikipedia articles on subjects relevant to their work (i.e. Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay) implies that they are using Wikipedia as a government propaganda tool. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

: And don't forget that the Dem HQ, the New York Times were also caught. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:36, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The New York Times example is excellent. Do you have a link to prove that? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The actual tool that is being used to find the anonymous edits by various companies and governments is http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ . It is probably more useful to link the tool, allowing people to do their own research on who did what rather than linking to a secondary source. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:13, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Here is an example of a NYT edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:02, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

SPierce, that IP traces to Norfolk, VA. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:19, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:: IP location traces are not always as accurate as going in the other direction. Useing wikiscanner is better. New York Times edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice&diff=prev&oldid=15725782] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=33031414], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85320018] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85322406] . ACLU: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=12530341]. Amnesty International: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40462106] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40461974]. Reuters: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=next&oldid=13990756]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 10:59, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Skip, I look at two of your examples and they consist of shockingly obscene edits to the entries. How do we know that IP addresses at the institutions like the NYT and ACLU were really responsible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:22, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::A WHOIS search checks out the IP addresses, but it doesn't check out the users of the IP address (there simply is no way to know who is physically at the keyboard). The NYTimes edits are exceedingly juvenile, as are the ACLU and Reuters edits (plus they don't benefit the respective organization -- they are just run of the mill vandalism). It's much more likely that someone had their kid in on visiting day and let them use their computer. The Amnesty International edit, however, is definitely someone from AI, or at least someone intimately involved with them. I checked some other edits they made, and almost all involved AI, whether on AI's main page or on other pages across the site. I highly doubt, however, that these edits were approved by AI, but there is no evidence to the contrary. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 11:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Please realize that the obscene edits are in no way limited to organizations with a liberal bend. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=115836000] from the Republican party of MN offices[http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=204.73.177.2]. Also realize that these edits in no way suggest a bias in Wikipedia any more than vandalism on Conservapedia suggests that it has a bias of some sort. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::So the Republican Party has been infiltrated by subversives; we already know that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:12, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Even I'm amazed that computers from the [[New York Times]] were used to insert crude vandalism in Wikipedia. Are we sure about this? Let's be sure before we post this on the main page and in the content page here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes. The NYT acknowledged this in their own article about this. Since we've put this on the front page, we should list it here as well. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:01, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

== this is probably too obvious to mention but ==

WP has an article for "evolution". We have one for "Theory of evolution." I think that says it all? [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:I agree :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 03:07, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:As do I. Good catch! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:38, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Double brackets needed on [[John Seigenthaler]] ==

We now have an article on [[John Seigenthaler]]. The mentions of his name in this list should link to it. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:15, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:21, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== GLBTs are the only group of people in which "self-identity" determines the content of their articles ==

Midge Potts is a man (no surgery or proven hormone therapy) who "self-identifies" as a woman. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states this about identity:

<blockquote>
Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves.
</blockquote>

This means that since Midge calls himself a woman, only female pronouns may be used in the article. The fact that he is still physically a man is irrelevant. When it comes to GLBTs, a person's personal opinion of their "self-identity" trumps facts on a site that claims to be encyclopedic.

And it is ''only'' GLBTs to whom this rule applies. No white person can "self-identify" as black and have their articles state that they are black. No nutcase like David Koresh or Charles Manson can "self-identify" as Jesus Christ and have their articles state that they actually are Jesus. Only GLBTs can have this done to their articles. Capriciousness trumps facts. Exactly how is that either encyclopedic or unbiased? It's not. If Midge Potts were to die today, a coroner (a scientist!) examining his body would not give a rip about his "self-identity." Midge would go down on paper as being a man. Period. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The patients rule the liberal insane asylum at Wikipedia. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
::::The arguments being made seem to bear that out. I've never seen such twisted logic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:43, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, this "self-identity" thing isn't even an official Wikipedia rule. It's a "non-binding guideline." Very, very weak. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:48, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Suicide ==

What rational person can believe that WP is "heavily promoting" suicide? In fact, the opening paragraphs of the main entry are rather like CP in that they define suicide and describe the views of suicide held by Christians and members of other religions. And how many times does the word suicide occur in CP? It would be interesting to match that figure per pages with that of WP. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:46, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Also, the Henry Friendly article has been changed. But in a biographical article is is scarcely "heavily promoting" suicide to mention that the subjevt took his/her own life. I ask you! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:50, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Double brackets needed ==

On [[John Birch Society]] and [[Jerry Costello]]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 10:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia has a redirect from "deceit" to lie. ==

Wikipedia has a redirect from "deceit" to lie. Also, the Wikipedia entry is actually "Deceit (album)" . Please do not put this in our encyclopedia again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:Now hold on a minute, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. Wikipedia ''did'' briefly redirect the word "deceit" to "Conservapedia." True enough, someone changed that back to "lie." But, seeing that a redirect to "Conservapedia" is of a piece with the other examples we have seen, one must ask: was the reversion a matter of policy, or was it a cover-up of an embarrassing edit by an overzealous editor?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:::We have vandals with an agenda too. Why should we not expect the same at Wikipedia. I don't think you have shown that the redirect from Deceit to conservapedia wasn't vandalism. More importantly, the Wikipedia entry is actually '''"Deceit (album)"''' . Please let's be precise and not engage in "feel goodism" in regards to Wikipedia. There is a ton of liberal bias at Wikipedia and we don't have to have poorly supported strawmen to show it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:33, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== I believe I just found some incriminating material in regards to liberal bias and Wikipedia ==

I think we need to put the more hard hitting material first in the article by reexamining the various examples we gave. With that in mind, I believe I just found some very incriminating material in regards to liberal bias and Wikipedia which I will start posting in a user workspace that I will create.

I also think we should removed some uncited material until it is ready to be cited.

Lastly, hopefully, the whole "deceit(album)" controversy can be resolved and we can move on.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

*I think you are paying too much attention to the emails you receive from known (but evidently not known to you) vandals, and too easily swayed by those who seek to discredit you, by counting on your predictable reactions. The material will stand, and I advise everyone to stop removing material unless invited to do so. I hope this warning is very clear as to its meaning, and that this line of posting is finished here. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:54, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:::TK, I received no email in regards to the material I deleted. I just know the material is not sufficiently cited or supported. Now some of the material I deleted may be subsequently supported via reputable citations. However, until they are I think they should be removed as a Conservapedia commandment states that everything must be true and verifiable. Do reputable news reporters have a habit of stating serious and unsupported statements and then a week or so later give the evidence? No they do not. And neither should we and the Consevapedia commandments reflects this. I think it is fair to say that I have championed true and verifiable policy at Conservapedia in the past through various efforts and I received valuable help from others in this regard so it would be a mistake to say I have been alone in this respect. Obviously, this is because I know the policy of true and verifiable is important. Yesterday, someone added a completely fictious large article at Conservapedia. It was completely uncited. Obviously, if we do not take the sourcing policy seriously a lot of bogus material will creep into Conservapedia. Now I realize that everyone make mistakes. For example, the greatest heroes of many conservatives - namely biblical heroes - are stated to have made several mistakes. However, I think it is important to be amenable to fixing our mistakes in regards to the consevapedia commandments and other matters. Lastly, I do think that I could have communicated privately at first given the high profile nature of the article in question and some of my pointed remarks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Music ==

"Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[80] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about '''music''', Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

I quite agree about the music. It should be deleted. I suggest the following articles be eliminated: Beethoven, Brahms, Vivaldi, Bach, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Muddy Waters, Chopin, Louie Armstrong, Gershwin, Liszt, The Rolling Stones, Haydn, and all the rest. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:11, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: Oh right. Beethoven, Moby and thousands of obscure and vulgar rap artists are all about the same in significance. Wiki-logic at work! Hey, this wasn't a waste in responding after all. We discovered a new term: [[Wikilogic]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:23, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: Exactly. They aren't the same, but where's the line? The Beatles did drugs, slept no doubt with many women, talked about "doing IT in the road" in a song, and so on, but I can't imagine any reasonable encyclopedia excluding them as unimportant can you? Where's the line? Tchaikovsky was in love with his nephew I think, should he be excluded? Should this be mentioned in a article? Where's the line? Who decides on where the line is? Thanks for responding. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:37, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sutrebla, without the Mobocracy here, the decisions are made by Administrators, applying that good old idea of ''common sense''! Like Aschlafly said, Moby is one one thing. Another thousand one-hit-wonders is another. Surely you can see that? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for being kind. Aschlafly seems to want to scare away people. Anyway, I can't say I know much about "Moby", so I'm not sure what you mean by "Mobocracy" or what Aschlafly means by "Wikilogic" for that matter. I guess a lot of one hit wonder bands would be a waste, but I still don't see where the line is drawn vis-a-vis vulgarity or relevance or whatever. I am dissatisfied with Wikipedia, and thought this might be an alternative that could actually work. Still, if the administrators decide where the line is, then almost anything I write could just be overridden, same as Wikipedia. I happen to think that Tchaikovsky being in love with his nephew (if I have that right) is pretty bad, but that doesn't mean the music is bad does it? Suppose Michael Jackson was in jail right now for pedophilia, would that mean he doesn't exist anymore? If a band had one record which was profane, would they be denied an entry here? My Dad used to say that "common sense" is not very common. Would the "common sense" of one administrator be the same as the "common sense" of another? Confused. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 15:14, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*If you think Aschlafly was being scary, or you worry about what common sense is, you perhaps worry about what the meaning of the word "is" is! Nothing is worth all that angst! In a family-friendly encyclopedia, how is some supposed attraction to his nephew relevant to an article about a famous composer? Does it add knowledge as to his compositions? No. That is what I mean by common sense. If we had an article about Nas, would it be family friendly to include his lyrics, and links to his profane website? No. Is it common sense to spend all this time discussing hypothetical scenarios? No! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*I appreciate your response. Where is the line? Thanks. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 15:38, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
** more Wikilogic which is actually just plain old logic that the sites rulers happen to disagree with. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and thus can afford the luxury of including a great many pop culture references be they good bad or indifferent. A fair comparison would be to look at X number of topics and compare the coverage or lack there of between this site and WP. ''Hint:'' this site loses. [[User:JackNoc|JackNoc]] 15:56, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*BTW, I don't actually worry about the meaning of the word "is" 8-) [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 16:05, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

:Sutrebla, a "line" is not necessary to justify different treatment. I realize that [[Mindless Equality]] is a characteristic of [[liberal style]], but you've taken it to absurd extreme. How about complaining to your local library because it does accept worthless book and let us know how they respond.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

:I must admit it's pretty tough to be labeled so quickly around here, just like Wikipedia. Family friendly may mean no profanity, but it certainly means you're gonna be called a liberal if you disagree with anyone! LOL. I guess I deserved the "Oh, right" after my initial entry, it was a bit sneering, but after that, I was also "worrying about what common sense is", don't know the meaning of the word "is" (ouch, now I'm Clinton!), angst ridden, unduly hypothetical, using Wikilogic (still don't get that one since I thought Conservapedia was based on Wiki technology), mindless, (double ouch), and worst of all, I am using characteristic liberal style. Well, I'm not a liberal, and AM dissatisfied with Wikipedia, and hoping to find something else. If you want to keep heaping on the labels, well, I guess conservapedia is not for me. As far as the music goes, my point was how are things determined to be unsuitable? If Wikipedia is biased by including so much music, Hollywood, etc., to what standard must music/musicians be held in order to make the cut on Conservapedia? Just saying "common sense" doesn't quite do it. And just so you know, I'm a Christian, and most definitely conservative. Feel free to use THOSE labels at your discretion. I would love to add some stuff about music, but expect it will be taken down if it includes rap, especially non-Christian rap. Thanks [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:52, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Sutrebla, we could fill a football stadium with [[liberal]]s claiming that they are [[conservative]]. Watch [[Hillary Clinton]] pretend she's a [[conservative]] too. [[Wikipedia]] will welcome your entries about rap "music". We are a serious encyclopedia and learning resource here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, now I'm a liberal claiming to be conservative. Another label, and I regret the last one I want to hear. How do I PROVE I'm conservative? Please review Matthew 7:1. And rap "music" in quotes? Nasty. What about Christian rap, I saw some on EWTN just the other day. A lot of people would put Arnold Schoenberg's music in quotes I think, but it is music nonetheless. Please do whatever you have to do to delete my account. You guys play rougher than Wikipedia. You will push a lot of sincere people away I fear. I wanted to upgrade your Roald Amundsen article too. Rats. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 13:16, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::: And now we see a classic example of [[Liberal style]], with liberals trying to claim to be victims after they caught lying. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 13:24, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:Just wanted to say goodbye. May God be with you. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 13:43, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== # 18 ==

The current complaint #18 significantly misrepresents the contents from the Wikipedia project page for the Countering systemic bias project.

The first incorrect assertion is that the meta page "complains" that Wikipedians tend to come from Christian countries. The page was actually commenting on a survey of the demographics of Wikipedians: Some articles, sections, or subjects related to other religions or cultures may naturally be neglected because fewer Wikipedians are part of those religions or cultures.

The second misquoted section is really warning that articles pulled from '''all''' old and/or non-neutral sources may need to be checked for bias. The policy is not against Judeo-Christian values, merely to check that imported material is not biased. Material from The Atheist's Encyclopedia would get the same treatment.

The third assertion of #18 refers to a section that really warns that large scale disasters in the developed world are naturally seen by the Wikipedian demographic as less significant than insanely large scale disasters in the developing world. The example given is the coverage Al-Qaeda bombings, which is so detailed that it includes a medium length article on a specific search and rescue dog involved in 9/11. That's more than for many major leaders in the third-world Darfur conflict, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

I request that #18 be removed. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:04, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

: I reread #18 (now #20) and updated the minor revision in the "misquoted" section in the footnote. Wikipedia changed "predominantly Christian" to "nominally Christian." Whoopee. The rest of your criticisms of #18 (now #20) have even less merit. The Wikipedia meta page does complain about Christian "bias" in older sources. Too bad that [[liberal]]s can't realize the difference between identity, perspective and bias. #18 (now #20) is correct but you have given me another point to add to [[liberal style]] here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== Admission of Liberal Bias ==

No complaints this time, I just thought I may have found a suitable addition to the list. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Liberal_bias Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales actually admits Wikipedia has a liberal bias] (original source [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html here]). According to Jimmy Wales, "the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average." ''Slightly?'' Try '''six times''' more liberal.

Add or reject as you see fit. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:06, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

== Suicide entry (#5) not cited on key claim and here is some material which may help the entry. Also, know someone in the press who might be interested ==

Currently the #5 entry for Examples of Bias in Wikipedia claims there are 21,544 entries at Wikipedia that mention suicide. However, there is no citation for this claim. The Conservapedia commandments state you must give your sources. Is it not cited because you can only run the stats from a Wikipedia account? If so, how do you run that stats at Wikipedia? We should at the very least have a footnote which tells the reader how to run this stat at Wikipedia. I don't think we should take the 21,544 on faith. To do so would wreak havoc at Conservapedia because anyone could claim anything. For example, does Wikipedia merely use the work suicide 21,544 times including the talk pages? Does Wikipedia use the word suicide 21,544 times in its articles but not necessarily in 21,544 entries. With that being said, I am going to temporarily take the 21,544 claim on faith merely for the sake of discussion here but I do believe that unless the entry is cited or at least some method is available to verify it that it should be removed as soon as possible.

With that being said, I believe I might have some useful information in relation to suicide and Wikipedia in relation to its claimed inordinate preoccupation with suicide. Conservapedia mentions that Wikipedia has about 20,000 articles that mention suicide. If Wikipedia has about 2,000,000 articles that means that 1% of its articles mention suicide if the 21,544 claim is true which is a lot. Currently, we do not bring that out and 1% is a high percentage. Again, can someone tell me how you got the 21,544 figure of the number of articles that mentions suicide and can we cite this in our article so people can see it for themselves?

Next, I have a theory on why Wikipedia may have so many references to suicide. Please take a look at this article: Heavy Metal Music And Adolescent Suicidality: An Empirical Investigation - Statistical Data Included at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_134_34/ai_55884913 Also, please see this article: American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, The Influence Of Music And Music Videos at: http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/the_influence_of_music_and_music_videos Wikipedia is known for having a lot of emphasis on teen oriented music so maybe this primarily explains the apparent high percentage of articles on suicide.

Also, suicide is associated with physician assisted suicide which is legal in some liberal areas like Oregon and the Netherlands (http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p040201b.html ). So this might also play a factor but I am guessing it is negligable.

My guess is that the teen music is the most likely explanation if the claim of 21,544 is true Lastly, can we look at enough of the articles which mention suicide to see in what context in which suicide was mentioned? Also, do we believe the above material or similar material would be appropriate to mention in the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" article for the entry dealing with suicide and do we want to develop this more. '''I ask this because I know someone in the conservative press who might be very interested in this claim if it is true. His organization reaches millions and it has an international reader base. We are currently working on a story together and he might be interested in this one too if I can verify the claim.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:43, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

: A search of Conservapedia shows that it has 0.87% of its articles mentioning suicide (144/16536). Those numbers are remarkably similar given the size of each collection. If this is a critique of one, it is likewise a critique of the other... unless Conservapedia is to remove instances of the word from its articles too (but then it would either be using euphemisms which reduces the impact of the word or avoiding history that is likely importance at showing the distasteful nature of it). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:54, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Rutm, Please tell me how you did the above stat. And does it count talk pages as well?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Type 'suicide' in the search box and hit search. As noted in the 'search results' page that comes up, this is searching only the main space - not talk pages. On the 'View' click '500'. Right now, that shows 143 pages - apparently one has been changed since my previous posting. If one is to click the rest of the name spaces, that gives 190 pages. The 16536 comes from the Statistics link on the side, listing only the ones that have content. Right now, that is 16,544. Divide 143 into 16544 and you get 0.008643... or 0.86% (slight change due to number of articles - its easier to change this number with a smaller article base). Compare this to the quoted number of 21,544 articles and the corresponding stats on Wikipedia of 2,009,073 pages and you get 0.0107... or 1.07%. Coparably similar numbers. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:09, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

: No, your comparison is meaningless. The percentage of entries about suicide should decrease as the overall number of entries increase, if there is no bias. Instead, that percentage increases at Wikipedia. Moreover, the content of those entries is very different on Wikipedia than here, further illustrating the bias. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia does NOT describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." ==

Here is what our [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] article states: "Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, describes deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable."

With the above being stated it is clear that Wikipedia does '''NOT''' describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." like our article claims. The Wikipedia article in question is for an entry called '''"deceit(album)"''' that is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29 Here is what the article on "deceit (album)" actually states: "The '''Trouser Press Record Guide''' called the album "austere, brilliant and indescribable." So Wikipedia clearly said Trouser Press called the album in question "austere, brilliant, and indescribable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29] Wikipedia is different from Trouser Press. Trouser Press described the album as "austere, brilliant,, and indescribable." Wikipedia did not. Why do we have to have an unclear statement in our encyclopedia? Would Britannica (which I don't even consider to be a great encyclopedia) keep something like this in their encyclopedia that is unclear and not true. I don't think so. Why do people have to go to Wikipedia to see that Trouser Press describes the album this way?

It is my hope given that I showed conclusive proof that our entry is wrong and since the conservapedia commandments state that everything you post in a article must be verifiable and true that this sentence would be removed. Clearly, there is no reason to keep it as is. The statement is both unclear and untrue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I clarified my previous post. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::Uh, deception is the act of deceiving, and a search for deceit at wikipedia now redirects to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit deception], an article which has been around since 2002. This article does give a definition of what deceit is and gives examples of deceit in various circumstances. It seems that all along there has been a page covering deceit, and it was simply a mistake of an editor in redirecting the exact word to the wrong page. Furthermore, WP only says that deceit is an album in the same way someone could say that Evolution is a 2002 movie, and it is impossible for anyone looking for information on deceit to come across it, and even if they did there is now a link to the correct article at the top of the page. Hopefully this entry can be corrected [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:25, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Um, you describe a change in Wikipedia's redirect ''in reaction to the criticism raised here''. Before we raised the point, Wikipedia redirected "deceit" to a different term having a different meaning. Credit us for the change at Wikipedia, if you're going to be fair. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:25, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Still a couple of issues with the entry:

* The bit on deceit (album) doesn't demonstrate an example of bias, given that it is pretty much impossible for someone searching for the other definition of deceit to stumble across it (the only backlinks are from project or music related pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Deceit_%28album%29] and a search for deceit is a redirect). This entry is on par with saying WP has an article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28movie%29 Evolution (film)] which describes it as "reminiscent of Reitman's Ghostbusters" or an article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory_%28album%29 Conspiracy Theory (album)], which states it has sold 20,000 copies to date. Neither of these would have any bearing on critism of the Evolution or Conspiracy Theory articles on WP just the same as the article on the album deceit has no bearing on wikipedia's choice to redirect the word to a separate article
* To say wikipedia does not have an entry on the exact word "deceit" is the same as criticising conservapedia for not having an entry on [[deception]] (note the redirect to deceit). The two words are interchangable and have pretty much the same meaning (deception is the act of deceit)
* The redirect was changed 7 times in two days, however three of these were acts of vandalism and three more were reversions of this vandalism. Only one actually served to redirect the page to the correct site. Also, saying that it was done by a WP in response to CP's criticisms can give the image of lower standards on this site, because as clearly stated in #1 anyone can edit wikipedia, and CP editors could (if they wanted to) have changed the redirect to the proper word
* The first line of the WP entry states "Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not necessarily true". The first line of the CP entry states "Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another." Both of these provide a clear definition, it's just a question of whether one is biased or not
* Everyone is welcome to add to WP, if you don't feel that the entry on deceit contains enough examples then try adding some, just remember quality over quantity and that an encyclopedia article does not need every single case of deceit to explain it (it may contain a few examples to clarify the definition, and if necessary a historic recount of deception. The proper entry would be "List of Acts of Deceit")
[[User:EQ|EQ]] 00:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia encourages silly entries on obscure and [[liberal]] albums to build traffic. Yes, this does reflect its bias. Wikipedia encourages edits by anonymous IP addresses that lead to pervasive [[liberal]] vandalism. Yes, this does reflect bias. Wikipedia changed its redirect for [[deceit]] only after we complained here. Case closed.

: The excuses made for Wikipedia are getting tiresome, but have led to an addition of another point in [[liberal style]]: [[liberals]] don't believe in accountability. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:37, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:: With all due respect your post failed to address many of my points. In short:
::* A new entry should be created on "silly entries on obscure and liberal albums" and the deceit (album) moved to there, at the moment it does nothing to contribute where it is
::* WP does not have an entry on the deceit just as CP does not have an entry on deception. The two words are interchangable and mean pretty much the same thing
::* The article does have a clear definition, it should be more a question of whether this definition is biased or not
::* The article does not have many example as it is not a "List of acts of deception". Examples are used only to clarify the point, quality over quantity
:: Please do not mistake this for making excuses on WP's behalf, I am merely trying to clarify this entry on the list and prevent any accusations of bias again CP [[User:EQ|EQ]] 00:44, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:::*''WP entry states "Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not necessarily true".
:::*''CP entry states "Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another."
::::This is exactly the point. WP fails to highlight the moral aspects of deceit (or deception if you wish), or make a judgement worthy of condemnation. WP's entry on Murder for example says, "Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the '''elements of malice aforethought''''" CP's entry on deceit uses '''"deliberate."''' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: Rob is exactly right. Wikipedia conceals the intentional wrongdoing and immoral conduct at the center of [[deceit]]. Note also that Wikipedia changed its redirect for the term deceit in response to the criticism here in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia needs to change further its entry for deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::Is there some alternate wording (which you would allow me to insert to Wikipedia as GFDL) which might solve this problem? One major semantic problem I see with changing the current wording is that it is possible to deceive by accident without moral slight - the Wikipedia entry's alleged lack of morality is partly based on this. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 17:33, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

=="philanthropist"==
[[Image:Elizabethannduke.JPG|thumb|300px|right|A Wikipedia "philanthropist." [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/dt/duke_ea.htm]]]
Wikipedia calls terrorists "philanthropists." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Ann_Duke&diff=prev&oldid=83051994] This has been in there since the article was created in May 2006. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Ann_Duke&oldid=55173134]

:Uhm... Whats the point? She might have been an philanthropists allso. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:00, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
::Wouldn't "alleged philanthropist" be appropriate; after all, just cause the FBI calls someone a spy or terrorist doesn't mean they're a spy or terrorist. We all know how incompetent FBI field investigators are, and I know firsthand how you cannot cite the FBI verbatim in Wikipedia, even when the FBI declares it has verifiable facts. Wikipedia still requires "alleged to's" and "supposedly's". [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:15, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Im still not quite sure what you are after, is the problem that she is called allso an philanthropist or that she isn't called a terrorist, alltho the article lists half a page her crimes? If thats the case, I can't see whats the obsession for naming people terrorists, she might be just that, but everyone can see that by just looking what she is accused from. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:35, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: There is no support for the far-fetched claim that she is a "philanthropist". Without support for such an incredible claim, why is it there??? Well, obviously, there are political reasons for sugar-coating violent liberal extremism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
While the claim of her being an philanthropist could certainly use an citation, im not so sure if the reason for it being there is an communist conspiracy of first making her look good and then spending rest of the article listing her crimes, and uhm... Liberal extremism??? Mayby you are bit jumping to conclusions here... [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:53, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::The "May 19" group (so named for it being Mao's and Malcolm Little's birthday), advocated the violent overthrow of the United States. While she '''is''' a terrorist, she's a low key and minor one. More concerned with how to stay out of jail than with coming to power, she is by no means a philanthropist. [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 18:03, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-15T22:03:39Z

Samwell: /* "philanthropist" */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
 
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2|Archive 2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3|Archive 3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4|Archive 4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5|Archive 5]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive6|Archive 6]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive7|Archive 7]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive8|Archive 8]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive9|Archive 9]]
 

----
== The following have been corrected at Wikipedia ==

Thank God! At least that's a few less instances of bias and slander Wikipeda will try to pass off as truth. On the other hand, I suppose it's only fair to now remove them from the list...

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.
*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...
*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.
*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.
*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".
*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.
*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

Evidently examples 5, 6, 7, and 10 have been corrected some time ago, but I suppose they should be kept for posterity's sake?

Also, for example 8 and 16... it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia has an anti-intellectual slant and no respect for experts (a 14-year-old dropout has as much weight on a subject, if not more, than an actual professional or researcher in the domain). But does that really constitute "[[bias]]" per se, according to Conservapedia's definition? I just wasn't quite clear on that...

Hopefully keeping up the pressure will force Wikipedia to correct the rest of these errors - or even better, convince people to come to Conservapedia instead.

[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:39, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

*We will wait and see how long they remain fixed.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:06, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'll start at your beginning and if your claims of correction don't hold true for the first few, then I'm going to stop wasting time on your list:

*1) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit Deceit]" now redirects to lie.

:: Deceit does not have the same meaning as lie. That redirect is improper, misleading, and illustrates the merit of the complaint.

*3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Schwarz Fred Schwarz] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] have both had all mention of JBS removed from their entries. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Dravecky Dave Dravecky's] article does make it clear that his association with JBS is merely claimed by one newspaper, but that may still constitute a smear...

:: The JBS reference in the Fred Schwarz has been removed, but the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons still has the JBS reference. Your statement to the contrary is false.

*4) The mention of JBS in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Costello Jerry Costello's] article was re-added. If this association still isn't justified, then this point should simply be added to example 3.

:: The association is not justified. It's plainly an improper attempt at guilt-by-association.

*13) A quote from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson Zach Johnson] to this effect has been added.

:: The Zach Johnson entry does finally admit that he credited [[Jesus Christ]], but the [[liberal]]s on [[Wikipedia]] insert a "citation needed" to try to discredit Johnson's quote. The effect remains similar to before.

*15) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society John Birch Society article] no longer smears any conservatives by labelling them as "allies".

:: The John Birch Society entry does continue to smear unrelated people.

*23) The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia article] no longer implies that the "concerns" were some sort of general consensus: it properly attributes the quote to Jimmy Wales.

::I didn't bother rechecking this, but why is Jimmy Wales given preferential treatment in an entry about Conservapedia? He has no connection with Conservapedia, and it's unclear he's even spent any time on this site.

*24) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw Operation Eagle Claw] mentions Carter's determination to complete the operation before the election, and no longer tries to blame its failure for Carter's crash in 1980.

:: The rewording continues to obscure the timing of Operation Eagle Claw during unpopular Carter's difficult primary battle with [[Ted Kennedy]] for the [[Democratic]] nomination. The new explanation seems determined to confuse the political implications of the operation as the old explanation did.

:: I stopped at this point, and see no need to change the examples of bias on the above points. The changes often did not occur as stated, and where changes did occur they merely underscore the bias further. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I apologize then... particularly for the JBS reference in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons article, I don't know how I missed that one. As for the "deceit" example, I thought deceit and lie might be essentially synonymous, hence Conservapedia not needing an article on "lie"... but you're right, claiming they are one and the same is misleading. Sorry, I genuinely thought these might constitute valid corrections.

:::[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:02, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== Planning to add a few new examples ==

It's about time to add a few new examples to the list here. Please make suggestions here. A point about the new attorney, apparently liberal, who has taken the helm is appropriate, and his callous attitude towards the smears and gossips (while editing his own entry). Another point about the anti-Christian entries is needed. An update about how the leadership of Wikipedia is trying to cash in on the traffic with their for-profit search engine may be appropriate. Other suggestions? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I was just about to point out link 14 above after noticing it as a major headline on a news site. The fact that US government computers have been caught editing Wikipedia articles on subjects relevant to their work (i.e. Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay) implies that they are using Wikipedia as a government propaganda tool. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

: And don't forget that the Dem HQ, the New York Times were also caught. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:36, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: The New York Times example is excellent. Do you have a link to prove that? Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The actual tool that is being used to find the anonymous edits by various companies and governments is http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ . It is probably more useful to link the tool, allowing people to do their own research on who did what rather than linking to a secondary source. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:13, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Here is an example of a NYT edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=22101771] [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:02, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

SPierce, that IP traces to Norfolk, VA. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:19, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:: IP location traces are not always as accurate as going in the other direction. Useing wikiscanner is better. New York Times edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice&diff=prev&oldid=15725782] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=33031414], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85320018] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=85322406] . ACLU: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=12530341]. Amnesty International: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40462106] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=40461974]. Reuters: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=next&oldid=13990756]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 10:59, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Skip, I look at two of your examples and they consist of shockingly obscene edits to the entries. How do we know that IP addresses at the institutions like the NYT and ACLU were really responsible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:22, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::A WHOIS search checks out the IP addresses, but it doesn't check out the users of the IP address (there simply is no way to know who is physically at the keyboard). The NYTimes edits are exceedingly juvenile, as are the ACLU and Reuters edits (plus they don't benefit the respective organization -- they are just run of the mill vandalism). It's much more likely that someone had their kid in on visiting day and let them use their computer. The Amnesty International edit, however, is definitely someone from AI, or at least someone intimately involved with them. I checked some other edits they made, and almost all involved AI, whether on AI's main page or on other pages across the site. I highly doubt, however, that these edits were approved by AI, but there is no evidence to the contrary. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 11:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Please realize that the obscene edits are in no way limited to organizations with a liberal bend. For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=115836000] from the Republican party of MN offices[http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=204.73.177.2]. Also realize that these edits in no way suggest a bias in Wikipedia any more than vandalism on Conservapedia suggests that it has a bias of some sort. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 12:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::So the Republican Party has been infiltrated by subversives; we already know that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:12, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Even I'm amazed that computers from the [[New York Times]] were used to insert crude vandalism in Wikipedia. Are we sure about this? Let's be sure before we post this on the main page and in the content page here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes. The NYT acknowledged this in their own article about this. Since we've put this on the front page, we should list it here as well. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:01, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

== this is probably too obvious to mention but ==

WP has an article for "evolution". We have one for "Theory of evolution." I think that says it all? [[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

:I agree :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 03:07, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:As do I. Good catch! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:38, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Double brackets needed on [[John Seigenthaler]] ==

We now have an article on [[John Seigenthaler]]. The mentions of his name in this list should link to it. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:15, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:21, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== GLBTs are the only group of people in which "self-identity" determines the content of their articles ==

Midge Potts is a man (no surgery or proven hormone therapy) who "self-identifies" as a woman. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states this about identity:

<blockquote>
Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves.
</blockquote>

This means that since Midge calls himself a woman, only female pronouns may be used in the article. The fact that he is still physically a man is irrelevant. When it comes to GLBTs, a person's personal opinion of their "self-identity" trumps facts on a site that claims to be encyclopedic.

And it is ''only'' GLBTs to whom this rule applies. No white person can "self-identify" as black and have their articles state that they are black. No nutcase like David Koresh or Charles Manson can "self-identify" as Jesus Christ and have their articles state that they actually are Jesus. Only GLBTs can have this done to their articles. Capriciousness trumps facts. Exactly how is that either encyclopedic or unbiased? It's not. If Midge Potts were to die today, a coroner (a scientist!) examining his body would not give a rip about his "self-identity." Midge would go down on paper as being a man. Period. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The patients rule the liberal insane asylum at Wikipedia. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
::::The arguments being made seem to bear that out. I've never seen such twisted logic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:43, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, this "self-identity" thing isn't even an official Wikipedia rule. It's a "non-binding guideline." Very, very weak. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:48, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== Suicide ==

What rational person can believe that WP is "heavily promoting" suicide? In fact, the opening paragraphs of the main entry are rather like CP in that they define suicide and describe the views of suicide held by Christians and members of other religions. And how many times does the word suicide occur in CP? It would be interesting to match that figure per pages with that of WP. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:46, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Also, the Henry Friendly article has been changed. But in a biographical article is is scarcely "heavily promoting" suicide to mention that the subjevt took his/her own life. I ask you! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:50, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Double brackets needed ==

On [[John Birch Society]] and [[Jerry Costello]]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 10:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia has a redirect from "deceit" to lie. ==

Wikipedia has a redirect from "deceit" to lie. Also, the Wikipedia entry is actually "Deceit (album)" . Please do not put this in our encyclopedia again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:Now hold on a minute, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. Wikipedia ''did'' briefly redirect the word "deceit" to "Conservapedia." True enough, someone changed that back to "lie." But, seeing that a redirect to "Conservapedia" is of a piece with the other examples we have seen, one must ask: was the reversion a matter of policy, or was it a cover-up of an embarrassing edit by an overzealous editor?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:::We have vandals with an agenda too. Why should we not expect the same at Wikipedia. I don't think you have shown that the redirect from Deceit to conservapedia wasn't vandalism. More importantly, the Wikipedia entry is actually '''"Deceit (album)"''' . Please let's be precise and not engage in "feel goodism" in regards to Wikipedia. There is a ton of liberal bias at Wikipedia and we don't have to have poorly supported strawmen to show it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:33, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== I believe I just found some incriminating material in regards to liberal bias and Wikipedia ==

I think we need to put the more hard hitting material first in the article by reexamining the various examples we gave. With that in mind, I believe I just found some very incriminating material in regards to liberal bias and Wikipedia which I will start posting in a user workspace that I will create.

I also think we should removed some uncited material until it is ready to be cited.

Lastly, hopefully, the whole "deceit(album)" controversy can be resolved and we can move on.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:37, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

*I think you are paying too much attention to the emails you receive from known (but evidently not known to you) vandals, and too easily swayed by those who seek to discredit you, by counting on your predictable reactions. The material will stand, and I advise everyone to stop removing material unless invited to do so. I hope this warning is very clear as to its meaning, and that this line of posting is finished here. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:54, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:::TK, I received no email in regards to the material I deleted. I just know the material is not sufficiently cited or supported. Now some of the material I deleted may be subsequently supported via reputable citations. However, until they are I think they should be removed as a Conservapedia commandment states that everything must be true and verifiable. Do reputable news reporters have a habit of stating serious and unsupported statements and then a week or so later give the evidence? No they do not. And neither should we and the Consevapedia commandments reflects this. I think it is fair to say that I have championed true and verifiable policy at Conservapedia in the past through various efforts and I received valuable help from others in this regard so it would be a mistake to say I have been alone in this respect. Obviously, this is because I know the policy of true and verifiable is important. Yesterday, someone added a completely fictious large article at Conservapedia. It was completely uncited. Obviously, if we do not take the sourcing policy seriously a lot of bogus material will creep into Conservapedia. Now I realize that everyone make mistakes. For example, the greatest heroes of many conservatives - namely biblical heroes - are stated to have made several mistakes. However, I think it is important to be amenable to fixing our mistakes in regards to the consevapedia commandments and other matters. Lastly, I do think that I could have communicated privately at first given the high profile nature of the article in question and some of my pointed remarks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Music ==

"Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[80] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about '''music''', Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

I quite agree about the music. It should be deleted. I suggest the following articles be eliminated: Beethoven, Brahms, Vivaldi, Bach, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Muddy Waters, Chopin, Louie Armstrong, Gershwin, Liszt, The Rolling Stones, Haydn, and all the rest. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:11, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: Oh right. Beethoven, Moby and thousands of obscure and vulgar rap artists are all about the same in significance. Wiki-logic at work! Hey, this wasn't a waste in responding after all. We discovered a new term: [[Wikilogic]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:23, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: Exactly. They aren't the same, but where's the line? The Beatles did drugs, slept no doubt with many women, talked about "doing IT in the road" in a song, and so on, but I can't imagine any reasonable encyclopedia excluding them as unimportant can you? Where's the line? Tchaikovsky was in love with his nephew I think, should he be excluded? Should this be mentioned in a article? Where's the line? Who decides on where the line is? Thanks for responding. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:37, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sutrebla, without the Mobocracy here, the decisions are made by Administrators, applying that good old idea of ''common sense''! Like Aschlafly said, Moby is one one thing. Another thousand one-hit-wonders is another. Surely you can see that? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for being kind. Aschlafly seems to want to scare away people. Anyway, I can't say I know much about "Moby", so I'm not sure what you mean by "Mobocracy" or what Aschlafly means by "Wikilogic" for that matter. I guess a lot of one hit wonder bands would be a waste, but I still don't see where the line is drawn vis-a-vis vulgarity or relevance or whatever. I am dissatisfied with Wikipedia, and thought this might be an alternative that could actually work. Still, if the administrators decide where the line is, then almost anything I write could just be overridden, same as Wikipedia. I happen to think that Tchaikovsky being in love with his nephew (if I have that right) is pretty bad, but that doesn't mean the music is bad does it? Suppose Michael Jackson was in jail right now for pedophilia, would that mean he doesn't exist anymore? If a band had one record which was profane, would they be denied an entry here? My Dad used to say that "common sense" is not very common. Would the "common sense" of one administrator be the same as the "common sense" of another? Confused. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 15:14, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*If you think Aschlafly was being scary, or you worry about what common sense is, you perhaps worry about what the meaning of the word "is" is! Nothing is worth all that angst! In a family-friendly encyclopedia, how is some supposed attraction to his nephew relevant to an article about a famous composer? Does it add knowledge as to his compositions? No. That is what I mean by common sense. If we had an article about Nas, would it be family friendly to include his lyrics, and links to his profane website? No. Is it common sense to spend all this time discussing hypothetical scenarios? No! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*I appreciate your response. Where is the line? Thanks. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 15:38, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
** more Wikilogic which is actually just plain old logic that the sites rulers happen to disagree with. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and thus can afford the luxury of including a great many pop culture references be they good bad or indifferent. A fair comparison would be to look at X number of topics and compare the coverage or lack there of between this site and WP. ''Hint:'' this site loses. [[User:JackNoc|JackNoc]] 15:56, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

*BTW, I don't actually worry about the meaning of the word "is" 8-) [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 16:05, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

:Sutrebla, a "line" is not necessary to justify different treatment. I realize that [[Mindless Equality]] is a characteristic of [[liberal style]], but you've taken it to absurd extreme. How about complaining to your local library because it does accept worthless book and let us know how they respond.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:13, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

:I must admit it's pretty tough to be labeled so quickly around here, just like Wikipedia. Family friendly may mean no profanity, but it certainly means you're gonna be called a liberal if you disagree with anyone! LOL. I guess I deserved the "Oh, right" after my initial entry, it was a bit sneering, but after that, I was also "worrying about what common sense is", don't know the meaning of the word "is" (ouch, now I'm Clinton!), angst ridden, unduly hypothetical, using Wikilogic (still don't get that one since I thought Conservapedia was based on Wiki technology), mindless, (double ouch), and worst of all, I am using characteristic liberal style. Well, I'm not a liberal, and AM dissatisfied with Wikipedia, and hoping to find something else. If you want to keep heaping on the labels, well, I guess conservapedia is not for me. As far as the music goes, my point was how are things determined to be unsuitable? If Wikipedia is biased by including so much music, Hollywood, etc., to what standard must music/musicians be held in order to make the cut on Conservapedia? Just saying "common sense" doesn't quite do it. And just so you know, I'm a Christian, and most definitely conservative. Feel free to use THOSE labels at your discretion. I would love to add some stuff about music, but expect it will be taken down if it includes rap, especially non-Christian rap. Thanks [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 12:52, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Sutrebla, we could fill a football stadium with [[liberal]]s claiming that they are [[conservative]]. Watch [[Hillary Clinton]] pretend she's a [[conservative]] too. [[Wikipedia]] will welcome your entries about rap "music". We are a serious encyclopedia and learning resource here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:58, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, now I'm a liberal claiming to be conservative. Another label, and I regret the last one I want to hear. How do I PROVE I'm conservative? Please review Matthew 7:1. And rap "music" in quotes? Nasty. What about Christian rap, I saw some on EWTN just the other day. A lot of people would put Arnold Schoenberg's music in quotes I think, but it is music nonetheless. Please do whatever you have to do to delete my account. You guys play rougher than Wikipedia. You will push a lot of sincere people away I fear. I wanted to upgrade your Roald Amundsen article too. Rats. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 13:16, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::: And now we see a classic example of [[Liberal style]], with liberals trying to claim to be victims after they caught lying. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 13:24, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:Just wanted to say goodbye. May God be with you. [[User:Sutrebla|Sutrebla]] 13:43, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== # 18 ==

The current complaint #18 significantly misrepresents the contents from the Wikipedia project page for the Countering systemic bias project.

The first incorrect assertion is that the meta page "complains" that Wikipedians tend to come from Christian countries. The page was actually commenting on a survey of the demographics of Wikipedians: Some articles, sections, or subjects related to other religions or cultures may naturally be neglected because fewer Wikipedians are part of those religions or cultures.

The second misquoted section is really warning that articles pulled from '''all''' old and/or non-neutral sources may need to be checked for bias. The policy is not against Judeo-Christian values, merely to check that imported material is not biased. Material from The Atheist's Encyclopedia would get the same treatment.

The third assertion of #18 refers to a section that really warns that large scale disasters in the developed world are naturally seen by the Wikipedian demographic as less significant than insanely large scale disasters in the developing world. The example given is the coverage Al-Qaeda bombings, which is so detailed that it includes a medium length article on a specific search and rescue dog involved in 9/11. That's more than for many major leaders in the third-world Darfur conflict, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

I request that #18 be removed. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:04, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

: I reread #18 (now #20) and updated the minor revision in the "misquoted" section in the footnote. Wikipedia changed "predominantly Christian" to "nominally Christian." Whoopee. The rest of your criticisms of #18 (now #20) have even less merit. The Wikipedia meta page does complain about Christian "bias" in older sources. Too bad that [[liberal]]s can't realize the difference between identity, perspective and bias. #18 (now #20) is correct but you have given me another point to add to [[liberal style]] here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== Admission of Liberal Bias ==

No complaints this time, I just thought I may have found a suitable addition to the list. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Liberal_bias Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales actually admits Wikipedia has a liberal bias] (original source [http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html here]). According to Jimmy Wales, "the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average." ''Slightly?'' Try '''six times''' more liberal.

Add or reject as you see fit. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:06, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

== Suicide entry (#5) not cited on key claim and here is some material which may help the entry. Also, know someone in the press who might be interested ==

Currently the #5 entry for Examples of Bias in Wikipedia claims there are 21,544 entries at Wikipedia that mention suicide. However, there is no citation for this claim. The Conservapedia commandments state you must give your sources. Is it not cited because you can only run the stats from a Wikipedia account? If so, how do you run that stats at Wikipedia? We should at the very least have a footnote which tells the reader how to run this stat at Wikipedia. I don't think we should take the 21,544 on faith. To do so would wreak havoc at Conservapedia because anyone could claim anything. For example, does Wikipedia merely use the work suicide 21,544 times including the talk pages? Does Wikipedia use the word suicide 21,544 times in its articles but not necessarily in 21,544 entries. With that being said, I am going to temporarily take the 21,544 claim on faith merely for the sake of discussion here but I do believe that unless the entry is cited or at least some method is available to verify it that it should be removed as soon as possible.

With that being said, I believe I might have some useful information in relation to suicide and Wikipedia in relation to its claimed inordinate preoccupation with suicide. Conservapedia mentions that Wikipedia has about 20,000 articles that mention suicide. If Wikipedia has about 2,000,000 articles that means that 1% of its articles mention suicide if the 21,544 claim is true which is a lot. Currently, we do not bring that out and 1% is a high percentage. Again, can someone tell me how you got the 21,544 figure of the number of articles that mentions suicide and can we cite this in our article so people can see it for themselves?

Next, I have a theory on why Wikipedia may have so many references to suicide. Please take a look at this article: Heavy Metal Music And Adolescent Suicidality: An Empirical Investigation - Statistical Data Included at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_134_34/ai_55884913 Also, please see this article: American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, The Influence Of Music And Music Videos at: http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/the_influence_of_music_and_music_videos Wikipedia is known for having a lot of emphasis on teen oriented music so maybe this primarily explains the apparent high percentage of articles on suicide.

Also, suicide is associated with physician assisted suicide which is legal in some liberal areas like Oregon and the Netherlands (http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p040201b.html ). So this might also play a factor but I am guessing it is negligable.

My guess is that the teen music is the most likely explanation if the claim of 21,544 is true Lastly, can we look at enough of the articles which mention suicide to see in what context in which suicide was mentioned? Also, do we believe the above material or similar material would be appropriate to mention in the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" article for the entry dealing with suicide and do we want to develop this more. '''I ask this because I know someone in the conservative press who might be very interested in this claim if it is true. His organization reaches millions and it has an international reader base. We are currently working on a story together and he might be interested in this one too if I can verify the claim.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:43, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

: A search of Conservapedia shows that it has 0.87% of its articles mentioning suicide (144/16536). Those numbers are remarkably similar given the size of each collection. If this is a critique of one, it is likewise a critique of the other... unless Conservapedia is to remove instances of the word from its articles too (but then it would either be using euphemisms which reduces the impact of the word or avoiding history that is likely importance at showing the distasteful nature of it). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 21:54, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Rutm, Please tell me how you did the above stat. And does it count talk pages as well?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Type 'suicide' in the search box and hit search. As noted in the 'search results' page that comes up, this is searching only the main space - not talk pages. On the 'View' click '500'. Right now, that shows 143 pages - apparently one has been changed since my previous posting. If one is to click the rest of the name spaces, that gives 190 pages. The 16536 comes from the Statistics link on the side, listing only the ones that have content. Right now, that is 16,544. Divide 143 into 16544 and you get 0.008643... or 0.86% (slight change due to number of articles - its easier to change this number with a smaller article base). Compare this to the quoted number of 21,544 articles and the corresponding stats on Wikipedia of 2,009,073 pages and you get 0.0107... or 1.07%. Coparably similar numbers. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:09, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

: No, your comparison is meaningless. The percentage of entries about suicide should decrease as the overall number of entries increase, if there is no bias. Instead, that percentage increases at Wikipedia. Moreover, the content of those entries is very different on Wikipedia than here, further illustrating the bias. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia does NOT describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." ==

Here is what our [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] article states: "Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, describes deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable."

With the above being stated it is clear that Wikipedia does '''NOT''' describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." like our article claims. The Wikipedia article in question is for an entry called '''"deceit(album)"''' that is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29 Here is what the article on "deceit (album)" actually states: "The '''Trouser Press Record Guide''' called the album "austere, brilliant and indescribable." So Wikipedia clearly said Trouser Press called the album in question "austere, brilliant, and indescribable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29] Wikipedia is different from Trouser Press. Trouser Press described the album as "austere, brilliant,, and indescribable." Wikipedia did not. Why do we have to have an unclear statement in our encyclopedia? Would Britannica (which I don't even consider to be a great encyclopedia) keep something like this in their encyclopedia that is unclear and not true. I don't think so. Why do people have to go to Wikipedia to see that Trouser Press describes the album this way?

It is my hope given that I showed conclusive proof that our entry is wrong and since the conservapedia commandments state that everything you post in a article must be verifiable and true that this sentence would be removed. Clearly, there is no reason to keep it as is. The statement is both unclear and untrue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I clarified my previous post. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:13, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::Uh, deception is the act of deceiving, and a search for deceit at wikipedia now redirects to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit deception], an article which has been around since 2002. This article does give a definition of what deceit is and gives examples of deceit in various circumstances. It seems that all along there has been a page covering deceit, and it was simply a mistake of an editor in redirecting the exact word to the wrong page. Furthermore, WP only says that deceit is an album in the same way someone could say that Evolution is a 2002 movie, and it is impossible for anyone looking for information on deceit to come across it, and even if they did there is now a link to the correct article at the top of the page. Hopefully this entry can be corrected [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:25, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Um, you describe a change in Wikipedia's redirect ''in reaction to the criticism raised here''. Before we raised the point, Wikipedia redirected "deceit" to a different term having a different meaning. Credit us for the change at Wikipedia, if you're going to be fair. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:25, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Still a couple of issues with the entry:

* The bit on deceit (album) doesn't demonstrate an example of bias, given that it is pretty much impossible for someone searching for the other definition of deceit to stumble across it (the only backlinks are from project or music related pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Deceit_%28album%29] and a search for deceit is a redirect). This entry is on par with saying WP has an article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28movie%29 Evolution (film)] which describes it as "reminiscent of Reitman's Ghostbusters" or an article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory_%28album%29 Conspiracy Theory (album)], which states it has sold 20,000 copies to date. Neither of these would have any bearing on critism of the Evolution or Conspiracy Theory articles on WP just the same as the article on the album deceit has no bearing on wikipedia's choice to redirect the word to a separate article
* To say wikipedia does not have an entry on the exact word "deceit" is the same as criticising conservapedia for not having an entry on [[deception]] (note the redirect to deceit). The two words are interchangable and have pretty much the same meaning (deception is the act of deceit)
* The redirect was changed 7 times in two days, however three of these were acts of vandalism and three more were reversions of this vandalism. Only one actually served to redirect the page to the correct site. Also, saying that it was done by a WP in response to CP's criticisms can give the image of lower standards on this site, because as clearly stated in #1 anyone can edit wikipedia, and CP editors could (if they wanted to) have changed the redirect to the proper word
* The first line of the WP entry states "Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not necessarily true". The first line of the CP entry states "Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another." Both of these provide a clear definition, it's just a question of whether one is biased or not
* Everyone is welcome to add to WP, if you don't feel that the entry on deceit contains enough examples then try adding some, just remember quality over quantity and that an encyclopedia article does not need every single case of deceit to explain it (it may contain a few examples to clarify the definition, and if necessary a historic recount of deception. The proper entry would be "List of Acts of Deceit")
[[User:EQ|EQ]] 00:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia encourages silly entries on obscure and [[liberal]] albums to build traffic. Yes, this does reflect its bias. Wikipedia encourages edits by anonymous IP addresses that lead to pervasive [[liberal]] vandalism. Yes, this does reflect bias. Wikipedia changed its redirect for [[deceit]] only after we complained here. Case closed.

: The excuses made for Wikipedia are getting tiresome, but have led to an addition of another point in [[liberal style]]: [[liberals]] don't believe in accountability. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:37, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:: With all due respect your post failed to address many of my points. In short:
::* A new entry should be created on "silly entries on obscure and liberal albums" and the deceit (album) moved to there, at the moment it does nothing to contribute where it is
::* WP does not have an entry on the deceit just as CP does not have an entry on deception. The two words are interchangable and mean pretty much the same thing
::* The article does have a clear definition, it should be more a question of whether this definition is biased or not
::* The article does not have many example as it is not a "List of acts of deception". Examples are used only to clarify the point, quality over quantity
:: Please do not mistake this for making excuses on WP's behalf, I am merely trying to clarify this entry on the list and prevent any accusations of bias again CP [[User:EQ|EQ]] 00:44, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:::*''WP entry states "Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not necessarily true".
:::*''CP entry states "Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another."
::::This is exactly the point. WP fails to highlight the moral aspects of deceit (or deception if you wish), or make a judgement worthy of condemnation. WP's entry on Murder for example says, "Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the '''elements of malice aforethought''''" CP's entry on deceit uses '''"deliberate."''' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: Rob is exactly right. Wikipedia conceals the intentional wrongdoing and immoral conduct at the center of [[deceit]]. Note also that Wikipedia changed its redirect for the term deceit in response to the criticism here in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia needs to change further its entry for deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::Is there some alternate wording (which you would allow me to insert to Wikipedia as GFDL) which might solve this problem? One major semantic problem I see with changing the current wording is that it is possible to deceive by accident without moral slight - the Wikipedia entry's alleged lack of morality is partly based on this. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 17:33, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

=="philanthropist"==
[[Image:Elizabethannduke.JPG|thumb|300px|right|A Wikipedia "philanthropist." [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/dt/duke_ea.htm]]]
Wikipedia calls terrorists "philanthropists." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Ann_Duke&diff=prev&oldid=83051994] This has been in there since the article was created in May 2006. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Ann_Duke&oldid=55173134]

:Uhm... Whats the point? She might have been an philanthropists allso. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:00, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
::Wouldn't "alleged philanthropist" be appropriate; after all, just cause the FBI calls someone a spy or terrorist doesn't mean they're a spy or terrorist. We all know how incompetent FBI field investigators are, and I know firsthand how you cannot cite the FBI verbatim in Wikipedia, even when the FBI declares it has verifiable facts. Wikipedia still requires "alleged to's" and "supposedly's". [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:15, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Im still not quite sure what you are after, is the problem that she is called allso an philanthropist or that she isn't called a terrorist, alltho the article lists half a page her crimes? If thats the case, I can't see whats the obsession for naming people terrorists, she might be just that, but everyone can see that by just looking what she is accused from. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:35, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: There is no support for the far-fetched claim that she is a "philanthropist". Without support for such an incredible claim, why is it there??? Well, obviously, there are political reasons for sugar-coating violent liberal extremism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
While the claim of her being an philanthropist could certainly use an citation, im not so sure if the reason for it being there is an communist conspiracy of first making her look good and then spending rest of the article listing her crimes, and uhm... Liberal extremism??? Mayby you are bit jumping to conclusions here... [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:53, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::The "May 19" group (so named for it being Mao's and Malcolm Little's birthday), advocated the violent overthrow of the United States. While she '''is''' a terrorist, she's a low key and minor one. More concerned with how to stay out of jail than with coming to power, she is be no means a philanthropist. [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 18:03, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

User talk:ChetGustavson

2007-09-15T20:24:11Z

Samwell: sign please?

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:53, 13 September 2007 (EDT)}}

Please remember to "sign" your talk page comments with four tildes, <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, to sign and timestamp your posts. Thank you.[[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 16:24, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Sexual discrimination

2007-09-15T19:56:58Z

Samwell: /* Celtish: We really need to substantiate these claims by discussing them on the talkpage. */

This article is desperately in need of some citation and quotation. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:48, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

I am ''extremely'' skeptical about some of the allegations in the "33 indicators" section (especially the percent of wealth controlled -- how do they define "control?"). Please provide some substantiation -- thanks. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:08, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Robert Sheaffer ==

Thank you. Statistics come from [[Robert Sheaffer]] an acknowledged researcher. I have added a [[Robert Sheaffer]] page which has a lead to his website.

== working version ==

1. WEALTH: Women hold 65% of the country's wealth [Fortune Magazine]
* cite? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
2. CHILD CUSTODY: Women receive custody of 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy, and men only 4%. [U.S. Department of Health & Human Services]
* This needs to be corrected for the fact that most men don't ''want'' the kids. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
3. INCOME: Men constitute 60% of workplace hours, work longer hours, work harder, and are more qualified, rarely file sexual discrimination or harassment lawsuits or take pregnancy leave, yet earn only 42% more than women [U.S. Dept. of Labor]
* Please substantiate your claim that men work harder are are more qualified. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

4. SUICIDE: Men's suicide rate is 4.6 times higher than women's [Dept. of Health & Human Services - 26,710 males vs 5,700 females]
* How is this sexism? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

5. LIFE EXPECTANCY: Men's life expectancy is seven years shorter than women's [National Center for Health Statistics - males 72.3 yrs vs. females 79 yrs] yet receive only 35% of government expenditures for health care and medical costs.
* This stat is misleading. Men are notoriously less apt to avail themselves of medical care. My grandpa was so stubborn he let his toe rot with gangrene! Plus, this doesn't take into account pregnancy expenses for women, and the fact that those last 7 years of life are very medically expensive for women. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

6. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Men are discriminated against BY DESIGN through so-called 'affirmative action'.
* More specific? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

7. FEDERAL TAXES: Even though men pay 115% of federal income taxes women constitute 11% more of the voters.
* Men pay 115% of federal income taxes? What does that mean? And how is this consistent with your claim that women control 65% of the wealth? Doesn't this mean that men make more money? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

8. VOTE: Because there are 11% more female than male voters, males have little to no influence on how the male tax dollar is spent.
* But only 15.5% of congress is female! [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

9. WAR: Mostly men, not women, fight and die in battle [Dept. Defense - Vietnam Casualties 47,369 men vs. 74 women] while women sue the taxpayer when they have their butts pinched.
* How is this discrimination? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

10. WORKPLACE FATALITIES: Men account for more than 95% of workplace fatalities.
* Substantiate please. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

11. MURDER: Men are murdered at a rate almost five times that of women [Dept. Health & Human Services - 26,710 men vs 5,700 women]
* And who's killing them? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

12. JURY BIAS: Women are acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that of men [Bureau Justice Statistics - 1.4% of men vs. 12.9% of women]
* This is misleading because it doesn't take the facts of the cases into account -- what about women defending themselves?

13. COURT BIAS: Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal murder [Bureau Justice Statistics - men at 17 years vs women at 6 years]
* Again, this is misleading because it doesn't take the facts of the cases into account.

14. JUSTICE SYSTEM BIAS: Even though the amount of the average 'child support payment' due from women is half the amount due from men, and even though women are twice as likely as men to default on those payments, fathers are 97% of 'child support' collections prosecutions [Census Bureau]
* Substantiate this please.

15. WELFARE: Even though men are the recipients of less than 10% of all welfare disbursements, men are required to refund welfare payments made to women.
* Substantiate this please.

16. SECONDARY EDUCATION: Even though zero percent of American 12th grade girls were able to correctly answer basic maths and physics questions, less than one quarter of America's secondary and elementary school teachers are men.
* This can't possibly be true. 0%? Seriously?

17. HIGHER EDUCATION: There are more than 200 all-female colleges for women and now not one single all-male college for men. 5.8% fewer men than women are enrolled in 4 year colleges, even though two thirds of those who score higher than 550 in SAT Maths are males. In 1993 only 44.5% of college enrollments were men, and that figure has declined since then. Only 45.8% of of bachelor's degrees were conferred to men in 1992, even though 98.2% of the top fiftieth percentile of the GRE are men, and ZERO PERCENT of American high school girls correctly answered 28 out of 67 TIMSS advanced math questions. Only 38.4% of private 4-year college students were men as of 1990.
* Substantiate this please. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

18. LEGAL SYSTEM BIAS: 96% of physical altercations resulting in injury to a spouse occurs AFTER the date of separation. [Read: spousal abuse laws that pretend that husbands are dangerous discriminate against husbands when we know that only a very small percent of domestic violence is associated with them]. [Chadwick and Heaton, "Statistical Handbook of the American Family"]
* This cannot possibly be true. Substantiate please. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

19. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Even though study after study show that women are mostly the initiators of domestic violence, and 58% of the above mentioned physical altercations are initiated by the female, Congress passed the obviously anti-male VAWA and VAWA II which are known would make the problem far worse. [Read: despite the fact we discriminate against husbands in protective orders, women still cause more than half of domestic altercations because they know they can get away with it].
* Substantiate please.

20. CHILD VIOLENCE: Even though mothers commit 55% of child murders and biological fathers commit 6%, even though NIS-3 shows that Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors and men are imprisoned at rate 20 times that of women.
* Substantiate please.

21. FAMILY BREAKDOWN: The U.S. Surgeon-General notes that divorce is more harmful to a man's health than smoking tobacco, yet as much as $1.3 trillion of federal expenditures accomplish little else than undermine family stability.
* Substantiate this please.

22. WOMEN PILOTS: Even though women pilots have an accident rate four times that of men pilots, federal laws require that airlines risk the safety of passengers and hire women pilots anyway.
* Substantiate please. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

23. WOMEN DRIVERS: Even though the crash rate of women drivers is twice that of men drivers, and even though drinking alcohol increases the crash rate of men by only 5%, the majority of those imprisoned under DUI laws are men, and women are almost never imprisoned for their much higher number of non-alcohol-related crashes.
* Substantiate please. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

24. INCARCERATION: Even though feminists brag that 1.4 million American brides commit adultery, and even though women file more than 90,000 false allegations of rape, every year, only 99,000 of the 1.8 million Americans behind bars are women.
* Substantiate please. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

25. GENDER REASSIGNMENT: Male-to-female gender reassignment surgeries outnumber female to male surgeries by five to one.
* How is this discrimination? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

26. MEDIA BIAS: Few intact, healthy, male-headed families are portrayed in movies and on TV. Men, especially fathers, are portrayed as helpless buffoons. (See Media Portrayal of Men and Women)
* Who's writing the plots? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

27. RACIAL BIAS: The only people with a shorter life expectancy in 2000 than in 1980 are black men. Black women, who are regarded as being doubly disadvantaged, live 3 years longer than white men.
* Substantiate please. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

28: INSURANCE BIAS: While men's shorter life expectancy is a factor in higher male life insurance premiums, women pay less for car and health insurance, even though they make more claims.
* Substantiate please. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

29. DEATH PENALTY: Almost all Death Row inmates are men. Other than for Eileen Wournos, who was executed in 1997 for man-killing, no woman has been executed since 1954.
* Substantiate please. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

30. BREADWINNER BIAS: A man who earns less than his wife is looked down upon by his wife and by society, even though many social, political, and economic forces are coalescing to make this situation more common than it once was.
* Substantiate please. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:23, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Celtish: We really need to substantiate these claims by discussing them on the talkpage. ==

Thanks! [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:50, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, the entire articles seems to be from this [http://wiki.mensactivism.org/index.php/Sexism wiki], the source of which does not comport well with the [[Conservapedia:Copyright|copyright]] notice of the wiki we're currently on.[[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 15:56, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Robert Sheaffer

2007-09-15T19:35:44Z

Samwell: Uninteresting UFO debunker, small potatos

Jim Morrison

2007-09-15T19:28:52Z

Samwell: Undo revision 293779 by Special:Contributions/ZenBeatnik (User talk:ZenBeatnik)kept spelling correction

'''James Douglas Morrison''' (December 8, 1943 – July 3, 1971) was the lead singer in the iconic 60's rock band '''[[The Doors]]'''. Propelled to stardom at an early age and possessing a strong charisma and sex appeal, Morrison was an anguished performer wanting to write albums with deep profound meaning, but falling short of the expectations he set for himself.

Morrison was the subject of a bestselling autobiography "No One Here Gets Out Alive" which documented his heavy substance abuse which ultimately lead to his early death at the age of twenty-seven. Morrison's girlfriend, who was also caught up in the cycle of abuse, was murdered after Jim's death by another boyfriend.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Morrison, Jim}}

[[category:musicians]]

President of the United States of America

2007-09-15T19:11:01Z

Samwell: Made opening less "run-on", moved POTUS down

[[Image:Presidential seal 506x508.gif|thumbnail|right|300px|The [[United States]] Presidential Seal]]
The '''President of the United States''' is the head of the [[United States of America|U.S.]] [[Executive Branch]]. As the [[head of state]] of the [[United States of America]] the President is one of the most powerful people in the [[world]]. The writers of the [[United States Constitution|constitution]] recognized that they were writing a job description which, in [[England]], was and is filled by the office of the [[Prime Minister]] and position of the [[Monarchy|Monarch]]. At that time, the Monarchy of England did not seem to serve the common [[Homo Sapiens|man]] and the writers wanted to create a [[government]] that did.

==Current President==
The current President is [[George W. Bush]]. He is scheduled to leave office on January 20, 2009.
His successor will be [[2008 Presidential Election|elected in 2008]].

==Election==
The President is selected every four years by the American people, although not through a [[popular vote]] but rather through the [[Electoral College]]. This process makes the Presidency one of the few elected officials in the [[United States of America]] chosen indirectly.

==Term Limits==
After [[Franklin Roosevelt]] served a little over twelve years in office, [[Congress]] passed a [[Constitutional Amendment]] restricting future Presidents to two terms.

However if the Vice President succeeds to the Presidency, with no more than two years left in the prior President's term, they are allowed to run for two terms, raising the potential time in office to ten years.

The first President to whom term limits applied was [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]].

==See Also==
[[Vice President of the United States of America]]

==Trivia==
The office of the President at times acronymized to '''POTUS''', (President Of The United States).

==Presidents list==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!President
!Years
!State
!Party
!Vice President(s)
|-
|1. [[George Washington]]
|1789-1797
|[[Virginia]]
|none
|Adams
|-
|2. [[John Adams]]
|1797-1801
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Federalist
|Jefferson
|-
|3. [[Thomas Jefferson]]
|1801-1809
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Burr, Clinton
|-
|4. [[James Madison]]
|1809-1817
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Clinton, Gerry
|-
|5. [[James Monroe]]
|1817-1825
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic-Republican
|Tompkins
|-
|6. [[John Q. Adams]]
|1825-1829
|[[Massachusetts]]
|National Republican
|Calhoun
|-
|7. [[Andrew Jackson]]
|1829-1837
|[[Tennessee]]
|Democratic
|Calhoun, Van Buren
|-
|8. [[Martin van Buren]]
|1837-1841
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Johnson
|-
|9. [[William H. Harrison]]
|1841
|none
|Whig
|Tyler
|-
|10. [[John Tyler]]
|1841-1845
|[[Virginia]]
|Whig
|none
|-
|11. [[James Knox Polk]]
|1845-1849
|[[Tennessee]]
|Democratic
|Dallas
|-
|12. [[Zachary Taylor]]
|1849-1850
|none
|Whig
|Filmore
|-
|13. [[Millard Filmore]]
|1850-1853
|[[New York]]
|Whig
|none
|-
|14. [[Franklin Pierce]]
|1853-1857
|[[New Hampshire]]
|Democratic
|King
|-
|15. [[James Buchanan]]
|1857-1861
|[[Pennsylvania]]
|Democratic
|Breckenridge
|-
|16. [[Abraham Lincoln]]
|1861-1865
|[[Illinois]]
|Republican
|Hamlin, Grant
|-
|17. [[Andrew Johnson]]
|1865-1869
|[[Tennessee]]
|none
|none
|-
|18. [[Ulysses S. Grant]]
|1869-1877
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Colfax, Wilson
|-
|19. [[Rutherford Hayes]]
|1877-1881
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Wheeler
|-
|20. [[James Garfield]]
|1881
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Arthur
|-
|21. [[Chester Arthur]]
|188-1885
|[[New York]]
|Republican
|none
|-
|22. [[Grover Cleveland]]
|1885-1889
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Hendricks
|-
|23. [[Benjamin Harrison]]
|1889-1893
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Morton
|-
|24. [[Grover Cleveland]]
|1893-1897
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Stevenson
|-
|25. [[William McKinley]]
|1897-1901
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Roosevelt
|-
|26. [[Theodore Roosevelt]]
|1901-1909
|[[New York]]
|Republican
|Fairbanks
|-
|27. [[William Taft]]
|1909-1913
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Sherman
|-
|28. [[Woodrow Wilson]]
|1913-1921
|[[Virginia]]
|Democratic
|Marshall
|-
|29. [[Warren G. Harding]]
|1921-1923
|[[Ohio]]
|Republican
|Coolidge
|-
|30. [[Calvin Coolidge]]
|1923-1929
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Republican
|Dawes
|-
|31. [[Herbert Hoover]]
|1929-1933
|[[California]]
|Republican
|Curtis
|-
|32. [[Franklin Roosevelt]]
|1933-1945
|[[New York]]
|Democratic
|Garner, [[Henry A. Wallace|Wallace]], Truman
|-
|33. [[Harry S. Truman]]
|1945-1953
|[[Kansas]]
|Democratic
|Barkley
|-
|34. [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]
|1953-1961
|[[Pennsylvania]]
|Republican
|Nixon
|-
|35. [[John F. Kennedy]]
|1961-1963
|[[Massachusetts]]
|Democratic
|Johnson
|-
|36. [[Lyndon Johnson]]
|1963-1969
|[[Texas]]
|Democratic
|Humphrey
|-
|37. [[Richard Nixon]]
|1969-1974
|[[California]]
|Republican
|Agnew, Ford
|-
|38. [[Gerald Ford]]
|1974-1977
|[[Nebraska]]
|Republican
|Rockefeller
|-
|39. [[Jimmy Carter]]
|1977-1981
|[[Georgia]]
|Democratic
|Mondale
|-
|40. [[Ronald Reagan]]
|1981-1989
|[[California]]
|Republican
|Bush, Sr.
|-
|41. [[George H.W. Bush]]
|1989-1993
|[[Texas]]
|Republican
|Quayle
|-
|42. [[Bill Clinton]]
|1993-2001
|[[Arkansas]]
|Democratic
|Gore
|-
|43. [[George W. Bush]]
|1981-present
|[[Texas]]
|Republican
|Cheney
|-
|}

{{USPresidents}}
[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Government]]
[[Category: United States Elected Officials]]
[[Category: President of the United States]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:President of the United States of America

2007-09-15T18:43:21Z

Samwell: thoughts?

I like the change of color on the Presidents graphs that say when they lived, what their party was etc. Blue is a far better color than purple in this case. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:04, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
==Opening==
The first section is a bit rough, I'm going to do a quick rewrite and see if we like it better? [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 14:43, 15 September 2007 (EDT) PS I'm going to move "POTUS" to a trivia section below as well. SW

Executive Branch

2007-09-15T18:27:18Z

Samwell: Start

The '''Executive branch''' of the United States' government as enumerated in Article II of the [[United States Constitution]] consists of the [[President of the United States of America|President]] and those offices and agencies as delineated by law.<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/art2.htm]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:United States]]

Washington Irving

2007-09-15T18:13:45Z

Samwell: und std refs

'''Washington Irving''' (1783-1859) was a nineteenth century [[American]] diplomat
<ref>He had been a competent secretary and ''chargé d'affaires'' of the American Legation in London from 1829 to 1832 and a skillful and shrewd Minister to Spain from 1842 to 1846. (Austin McC. Fox, Introduction to ''The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and other selection from Washington Irving'', Simon & Schuster, 1962) </ref>
and fiction writer, best known for his story ''The Legend of Sleepy Hollow'' and the shorter ''Rip Van Winkle''.

He has been called the "Father of the short story". He was "first among American writers to obtain universal recognition abroad." <ref>[http://www.bibliomania.com/2/3/270/1820/21941/1/frameset.html]</ref>
When he was 26, his 17-year-old fiancee died. <ref>[http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/wirving.htm]</ref>
He spent 17 years in Europe. <ref>[http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/HNS/Indians/irving.html]</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Irving, Washington}}
[[Category:Authors]]

Weather front

2007-09-15T18:08:10Z

Samwell: und fmt

'''Weather fronts''' occur at the boundaries of two dissimilar [[air]] masses.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:meteorology]]

Weathering

2007-09-15T18:04:51Z

Samwell: und. fmt

'''Weathering''' is the process by which rocks are [[erosion|broken down]] by the forces of nature.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.

2000</ref>

A cemetery can be an interesting place to observe weathering. The death date on the tombstone tells how old the stone is, while the appearance of the carvings gives an impression of how much weathering has occurred. A typical cemetery will include tombstones made of several different kinds of rock, so rates of weathering can be compared.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:geology]]

Web browser

2007-09-15T18:03:01Z

Samwell: und

A '''web browser''' is a program used to load and display web pages on the [[internet]].

[[Category:Internet]]

Wiki Community Evolution

2007-09-15T18:02:18Z

Samwell: copy edit

The development of Wiki Cultures seem to always follow the rules of MeatBall Wiki, a research group who study online communities and their development and evolution based in [[Canada]]. Wikipedia and several other wiki projects have been the subject of intensive study for many years, beginning with Usenet Forums.

MeatBall Wiki's first law of Wiki Evolution States:

''Wiki based open collaboration communities always follow the same course of development, no matter where they start or what ideology they embrace. It has been said that all Operating System designers will eventually evolve any divergent Operating System Model into Unix similar to the Evolutionary convergence of '''carcinization''' with King Crabs and other Deep Sea Arthropods that all have adapted a common and simple design. The same can be said of any developing Wiki Community. No matter where they start, in order to achieve critical mass, social convergence will always limit the attempts, and the outcome will be no different than what has evolved into Wikipedia. Collapse is the inevitable outcome as the social ties become more critical to maintain a cohesive structure than the mission or content itself.''

[[category:wiki]]

Wiki Community Evolution

2007-09-15T18:01:15Z

Samwell: und

The development of Wiki Cultures seem to always follow the rules of MeatBall Wiki, a research group who study online communities and their development and evolution based in [[Canada]]. Wikipedia and several other wiki projects have been the subject of intensive study for many years, beginning with Usenet Forums.

MeatBall Wiki's first law of Wiki Evolution States:

''Wiki based open collaboration communities always follow the same course of development, no matter where they start or what ideaology they embrace. It has been said that all Operating System designers will eventually evolve any divergent Operating System Model into Unix similiar to the Evolutionary convergence of '''carcinization''' with King Crabs and other Deep Sea Arthropods that all have adapted a common and simple design. The same can be said of any developing Wiki Community. No matter where they start, in order to achieve critical mass, social convergence will always limit the attempts, and the outcome will be no different than what has evolved into Wikipedia. Collapse is the inevtible outcome as the social ties become more critical to maintain a cohesive structure than the mission or content itself.''

[[category:wiki]]

Fandom

2007-09-15T18:00:05Z

Samwell: und

[[Image:Wikia.png|right|thumb]]
'''Wikia'''<ref>http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia</ref> is a for-profit venture funded and run by Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] and Wikimedia Foundation board member Angela Beesely.<ref>http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/04/wikia_adds_new_.html</ref> It has raised millions in investments and reportedly enjoys preferential treatment by Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:wiki]]

Sunderland

2007-09-15T17:38:16Z

Samwell: und, added ref

'''Sunderland''' is a port city on the north-east coast of [[England]], formerly famous as a shipbuilding and coal exporting centre, and now for the manufacture of motor vehicles for Nissan. The city's motto is ''Nil Desperandum Auspice Deo'' (Don't Despair, Trust In God.)<ref>[http://www.durhamfreemasons.org/sunderland4114/3_history.htm]</ref> The people of Sunderland are sometimes known as ''Mackems''.

<references/>
===Reference===
[[Category:United Kingdom Towns and Cities]]

FBI Most Wanted Terrorist List

2007-09-14T00:21:23Z

Samwell: Undo revision 292734 by Special:Contributions/EdOConnor (User talk:EdOConnor)

[[Image:Bannermwt.jpg|250px|thumb]]
The '''FBI Most Wanted Terrorist List''' consists of alleged [[terrorist]] indicted by sitting [[Grand Jury|Federal Grand Juries]]. The [[Department of State|United States Department of States]] Bureau of Diplomatic Security has offered awards for information leading to the many of the suspected terrorist on the list through their ''Rewards for Justice'' program.

Individuals are not removed from the list unless they are proved innocent, captured, or it is proven with 100% accuracy that they have deceased. [[Osama Bin Laden]] is currently the number one most wanted [[terrorist]] on the [[FBI]] list, with a $25 million award for information leading to his capture.

==Current Wanted List==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Name
!Picture
!Indictment
|-
||[[Osama Bin Laden]]
|[[Image:Os1.jpg]]
|Murder of U.S. nationals outside the United States; conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals outside the United States; Attack on the federal facility resulting in death. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Adam Yahiye Gadahn]]
|[[Image:Gadahn.jpg|55px]]
|Treason, Providing Material Support to [[Al Qaeda]], Aiding and Abbetting. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/gadahn_a.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Adam Yahiye Gadahn]]
|[[Image:Teralnassert.jpg|55px]]
|Conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals; conspiracy to murder U.S. employees; conspiracy to destroy property of the U.S.; conspiracy to attack national defense utilities; bombing resulting in death, use of weapons of mass destruction against U.S. nationals; murder while using destructive device during a crime of violence; murder of federal employees; attempted murder of federal employees. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/gadahn_a.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah]]
|[[Image:Terabdullah.jpg|55px]]
| Murder of U.S nationals outside the United States; conspiracy to murder U.S. national outside the United States; attack on a federal facility resulting in death; conspiracy to kill U.S. national, to murder, to destroy buildings and property of the Untied States, and to Destroy the national defense utilities of the United States. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terabdullah.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Ayman Al-Zawahiri]]
|[[Image:Teralzawahiri.jpg|55px]]
|Murder of U.S. nationals outside the United States; conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals outside the Untied States; attack on a Federal Facility Resulting in death. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/teralzawahiri.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Ali Atwa]]
|[[Image:Atwa.jpg|55px]]
|Conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy, to commit hostage taking, to commit air piracy resulting in murder, to interfere with a flight crew, to place a destructive device aboard an aircraft, to have explosive devices about the person on an aircraft, and to assault passengers and crew; air piracy resulting in murder; air piracy; hostage taking; interference with flight crew; and placing explosives aboard aircraft; placing destructive devices about aircraft; assault about aircraft with intent to hijack with a dangerous weapon and resulting in serious bodily injury; aiding and abetting. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/teratwa.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Anas Al-Liby]]
|[[Image:Al-liby.jpg|55px]]
|Conspiracy to kill United States Nationals, to murder, to destroy buildings and property of the Untied States, and to destroy the national defense utilities of the United States. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/teralliby.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Fazul Abdullah Mohammed]]
|[[Image:Fazul.jpg|55px]]
|Murder of U.S. nationals outside the United States; conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals outside the United States; attack on a federal facility resulting in death. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/termohammed.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Hasan Izz-Al-Din]]
|[[Image:Izz-Al-Din.jpg|55px]]
|Conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy, to commit hostage taking, to commit air piracy resulting in murder, to interfere with a flight crew, to place a destructive device aboard an aircraft, to have explosive devices about the person on an aircraft, and to assault passengers and crew; air piracy resulting in murder; air piracy; hostage taking; interference with flight crew; and placing explosives aboard aircraft; placing destructive devices about aircraft; assault about aircraft with intent to hijack with a dangerous weapon and resulting in serious bodily injury; aiding and abetting. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terizzaldin.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Ahmed Mohammed Hamed Ali]]
|[[Image:Ali.jpg|55px]]
|Conspiracy to kill United States Nationals, to murder, to destroy buildings and property of the Untied States, and to destroy the national defense utilities of the United States. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terali.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Imad Fayez Mugniyah]]
|[[Image:Mugniyah.jpg|55px]]
|Conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy, to commit hostage taking, to commit air piracy resulting in murder, to interfere with a flight crew, to place a destructive device aboard an aircraft, to have explosive devices about the person on an aircraft, and to assault passengers and crew; air piracy resulting in murder; air piracy; hostage taking; interference with flight crew; and placing explosives aboard aircraft; placing destructive devices about aircraft; assault about aircraft with intent to hijack with a dangerous weapon and resulting in serious bodily injury; aiding and abetting. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/termugniyah.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan]]
|[[Image:SalimSwedan.jpg|55px]]
|Murder of U.S. nationals outside the United States; conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals outside the United States; attack on a federal facility resulting in death. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terswedan.htmFull FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Abdul Rahman Yasin]]
|[[Image:Yasin.jpg|55px]]
|Damage by means of fire or an explosive; damage by means of fire or explosive to United States Property; transport in interstate commerce an explosive; destruction of more vehicles or motor vehicle facilities; conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the United States; aiding and abetting; penalty of death or life imprisonment when death results; assault of a federal officer in the line of duty; commission of a crime of violence through the use of a deadly weapon or device. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/teryasin.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam]]
|[[Image:Msalam.jpg|55px]]
|Murder of U.S. nationals outside the United States; conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals outside the United States; attack on a federal facility resulting in death. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/termsalam.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Ahmad Ibrahim Al-Mughassil]]
|[[Image:Al-Mughassil.jpg|55px]]
|Conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals; conspiracy to murder U.S. employees; conspiracy to destroy property of the U.S.; conspiracy to attack national defense utilities; bombing resulting in death, use of weapons of mass destruction against U.S. nationals; murder while using destructive device during a crime of violence; murder of federal employees; attempted murder of federal employees. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/teralmughassil.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Ali Saed Bin Ali El-Hoorie]]
|[[Image:El-hoorie.jpg|55px]]
|Conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals; conspiracy to murder U.S. employees; conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction against U.s. nationals; conspiracy to destroy property of the U.S.; conspiracy to attack national defense utilities; bombing resulting in death, use of weapons of mass destruction against U.S. nationals; murder while using destructive device suing crime of violence; murder of federal employees; attempted murder of federal employees. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terelhoorie.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Saif Al-Adel]]
|[[Image:Al-Adel.jpg|55px]]
|Conspiracy to kill United States Nationals, to murder, to destroy buildings and property of the United States, and to destroy the national defense utilities of the United States. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/teraladel.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Ibrahim Salih Mohammed Al-Yacoub]]
|[[Image:Yacoub.jpg|55px]]
|Conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals; conspiracy to murder U.S. employees; conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction against U.s. nationals; conspiracy to destroy property of the U.S.; conspiracy to attack national defense utilities; bombing resulting in death, use of weapons of mass destruction against U.S. nationals; murder while using destructive device suing crime of violence; murder of federal employees; attempted murder of federal employees. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/teralyacoub.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Ramadan Abdullah Mohammad Shallah]]
|[[Image:Ramadan Abdullah Mohammad Shallah.jpg|55px]]
|Racketing Influenced and corrupt organization (RICO_; interstate transportation in aid of racketeering; conspiracy to murder persons in a foreign country. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/tershallah.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Abd Al Aziz Awda]]
|[[Image:Awda.jpg|55px]]
|Racketing Influenced and corrupt organization (RICO_; interstate transportation in aid of racketeering; conspiracy to murder persons in a foreign country. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terawda.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Isnilon Totoni Hapilon]]
|[[Image:Hapilon.jpg|55px]]
|Conspiracy to commit hostage taking resulting in death; hostage taking; murder of a United States national outside the United States; Hostage taking resulting in death; conspiracy to use and carry a firearm during a crime of violence; using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence; aiding and abetting and causing an act to be done. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terhapilon.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Mohammed Ali Hamadei]]
|[[Image:Hamadei.jpg|55px]]
|Conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy, to commit hostage taking, to commit air piracy resulting in murder, to interfere with a flight crew, to place a destructive device aboard an aircraft, to have explosive devices about the person on an aircraft, and to assault passengers and crew; air piracy resulting in murder; air piracy; hostage taking; interference with flight crew; and placing explosives aboard aircraft; placing destructive devices about aircraft; assault about aircraft with intent to hijack with a dangerous weapon and resulting in serious bodily injury; aiding and abetting. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terhamadei2.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Jamel Ahmed Mohammed Ali Al-Badawi]]
|[[Image:Badawi.jpg|55px]]
|Murder and conspiracy to murder United States national and United States Military Personnel; conspiracy to use and using weapons of mass destruction; damaging and destroying government properties and defense facilities; providing materials support to terrorist organization. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbadawi.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|[[Jaber A. Elbaneh]]
|[[Image:Elbaneh.jpg|55px]]
|Providing material support to a terrorist organization conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organization. [http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terelbaneh.htm Full FBI Wanted Profile]
|-
|}

==Also See==
*[[Terrorism]]
*[[Federal Bureau of Investigation]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm Official Website]

[[category:United States Law Enforcement]]
[[category:Crime]]
[[category:Terrorism]]

Talc

2007-09-13T23:31:19Z

Samwell: start

'''Talc''' is number '''1''' on [[Mohs Hardness Scale|Mohs hardness scale]], is a phyllosilicate. 
Phyllosilicates occur when the silica tetrahedra join together to form flat sheets. These sheets are held together by weak bonding between the free oxygen on the tetrahedra and so cleave easily. Phyllosilicates include both micas (biotite & muscovite), talc, and clay minerals.<ref>[http://www.museums.udel.edu/mineral/mineral_site/education/silicate/phyllo.html]</ref>

==Reference==
<references/>
[[Category:Geology]]
[[category:Minerals]]

Silicate

2007-09-13T23:07:30Z

Samwell: und

The '''silicates''' are the largest and the most complicated class of minerals. Approximately 30% of all minerals are silicates and geologists estimate that 90% of the crust of the Earth is made up of silicates. This is so since [[oxygen]] and [[silicon]] are the two most abundant elements in the Earth's crust.

The basic chemical unit of silicates is the (SiO4) tetrahedron shaped anionic group with a negative four charge (-4). The central silicon ion has a charge of positive four while each oxygen has a charge of negative two (-2) and thus each silicon-oxygen bond is equal to one half (1/2) the total bond energy of oxygen. This condition leaves the oxygens with the option of bonding to another silicon ion and therefore linking one (SiO4) tetrahedron to another and another, etcetera.<ref>[http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/class.htm]</ref>

The complicated structures that these silicate tetrahedrons form is truly amazing. They can form as single units, double units, chains, sheets, rings and framework structures. The different ways that the silicate tetrahedrons combine is what makes the Silicate Class the largest, most complicated class of minerals.

The Silicates are divided into the following subclasses, not by their chemistries, but by their structures:

*Nesosilicates (single tetrahedrons)
*Sorosilicates (double tetrahedrons)
*Inosilicates (single and double chains)
*Cyclosilicates (rings)
*Phyllosilicates (sheets)
*Tectosilicates (frameworks)

==Reference==
<references/>
[[Category:geology]]
[[category:Minerals]]

Silicate

2007-09-13T23:06:08Z

Samwell: format

The '''silicates''' are the largest and the most complicated class of minerals. Approximately 30% of all minerals are silicates and geologists estimate that 90% of the crust of the Earth is made up of silicates. This is so since oxygen and silicon are the two most abundant elements in the Earth's crust.

The basic chemical unit of silicates is the (SiO4) tetrahedron shaped anionic group with a negative four charge (-4). The central silicon ion has a charge of positive four while each oxygen has a charge of negative two (-2) and thus each silicon-oxygen bond is equal to one half (1/2) the total bond energy of oxygen. This condition leaves the oxygens with the option of bonding to another silicon ion and therefore linking one (SiO4) tetrahedron to another and another, etcetera.<ref>[http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/class.htm]</ref>

The complicated structures that these silicate tetrahedrons form is truly amazing. They can form as single units, double units, chains, sheets, rings and framework structures. The different ways that the silicate tetrahedrons combine is what makes the Silicate Class the largest, most complicated class of minerals.

The Silicates are divided into the following subclasses, not by their chemistries, but by their structures:

*Nesosilicates (single tetrahedrons)
*Sorosilicates (double tetrahedrons)
*Inosilicates (single and double chains)
*Cyclosilicates (rings)
*Phyllosilicates (sheets)
*Tectosilicates (frameworks)

==Reference==
<references/>
[[Category:geology]]
[[category:Minerals]]

Silicate

2007-09-13T23:05:38Z

Samwell: beginning

The '''silicates''' are the largest and the most complicated class of minerals. Approximately 30% of all minerals are silicates and geologists estimate that 90% of the crust of the Earth is made up of silicates. This is so since oxygen and silicon are the two most abundant elements in the Earth's crust.

The basic chemical unit of silicates is the (SiO4) tetrahedron shaped anionic group with a negative four charge (-4). The central silicon ion has a charge of positive four while each oxygen has a charge of negative two (-2) and thus each silicon-oxygen bond is equal to one half (1/2) the total bond energy of oxygen. This condition leaves the oxygens with the option of bonding to another silicon ion and therefore linking one (SiO4) tetrahedron to another and another, etcetera.<ref>[http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/class.htm]</ref>

The complicated structures that these silicate tetrahedrons form is truly amazing. They can form as single units, double units, chains, sheets, rings and framework structures. The different ways that the silicate tetrahedrons combine is what makes the Silicate Class the largest, most complicated class of minerals.

The Silicates are divided into the following subclasses, not by their chemistries, but by their structures:

*Nesosilicates (single tetrahedrons)
*Sorosilicates (double tetrahedrons)
*Inosilicates (single and double chains)
*Cyclosilicates (rings)
*Phyllosilicates (sheets)
*Tectosilicates (frameworks)

<references/>
==Reference==

[[Category:geology]]
[[category:Minerals]]

Topaz

2007-09-13T22:49:37Z

Samwell: fixing int link

'''Topaz''' is one of the hardest minerals rating an 8 on the [[Mohs Hardness Scale|Mohs hardness scale]]. Chemically, topaz is Aluminum silicate fluoride hydroxide Al2SiO4(F, OH)3 and is classified as a [[silicate]]. It is commonly used as a gemstone and its crystals can grow to a very large size. Topaz is commonly a shade of yellow or orange, but may also be colorless and is found in the blue and green ranges. Topaz is the birthstone for [[November]].

[[Category:Birthstones]]
[[Category:Minerals]]
[[Category:Gems]]

Mohs Hardness Scale

2007-09-13T22:26:54Z

Samwell: basics

The '''Mohs hardness scale''' for minerals has been used since 1822,<ref>[http://www.gordonengland.co.uk/hardness/mohs.htm]</ref> having been devised by Friedrich Mohs in 1812. It simply consists of 10 minerals arranged in order from 1 to 10. Diamond is rated as the hardest and is indexed as 10; talc as the softest with index number 1. Each mineral in the scale will scratch all those above it as follows:
#[[Talc]]
#[[Gypsum]]
#[[Calcite]]
#[[Fluorite]]
#[[Apatite]]
#[[Feldspar]]
#[[Quartz]]
#[[Topaz]]
#[[Corundum]]
#[[Diamond]]

==Reference==
<references/>
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Minerals]]

Corundum

2007-09-13T22:18:52Z

Samwell: Rubies and sapphires

'''Corundum''' is the second hardest natural mineral known to science. The hardest mineral, [[diamond]] is still four times harder than corundum. The hardness of corundum can be partially attributed to the strong and short oxygen-aluminum bonds. These bonds pull the oxygen and aluminum atoms close together, making the crystal not only hard but also quite dense for a mineral made up of two relatively light elements.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS:

* Color is highly variable. The color can be white or colorless, blue, red, yellow, green, brown, purple, and pink; there are also instance of color zonation.
* Transparency: Crystals are transparent to translucent.
* Crystal System is trigonal
* Crystal Habits include sapphire's typical six-sided barrel shape that may taper into a pyramid, and ruby's hexagonal prisms and blades.
* Hardness is 9
* Specific Gravity is approximately 4.0+ (above average for translucent minerals)
* Associated Minerals include calcite, zoisite, feldspars, micas and garnets.
* Other Characteristics: Refractive index is around 1.77; pleochroic (meaning color intensity is variable from different viewing directions); striations on parting surfaces.
* Notable Occurrences include Burma; Sri Lanka; North Carolina and Montana, USA; many African localities; several localities in India, and Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian countries.
* Best Field Indicators are extreme hardness, density and crystal habit.<ref>[http://www.galleries.com/minerals/oxides/corundum/corundum.htm]</ref>
<references/>
[[category:Geology]]
[[Category:Minerals]]
[[Category:gems]]

Front

2007-09-13T02:50:54Z

Samwell: und

A '''front''' is a boundary or transition zone between two air masses of different density, and thus (usually) of different [[temperature]]. A moving front is named according to the advancing air mass, e.g., cold front if colder air is advancing.<ref>http://www.weather.gov/glossary/index.php?letter=f</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Weather]]

Sydney

2007-09-11T23:46:24Z

Samwell: Undo revision 291183 by Special:Contributions/ISchlafly (User talk:ISchlafly)

Sydney is a port city and the [[capital]] of the state of [[New South Wales]], [[Australia]]. It is the nation's oldest and largest city, as well as its major business centre. Sydney lies on what has been described as "the finest natural harbour in the world". Other notable natural features include many beaches (most famously Bondi Beach and Manly), several national parks, including the Royal National Park and Ku-Ring-Gai Chase National Park, and several waterways including the St George's and Hawkesbury Rivers. City [[landmark]]s include the [[Sydney Harbour Bridge]] and the [[Sydney Opera House]].

[[Image:Sydney.jpg|thumb|The Sydney Skyline.]]

==History==

Sydney was founded by [[Arthur Phillip]], commander of [[Britain]]'s [[First Fleet]], in 1788 when he established the first European settlement on the continent at the site now known as Circular Quay. Prior to this, [[Captain Cook]] had visited Botany Bay (a few kilometres south of Sydney Harbour) in 1770 and claimed the area for the British Crown, coining the name [[New South Wales]]. After the [[American Revolutionary War|American War of Independence]], [[Britain]] decided it needed to establish new colonies to which it could send its growing number of convicts. Thus the plan to dispatch a fleet to [[New South Wales]] was drawn up. Arriving at Botany Bay, Phillip soon recognised that the site was unsuitable for a colony due to the lack of fresh water. The fleet moved on to [[Sydney Harbour]], which was more suitable. Phillip named the harbour Port Jackson, which remains the official name.

==Modern Sydney==

Sydney's metropolitan area has about 4.3 million inhabitants and ranks 67 in the world. Sydney is the 9th largest urban area on [[Earth]] in size (12,100 km2), spreading over 300 different [[suburb]]s. It is about the same size as [[Los Angeles]] in area, but has only about a third its [[population]].

The inhabitants of Sydney call themselves "Sydneysiders". Many Sydney landmarks, such as the [[Sydney Opera House| Opera House]], the [[AMP Tower]], the Queen Victoria Building, Darling Harbour and Hyde Park, are in or close to the Central Business District (CBD). Much of the rest of the metropolitan area falls into three parts: The "North Shore" is an affluent residential area north of the harbour; The "Eastern Suburbs", east of the CBD, contain famous beach suburbs such as Bondi and Coogee, affluent residential areas such as Paddington and Double Bay, and mostly urban areas such as Darlinghurst and Redfern; and the "Western Suburbs" are a mostly suburban residential area that stretches from the CBD to the [[Blue Mountains]]. The Western Suburbs are known for their communities of recent immigrants, especially from the [[Middle East]].

==Sport and Culture==

Sydney is a hotbed of [[rugby league]] and other sports, and the city hosted the [[Olympics|Summer Olympic Games]] in 2000. The hard-rock band [[AC/DC]] is from Sydney.

[[Category:Australian cities and towns]]

Weezer

2007-09-11T23:45:07Z

Samwell: und

'''Weezer''' is a popular power pop band. They are known for many [[Music|song]]s especially "Beverly Hills" and "Undone - The Sweater Song".

[[Category:Alternative Rock Bands]]

Whale shark

2007-09-11T23:44:20Z

Samwell: und

The '''whale [[shark]]''' is the largest species of fish in the world.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Shark, whale}}
[[Category:Fish]]

White dwarf

2007-09-11T23:43:51Z

Samwell: und

[[Image:White dwarf stars browse.jpg|thumb|White Dwarf Stars photographed by the Hubble Space Telescope.]]

A '''White dwarf''' is a [[star]] that is the remnant core of a star that has completed fusion in its core. The sun will become a white dwarf. White dwarfs are typically composed primarily of carbon, have about the radius of the earth, and do not significantly evolve further. Where a star ends up at the end of its life depends on the mass it was born with. Stars that have a lot of mass may end their lives as black holes or neutron stars. A low and medium mass star (with mass less than about 8 times the mass of our Sun) will become a white dwarf. A typical white dwarf is about as massive as the Sun, yet only slightly bigger than the Earth. This makes white dwarfs one of the densest forms of matter, surpassed only by neutron stars.

[[Image:White Dwarves'.jpg‎ ‎|thumb|left|White Dwarf Stars in M4]]

==Observations of White Dwarfs==
There are several ways to observe white dwarf stars. The first white dwarf to be discovered was found because it is a companion star to Sirius, a bright star in the constellation Canis Major. In 1844, astronomer Friedrich Bessel noticed that Sirius had a slight back and forth motion, as if it was orbiting an unseen object. In 1863, the optician and telescope maker Alvan Clark spotted this mysterious object. This star was later determined to be a white dwarf. This pair are now referred to as Sirius A and B, B, being the white dwarf. The orbital period of this system is about 50 years.

The [[Hubble Space Telescope]], with its 2.4 meter mirror and advanced optics, has been successfully viewing white dwarfs with its Wide Field and Planetary Camera. In August of 1995, this camera observed more than 75 white dwarfs in the globular cluster M4 in the constellation Scorpius. These white dwarfs were so faint that the brightest of them was no more luminous than a 100 watt light bulb seen at the moon's distance. M4 is located 7,000 light years away, but is the nearest globular cluster to Earth. It is also approximately 14 billion years old, which is why so many of its stars are near the end of their lives.

== Sources ==
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/dwarfs.html

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Widow

2007-09-11T23:42:04Z

Samwell: und

A '''Widow''' is a [[woman]] who's husband has died.

[[category:genealogy]]

Web design

2007-09-11T23:41:16Z

Samwell: und

Web design is the design of web pages, websites and web applications using [[HTML]], CSS, images, and other media. Web design is in contrast with web development, which includes web server configuration, writing web applications and server security.

[[category:internet]]

Spill-over effect

2007-09-11T17:59:04Z

Samwell: und

The '''spill-over effect''' is how increase union wages can cause a decrease in non-union wages. This can occur because [[employer]]s will reduce the number of higher-paying union jobs, causing those who lose their jobs to flood the labor market for non-union jobs. This increase in non-union laborers then drives down the wages for non-union jobs.

[[Category: Economics]]

Spontaneous Generation

2007-09-11T17:55:10Z

Samwell: und

'''Spontaneouse generation''' is the idea that living [[organism]]s can be spontaneously formed from non-living substances.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.

2000</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Definitions]]

Sprite (astronomy)

2007-09-11T17:44:32Z

Samwell: changed defintion from the soft drink to the scientific version of the term, und, ref, changed cat

'''Sprites''' are massive but weak luminous flashes that appear directly above an active [[thunderstorm]] system and are coincident with cloud-to-ground or intracloud lightning strokes. Their spatial structures range from small single or multiple vertically elongated spots, to spots with faint extrusions above and below, to bright groupings which extend from the cloud tops to altitudes up to about 95 km. Sprites are predominantly red. The brightest region lies in the altitude range 65-75 km, above which there is often a faint red glow or wispy structure that extends to about 90 km.<ref>http://elf.gi.alaska.edu/</ref>

===Reference===
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

St. john's wort

2007-09-11T17:38:26Z

Samwell: und

St. John's wort is a [[plant|herbal]] over the counter remedy to treat anxiety or depression disorders.
[[Category:Herbal Medicines]]

Standard of care

2007-09-11T17:36:34Z

Samwell: und

The '''standard of care''' is a legal concept used in the [[tort]] of negligence. To make out the tort one must establish: (1) that a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) the relevant standard of care relating to that duty; (3) that there has been a breach of the duty by the defendant; and (4) that the plaintiff has suffered damage as a result of the breach.

An example of the standard of care might be the level of treatment that a physician employs in treating a patient. If the care provided by the physician falls below the standard determined by the court and the patient suffers injury as a result, then the patient can sue for negligence. In ''Vaughn v. Menlove'' <ref>(1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 468, 132 E.R. 490.</ref> the standard of care is defined as whether the individual "proceed[ed] with such reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under such circumstances".

For professionals such as physicians, the standard of care is what a reasonably prudent professional would do under the circumstances. This "Bolam Test"<ref>''Bolam v. Friern Hospital'' [1957] 1 WLR 582.</ref> is used in medical malpractice cases.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Law]]

Star magnitude

2007-09-11T17:32:20Z

Samwell: und

'''Star Magnitude''' refers to the apparent brightness of [[star]]s.
== History ==
Stars were first classified by brightness by Hipparchus in 129 BC. He produced the first well known catalog of stars in which the brightest stars were listed as "first magnitude" and the second grouping was "second magnitude". This division went up to sixth magnitude.<ref>http://skytonight.com/howto/basics/3304516.html</ref>

In 140 AD, Claudius Ptolemy added "greater" and "smaller" within the magnitude to separate them further.

With Galileo and the telescope, it was possible to make out stars that were much dimmer than sixth magnitude.

== Today ==

In the 1800s, Norman R. Pogson proposed and codified magnitude to be a logarithmic scale where the difference between the first and fifth magnitude is one hundred times brighter. The ratio of one number to the next is the fifth root of one hundred, or about 2.512 - known as the Pogson ratio.<ref>http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~guzman/ast4402/lectures/lect06.html</ref>

== Examples ==

* Naked eye limit with a dark sky: +6
* Visual limit of a 12" telescope: +14
* Visual limit of a 200" telescope: +20
* Sirius: –1.5
* Venus: –4.4
* Full moon: –12.5
* The Sun: –26.7

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

State v. Naramore

2007-09-11T17:28:30Z

Samwell: und

In ''State v. Naramore'', 25 Kan. App. 2d 302, 322 (1998), the Supreme Court of [[Kansas]] overturned a conviction of Dr. Stan Naramore for administering large quantities of painkillers to two patients who subsequently died. It found that where there is a bona fide dispute in the medical community, then reasonable doubt about criminal intent exists as a matter of law. “[T]here is a reason why there has yet to be in Anglo-American law an affirmed conviction of a physician for homicide arising out of medical treatment based on such highly controverted expert evidence as here.” ''Id.''

The Tenth Circuit adhered to the Naramore ruling in reversing a conviction for involuntary manslaughter of a physician in connection with the death of a patient. ''United States v. Wood'', 207 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2000). “Well-intentioned but inappropriate medical care, standing alone, does not raise an inference that a killing was deliberate, willful, and premeditated.” ''Id.'' at 1232.

[[Category:Law]]

Chrysler Building

2007-09-11T16:55:09Z

Samwell: added ref, ref section

The '''Chrysler Building''' is a hallmark of the [[Manhattan]] skyline. Positioned at 42nd Street and [[Lexington Avenue]], the building towers over nearby [[Grand Central Station]], total height of 1048 feet.<ref>[http://www.archiplanet.org/wiki/Chrysler_Building]</ref> Appointed with huge [[gargoyle|gargoyles]], the artwork and architecture are the epitome of the [[Art Deco]] movement.
"The design, originally drawn up for building contractor William H. Reynolds, was finally sold to Walter P. Chrysler, who wanted a provocative building which would not merely scrape the sky but positively pierce it.<ref>[Peter Gossel and Gabriele Leuthauser. Architecture in the Twentieth Century. p209.]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
—
[[Category:Buildings]]

Chrysler Building

2007-09-11T16:40:27Z

Samwell: 1048ft

The '''Chrysler Building''' is a hallmark of the [[Manhattan]] skyline. Positioned at 42nd Street and [[Lexington Avenue]], the building towers over nearby [[Grand Central Station]], total height of 1048 feet. Appointed with huge [[gargoyle|gargoyles]], the artwork and architecture are the epitome of the [[Art Deco]] movement.
"The design, originally drawn up for building contractor William H. Reynolds, was finally sold to Walter P. Chrysler, who wanted a provocative building which would not merely scrape the sky but positively pierce it.<ref>[Peter Gossel and Gabriele Leuthauser. Architecture in the Twentieth Century. p209.]</ref>

<references/>
—
[[Category:Buildings]]

Talk:Joe Scheidler

2007-09-11T16:36:34Z

Samwell: Caps?

It may behoove us to move this to Joe '''S'''cheidler. [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]]

Chrysler Building

2007-09-11T16:34:37Z

Samwell: added ref

The '''Chrysler Building''' is a hallmark of the [[Manhattan]] skyline. Positioned at 42nd Street and [[Lexington Avenue]], the building towers over nearby [[Grand Central Station]]. Appointed with huge [[gargoyle|gargoyles]], the artwork and architecture are the epitome of the [[Art Deco]] movement.
"The design, originally drawn up for building contractor William H. Reynolds, was finally sold to Walter P. Chrysler, who wanted a provocative building which would not merely scrape the sky but positively pierce it.<ref>[Peter Gossel and Gabriele Leuthauser. Architecture in the Twentieth Century. p209.]</ref>

<references/>
—
[[Category:Buildings]]