Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-12-21T15:35:07Z

TrueGrit: Viewership

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::'''"The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system"'''
:: Huh? I doubt this is true, but if it is it is an example of enforced [[politically correct]] speech and nothing more. I ''never'' heard of "C.E." until about 1996, and even then in 1996 it was only in the context of a [[pagan]] writer openly hostile to the [[Christian]] basis of Western culture. If it is in common usage today, I would ask why, who decreed that it should be in common usage, who is promoting it, and what their real agenda is? "C.E." is a [[neologism]]. It was not in significant usage prior to the past few years, and probably not used at all before the 1990s. Use of neologisms is bias. I would go so far as to say that anything that came into common usage after about 1988, when the political correctness movement started becoming a significant force affecting the culture, is suspect because of the probable influence of [[multiculturalism]] and other aspects of the P.C. movement, and should be questioned at best and in most cases not used at all. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 22:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:" 'C.E.' is a [[neologism]]." That's true, and it's also true that "Common Era" dating catches on mainly with people who wish to remove references to Christ from daily life. (Laughably futile, as the date itself - still a reference to Christ's birth - is absolutely ingrained in the system.) Still, though prefer to continue using "A.D." and "B.C." because I see no reason to change, some tiny percentage of Wiki articles use "C.E." merely reflecting that a certain percentage of the population prefers that system.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::If I've added "bias" to an article, please give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making a personal attack for ideological reasons (as liberals habitually do). Ironically, liberals (when caught doing this) will then generally add insult to injury by claiming conservatives do what liberals actually do: again, without supplying actual examples. The term Democrats invented for this, the "politics of personal destruction", applies splendidly (or abysmally?) to liberals. I wish liberals would return to the roots of [[liberal education]] and use evidence and reason to make arguments, instead of groundless jabs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:54, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[meaningless blather omitted by sysop Ed Poor]
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.

::::I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.

::::Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:04, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

::This is a great example of the danger of ellipses. Maybe it was different when whoever wrote this, but here's what it says now: "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity." This is a true statement that few CPers would argue with. Young Earth creationism is mentioned in the next sentence, which makes this "quote" pathetically misleading and its attempted point laughably meaningless. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 15:08, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

RE your claim about Wikipedia's article JESUS H. CHRIST. It simply tries to be neutral, gives several examples and notes that it can be considered blasphemy. Get a life![[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Although this is the wrong place to bring this up, 'Alloco1' is right - the wikipedia page for 'Jesus H. Christ' mentions that the phrase is considered blasphemy.

== Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible ==

Terry, thank you for the reply; I will address the issues line by line.

To begin, I suggested that the nature of the Bible as a moral document makes reliance upon it as a historical or scientific document dubious at best, and a mis-characterization or overzealous cross-application, at worst. You reply that the Bible is good for any use, citing, of course, the Bible in reply: “every word written herein is properly instructive in any application” (2 Tim 3:15-:17). First, this is a circular argument, relying upon the Bible to confirm the veracity of… the Bible. Second, it’s a mis-characterization of the quote. The quote from the King James Version is:

{{cquote|All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.}}

Analyzing that quote, it actually backs up my perspective – this quote from Timothy asserts the applicability of the Bible to any moral question, and anything that “furnish[es] [man] unto all good works.” In essence, you prove my point: the cited authority confirms the Bible’s intention to be used as a moral treatise… nothing more.

And yet your assertion of universal applicability may be assailed from yet another angle. To paraphrase the hon. Justice Scalia, applying the Bible to foreclose inquiry into all fields of study – through a combination of your Timothy doctrine, and literalism – would essentially be the “dicta that ate the discoveries of man.” Your theory would advocate a holistic return to biblical law, biblical science, biblical medicine, and biblical life. I don’t know about you, but I certainly prefer my Excedrin to the Bible’s silence on the issue of headaches. Your construction, since it ends in absurdity, must fail.

And finally on this point, if the Bible was truly meant as applicable to all of life’s little problems, what must we make of Mark 16:18, which informs the “true believer” that he may drink poison without feeling its effects? A wise man will not test this statement, but will realize that it is intended as a figurative expression. However, according to you, since the Bible is applicable to any discipline, and must be accepted or rejected wholesale and literally, we are forced to conclude that true believers, like yourself, may drink poison unaffected. Would you like to test your faith? I don’t advise you to.

Your remaining arguments may be disposed of summarily. The fact of the Bible’s historicity on some counts ‘’cannot ‘’ be extrapolated to its historicity on ‘’’all’’’ counts. It has recently been proven that Herodotus’ account of obscure points of Italian history (that the Etruscans traveled to Italy from Asia, and were not native Italians) is correct, contrary to the findings of earlier ethnographers/historians/anthropologists. By your argument, since Herodotus was here vindicated, we must assume that all of his other findings are correct too… and yet no Cyclops has ever been seen in Egypt, nor has a phoenix been found. Perhaps it’s best to agree that the Bible is not a historical document, regardless of its truth on point in some circumstances, but is instead a moral treatise, and a valuable one at that.

And finally, I cannot believe that you would argue that because you have never observed evolution between species, it must not have occurred! For by your reasoning, neither God, nor you, actually exist! After all, I have seen neither of you.

I await your reply.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 15:40, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
All right, here is my reply in one word: Nonsense.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity. And in the process you deny what the [[Bible]] is. Did you bother to read the teachings of [[Jesus Christ]], and how He repeatedly alluded to the creation of the world--in six days? Six days of the familiar type, that is--not six "geological ages" or whatever the pretended flavor of the month.

I challenge you to find ''one single historical incident'' that the Bible records in any detail, in which the Bible got it wrong in any detail that it expressed. And you know what? St. [[Paul]] was bitten by a poisonous [[snake]] on [[Malta]] and felt no bad effect. Or didn't you read? And beyond that: the word about the poison means that you don't have to fear that which brings death to the body. To be absent from the body is to be in the presence of [[God]].

Which, of course, might explain why Christians consistently defended and repeated their testimony to the things that they had seen--including the appearance of [[Jesus Christ]] after His execution--even while the [[lion]]s were tearing at their flesh.

I'll go further: a holistic return to Biblical law, science, and medicine might not be such a bad idea after all. Dr. Joseph Mercola ([http://www.mercola.com/]) recently stated that conventional [[medicine]] is good primarily for diagnosis and the treatment of acute trauma--and little else. And as a doctor myself, I have come to discover that he is correct. And I am in a direct position to know: I recently lost my wife to colorectal [[cancer]]. Her doctors had to admit when pressed that they had ''no'' confidence in their own prescribed courses of treatment--and another doctor told me flat-out that conventional medicine has no good treatment for colorectal cancer--at least not when it has spread to the liver.

On the other hand, I have conversed with the relatives of people who had cancer that was far less advanced--and they achieved ''cures'' through nothing more expensive or complicated than simply changing their diets to a diet that has a Biblical basis.

The only reason I am bothering to dignify your screed above with this reply is that I would not have any other reader of this page ignorant of the extent to which I stand ready to defend [[Bible|Scripture]].

There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
edit to add:First of all, my deepest sorrows and sympathies about the loss of your wife. Cancer is awful, and cannot always be cured; sometimes all you can do is pray. But sometimes prayer isn't enough, and modern medicine has made amazing strides and progressions over oddly archaic practices, and will continue to make such strides. I have no doubt that, given enough time, science will progress to a point where innocent victims the world over can be saved. Keep in mind the thousands every day who avoid death by a little but of luck, but a lot a bit of modern medicine.

That being said, you still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.

But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:
#What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
#The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
#Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?

I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, ''res ipsa loquitor''.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
I concede nothing, first of all. Rather, your post barely rates the dignity of any kind of reply--and a point-by-point rebuttal is a dignity you have not earned.

I would like to answer your questions, however:

#A "Christian theocratic state" will only come to pass when [[Jesus Christ]] Himself returns to [[earth]] to set it up and run it. In that sense, of course that would be better than the New Baghdad Caliphate that [[Osama bin Laden]] wants to set up, because [[God]]--in the Person of Christ--''would'' be in charge, and not some pretended proxy with galloping paranoia.
#In your second point, you are essentially saying that American culture, democracy, and founding principles were and always have been secular. Only someone having a profound ignorance of American history would believe that. I refer you to Benjamin F. Morris' ''Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States'', now back in print after 140 years. And I repudiate the notion that "progressive thinking" has made America great. If anything, "progressive thinking" is dragging America down. I sometimes wonder whether the reason why America bears no mention in the book of Revelation is that America is to go up in smoke and flame and tear gas, and the forces of the Beastly regime ({{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=13}})--in all its secular inglory--are to [[parachute]] into America's largest cities "to restore order," induct all American residents into the New Secular Humanistic Order, and carve up America like a roast duck, to borrow a phrase from Sir [[Winston Churchill]].
#Yes, there would be a place for non-fundamentalist persons. It is just that that place would not include a position of power that forbids public prayer, proposes an anti-religious test for public office, forces taxpayers to pay for atheistic "education", [[abortion]], and other such bad policies, limits the term of a marriage to seven years (as a certain German member-of-Parliament has actually proposed), allows a man to divorce his wife for no better reason than that she will not grant him sexual favors on demand, allows a man to order the [[Terri Schiavo|death of his wife so that he can be with his "sweet patootie,"]] compels the military to allow open [[Homosexuality|homosexuals]] to serve therein, ''et cetera ad nauseam''.

And by the way: the rumbling you hear is the clearing of a Divine throat when you of all people, speak to ''me'' of all people, about prayer.

More to the point, don't talk to me about modern medicine. I know what it is capable of, and I know what it is ''in''capable of. You don't mess around with the Grand Design of the Master. But that is what modern medicine does. To give you an example: I got a mere two lectures on nutrition--and you'd think that doctors, of all people, would understand that the food you eat is as important to your good health as is the air you breathe. For all the training doctors get in human nutrition, you'd think the hoped-for future is one in which people simply take pills to get their daily ration of protein, carbs, and fats, same as they take vitamin pills today.

But of course, you never met a doctor who wasn't an evolutionist. And more to the point: your confidence in science is poignantly misplaced. I suggest a bit of classical literature to give you a sobering lesson on how science can go horribly wrong: ''Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus'' by Mary Shelley.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Dude, Frankenstein is a novel, as in... fictional. Sure, maybe science ''can'' go horribly wrong, but religion ''does'' go horribly wrong. Crusades, justifying slavery, fundamentalism, et al. And those aren't fictional.

Terry, I didn’t think you would go this far, but I should have known better. I should have expected the Rapture to come in at some point. I would like to recapitulate for those just joining us, about the myriad uses of the Bible in human life. I believe that the Bible is a good moral compass – after all, “do unto others…” is a timeless aphorism, and a fine creed upon which to live. Similar lessons of generosity are obviously important. As the foundation of a religion, then, the teaching of Jesus are quite fine indeed.

However, I confine the relevance of any religious text to these moral/ethical/religious boundaries. Terry, however, goes a bit farther:
# Science: where observed facts conflict with the Bible, these should be willfully ignored, debated away with poor, easily refuted pseudo-arguments, and in every other sense marginalized. Cognitive activity on the source of human origins is appropriately limited when it transgresses beyond the Bible, and potentially tramples on points settled by this text.
# Law: the law should freeze societal norms as they existed two-thousand years ago. Full return to this system is favored, presumably complete with stonings for adultery (which is defined as lust), and theft.
# Politics: from Terry’s latest post, we learn that human political affairs are irrelevant – after all, the Rapture is around the corner! The United States will soon be laid waste by the loving army of God… after all, a two-thousand year old allegorical tale about one disciple’s hate for the Roman Empire says so. This idea actually passes beyond superficiality to become full-blown dangerous idiocy.
# Religion: the Bible explains all of religion, at face value, and requires no deeper quest for knowledge than a cursory read-through. After all, literalism will supply all the answers, all the time. So much for the liberal arts (I guess the term does have the word “liberal” in it).
# Medicine: see “science.”

In short, the answer to all of life’s questions – all of those issues which God endowed us with the faculties to resolve – are answered (and answered definitively, without further need of inquest) by the Bible. The life of the mind is justly circumscribed by the four corners of a six-thousand-plus year old document which makes no attempt to actually speak to some of these issues. Exploration beyond these lines is at best valueless, but at worst ungodly, blasphemous and sinful.

Terry, this actually saddens me. Religion ought to be a transformative experience, liberating the human soul to allow the mind to expand more fully, of the type explored by the early Church fathers. But your “faith” rewrites Christianity into a religion of repose, where all questions are answered, and humanity need now only sit and wait for the next step. Humanity, under this creed, would stagnate: the dying Keats described himself as a man whose name was “writ in water” – impermanent, fleeting, and inconsequential. To you, the entire human race, and indeed the human mind, might as well be writ in water, with such control and self-determination given up to an inflexible document.

What shallow faith, if so it can even be called! To think that God could be found more in blind obedience than in inquest and discovery! How… limiting!-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
----
Well, let [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] be sad, if that's what he wants to be.

#I repudiate the notion that I am ignoring observed fact. ''What observed fact?'' The facts that ''I'' have observed is that many proponents of evolution have committed fraud, trying to show the existence of missing links that are still missing. [[Piltdown Man]], anyone? I also observe that, for the first time, proponents of evolution think they have scored a point by declaring that evolution is not a random walk. Well, you could have fooled a lot of people who have read [[Richard Dawkins]]' books.
::I tried to stay out of this, but Darwinian evolution was never portrayed as a random walk. At least not by supporters. I hope I can stay out of the rest of your discussion, and continue watching. [[User:Order|Order]] 12:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
#The particularly harsh penalties in Leviticus, for example, are in the context of a particular group of people who actually ''had the privilege of having [[God]] in a sample of His Glory actually residing in their camp.'' With that privilege came a tremendous burden. You do not approach a Holy God in the wrong way. Thankfully, [[Jesus Christ]] provided a bridge--and a different mandate to His followers. We do not ''set ourselves apart'' from the world, quite as the ancient Hebrews under [[Moses]] did--but we do refuse to participate in the world's muddy customs. And that's where the "societal norms" come in: those are ways of relating to one another that have stood the test of time. The decline of those "norms" has brought nothing but grief and a constant quest for a satisfaction that never comes--or when it does, it lasts no longer than does a [[drug]] fix.
#Yes, indeed, the [[Bible]] does contain prophecies that remain unfulfilled. Chief among them is that a one-world federation will take power. But it will have nothing to do with God's army. That battle will come later--at a site that [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] once declared to be a wonderful place to have a battle. But before then--if anyone reading this seriously thinks that the [[United States of America]] has become a dictatorial regime under its current President, [[George W. Bush]], let them think again. A leader is coming who will make [[Adolf Hitler]] look like a beginner, and [[Nero]] look like a total piker. Revelation was no allegory for attacks against [[Rome]]--it was a memorandum of things to come.
#Of course the [[Bible]] explains everything. And what does it profit a man to "explore" a smelly swamp?
#As I have said before--and as the archives of this page will show--I am better qualified to talk about what modern medicine can and cannot do, should and should not do, than are some people who pretend to be champions of scientific and medical knowledge.

And as for Frankenstein--well, even Mary Shelley would have been horrified at the spectacle of [[abortion]] on demand, high-tech designer babies, "treatments" for [[cancer]] that burn your body from the inside out and end up failing anyway, and certain research orientations that are just flat-out unmentionable on a family-friendly site. I further maintain that [[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]]'s confidence in science exactly mirrors that of the proud and arrogant Baron Frankenstein who decided to "bestow animation on lifeless matter" and ended up creating the eventual murderer of his wife and many of his loved ones.
----
Off of your #1, though, I wasn't aware that a few failures in the intellectual history of a movement impugned the entire thing. Of course we can cross apply that logic, and Christianity sure ends up looking pretty badly, after people like Eric Rudolph are factored in.

As for the rest, I really think enough has been said here. Your arguments have been broken down for the world to see how ridiculous they really are, and will speak for themselves, and conjure their own rebuttals in the mind of any reasonably sane person. Please enjoy your intellectually dead life.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 12:41, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Homosexuality==
Wikipedia has separate articles on Homosexuality, Gay, Queer, LGBT, Homophile, Lesbian, Gay pride, LGBT social movements, Pro-gay slogans and symbols, Men who have sex with men, Queer theory, Gay Liberation, Coming out, Gay slang, and about 50 other articles on the same subject, instead of one single article on [[Homosexuality]]. One single article is all that is needed on a non-normative fringe subculture. Giving that one topic 50+ separate articles smacks of promotion and of implying unwarranted normativity to the phenomenon. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 21:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
:This site has about 10 articles on homosexuality. What should that tell you?-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 11:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:Parrothead, from what I can tell that's a pretty typical number of articles for a subject. For a comparison, a quick look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Christianity Christianity Portal] shows that there are thousands of articles on Christianity, most of which quite substantial. A search for "Christian" returns 4.7 times as many articles as this ''entire wiki''. They range from the obvious (Presbyterianism, Jesus) to the greatest of detail (ecclesiastical ring, Geneva Bible, Augustine of Hippo, Psalms 28).
:Before I get accused of a cover up, yes, there is also an extensive portal for LGBT. Combining the results of <code>homosexual</code> and <code>gay</code> and subtracting the quotient of <code>homosexual gay</code> and two gives a mere 1.4 times the size of this wiki. Of course, search results are fuzzy (Hans ''Christian'' Andersen, Enola ''Gay''), but you get the point. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:59, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::I was commenting on Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. If Conservapedia has a few articles with a leftist bias they need correcting too to make them NPOV, but in any case Wikipedia is clearly even more leftist biased than this encyclopedia ever will be. And Conservapedia does have a few articles with problems, mostly due to trolls from the far left who want to see this project fail. My position is this: For any NPOV encyclopedia, [[Gay]] should be a disambiguation article and nothing more, disambiguating to [[happiness]] and [[homosexuality]] as well as things like [[Enola Gay]]. The traditional meaning of happiness should be first and not any neologisms such as it's use as a synonym for homosexuality. Queer should likewise disambiguate to [[strange]] and [[homosexuality]], again with strange first on the list and the neologism use a definite second. "LGBT" and "Men who have sex with men" should just plain redirect to homosexuality. Wikipedia's use of "LGBT", a [[politically correct]] "'wimmin' first" construction, instead of the more commonly used "GLBT" has also not gone unnoticed. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:55, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm going to skip the response to MichaelS's comment. The gay article focuses on the uses of the word "gay," both historical and modern. That's why the original meaning is defined in '''the second sentence''' and there is an etomology section. A link to both a disambigation page and the Homosexuality article is kindly provided in the italicized text about the main article. Basically the same thing happens over at the Queer article, except this time the definition that means strange is given in the first sentence.
:::Terms like GLBT/LGBT and Men who have sex with men are not redirected to homosexuality for a good reason. First of all, most of the terms you listed are not synonymous. GLBT includes transsexuals and bisexuals, and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual. The other problem is that reasonably good coverage of the subjects takes a separate article for each one. If all of the articles in Wikipedia on the subject of homosexuality were put into one article then it would take Internet2 to get a decent download speed. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 17:10, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: ''"and Men who have sex with men includes men who are not homosexual"'' ?!? No, men who have sex with men is the very definition of homosexuality. I think what you mean here is it includes men who don't wrap themselves in the dominant "gay culture", to wit: rainbow flags, gay pride parades, drag shows, calling each other 'honey', feminine mannerisms and lispy speech, over the top campy attitude, obsession with divas, preference for Abba and the Pet Shop Boys over, say, Lynyrd Skynyrd and Hank Williams Jr., strong propensity toward mocking Christianity and treating it as something ridiculous, and obsessive identity politics and political correctness. Doesn't matter. If a man is having sex with another man he is, ''by definition'', a homosexual. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 07:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

*Postal, all are behaviors that are abominations before [[The Lord]]! You are at the wrong place if you think we are going to be held hostage by [[Wikipedia]] politically correct, revisionist terms. I invite you to make positive contributions, new articles, edits to them, and not on the talk pages! This is the fastest growing educational site on the Internet! Please stop this endless discussion over what the word "is" is, okay? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:56, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

If we have not done so already, we should put to rest the notion that "men who have sex with men aren't [[homosexual]]". This is a typical part of the [[homosexual agenda]], to spread confusion about the subject.

A "[[homosexual act]]" is what is forbidden by the Bible. Whether or not the motivation to commit this sin stems from upbringing or some (unknown!) innate factor is not important. If you are a "born [[kleptomaniac]]", you still have an obligation to resist the impulse to steal. Otherwise, societies everywhere will lock you up.

If homosexual behavior is due to your being crazy (as in [[kleptomania]]), you should be locked up in an [[insane asylum]]. If it's due to your wilfull defiance of what is right, you should be locked up in a [[prison]]. (That is, in any society whose laws derive from the Bible; everyone seems to approve of Islamic [[sharia]] law, so why not do the same thing here in Christian America?)

Whether or not there is validity to the notions that homosexuals are defined by [[sexual identity]], or [[sexual orientation]] or [[sexual preference]], the fact remains that homosexual ''behavior'' is sinful. When the temptation comes, you must dispel it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:Now that you've beaten a straw man, soaked it in gasoline, and burnt it on top of the highest hill in your general vicinity...

:The MSM article was just an example, it was not my core argument. If you would like to argue against me, I suggest you instead argue against these three sentences:

:#Wikipedia uses the Gay and Queer articles in a proper manner by giving an in-depth explanation of use of the words, both original and modern.
:#Decent coverage of the subjects related to homosexuality could not comfortably fit into a single article.
:#Some terms, such as '''L'''esbian '''G'''ay '''B'''isexual '''T'''ransgendered, are separate concepts and therefore require separate articles. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Please note that I did not mean ''should be locked up'' to be taken literally. Someday, when I'm running for Senate, this quote will be used against me. *sigh* I should have said ''bears the guilt'' instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:04, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Glad to hear you say that. Remember, locking up homosexuals has been tried before. I can think of one notorious example.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:29, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

==No Entry for liberal==

This is a continuation of the currently archived discussion under the same name. The original can be found under archive 9.

Ed Poor, there are many fallacies in your argument. 1st, you claim that Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal article, but it does. It has a page that references to many different schools of liberal thought. Yet you dismiss the obvious fact that it doesn't dismiss the existence of liberals, but actually goes so far as to list the many different liberal ideologies. How is this denying that liberals exist?

2nd, you claim that Archibalds' assertion that liberalism has seen many different changes throughout history is irrelevant because he should have realized "Mr. Schlafly" meant contemporary U.S. liberals. First off, how is Archibald supposed to know that? Second, if he were to know that then why do you choose to ignore the article (which I've mentioned) entitled Modern American Liberalism, which is listed only 4th on the liberal page?

3rd, how can you assume Wikipedia is an American literary institution that must abide by standards of the U.S. Democratic Party in it's usage of the term liberal, when you yourself have been forced to admit that the term liberal has many different geographic and time-based meanings? Do you decide to ignore the non-U.S. contemporary definitions of liberal and simply have liberal refer to modern U.S. liberalism? It does sound like there is an agenda here, but it's not on Wikipedia's part.

Lastly, why is Archibald a liberal? Is it because he is disagreeing with you? I'm just curious - since you seem to be the throwing the name around. I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings, but it doesn't mean I'm about to jump aboard the anti-Wikipedia "liberal" agenda bandwagon. Wikipedia, as a literary encyclopedia which covers worldly topics, is right on target here, and I see very little bias. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 19:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no

:This is a redirect to a "disambiguation page". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

:I would have thought that wikipedia didn't have a term for liberal because it is a world wide encyclopaedia and so has liberalism disambiguation. Also the brief definition given as evidence Wikipedia is biased is clearly not a NPOV and liberals in many countries think differently. Many liberal political parties in other parts of the world don't support tax payer paid abortion (whatever is wrong with that) and think that gun ownership should be a personal choice.
:Sweden for example has national service and at the end people keep the guns. Most people would agree that Sweden is one of the most liberal countries in the world if not the most liberal.[[User:Monkey998|Monkey998]] 23:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
What's the difference between redirecting Buddhist to Buddhism and Liberal to Liberalism? It's not like they're doing anything to hide the Liberal entry - I mean, otherwise the redirect wouldn't exist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Ubuntu Christian Edition removed from Wikipedia ==

I am the developer of the [http://www.christianubuntu.com Ubuntu Christian Edition] which is a Linux distribution geared towards Christians. Recently Wikipedia removed our page and replaced it with a redirect to a list of Ubuntu based Linux derivatives. Ironically almost all of the other derivatives still have their own Wikipedia entries. They cited non-notability as the reason for the deletion/redirect. However, even they admit that this was "against the public opinion. It is also quite obvious that Ubuntu Christian Edition has gained plenty of notability to warrant its own page on Wikipedia.

Below are some links to the ongoing discussion on the Ubuntu Forums and the, now locked, AfD discussion.

[http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=567836 Ubuntu Forums Discussion] 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 [Locked AfD Discussion]]

I would really like to have this added to the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page. I would also like to have a page for Ubuntu Christian Edition. I believe if you take a brief look you will quickly see that it deserves its own page.

Thanks, Jereme Hancock--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:07, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know anything about this, but suggest you post some entries here explaining what Ubuntu (what's the word mean?) is all about. Then others will revise and comment. This may be an example of bias on Wikipedia, but I'd like to hear others comment on this here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, will do!--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

'''What is Ubuntu''' 
Ubuntu is a community developed, linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. It contains all the applications you need - a web browser, presentation, document and spreadsheet software, instant messaging and much more. Ubuntu is free software. You can learn more about what this means by reading our licensing. 
'''What is Ubuntu Christian Edition''' 
Ubuntu Christian Edition is a free, open source operating system geared towards Christians. It is based on the popular Ubuntu Linux. Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support. 
'''What does Ubuntu mean?''' 
Ubuntu is an African word meaning ‘Humanity to others’, or ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’. 

That is the basics. Thanks, Jereme--[[User:Mhancoc7|Mhancoc7]] 22:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

: Sounds interesting. You might elaborate on the Christian version, and how it differs from the main version, in [[ubuntu]]. I'm intrigued.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:06, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
::So am I. I am a Linux user myself--except that I use Fedora.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:20, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

But Wikipedia deletes non-notable articles all the time. Does this really count as an example of bias in Wikipedia? I admit the bias there is often worse than I thought, but do they actually consistently discriminate against Christians? Sorry, but I think Wikipedia may have been right in this case, unless there is some evidence to show otherwise. Besides, I think they have experts about this sort of thing there (?).
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:56, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: This article was notable by their own claimed rules for notability. You can see what the article looked like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_Christian_Edition&oldid=162397757 here]. The article includes at least 4 sources. The deletion "discussion" can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ubuntu_Christian_Edition_%282nd_nomination%29 here]. The person who deleted is a clear liberal with an anti-Christian bias. He brags on his user page that he has donated to [[GLAAD]] the organization at the forefront of gay agenda. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:10, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Are you sure about that liberal part? According to his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alkivar#MY_ADMITTED_BIASES user page], he is a conservative libertarian, voted for Bush in '04 because he hated Bush less than Kerry, is a member of the NRA, and leans pro-life. He disclosed that he often disagrees with GLAAD, but donates because "homophobia is still rampant in the United States." He doesn't state a religion, but his edit history doesn't show a history of editing a significant number of religion-related articles, pro or anti. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 20:28, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

::: You are saying that he gave money to further the [[homosexual agenda]] and he is somehow conservative? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 20:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I apologize, I think I may have too freely given Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt, yet again. There doesn't seem to have been a clear reason for deletion. Off topic, though, do you believe that deviating from standard Conservative views on even '''one''' issue automatically exempts one from being a "true conservative"? If that were the case than no wonder there are so many liberals... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:54, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

: No, of course not, but giving money to GLAAD is extreme. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 21:13, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

:: For closure's sake: I suppose I understand where you're coming from, then. At the very least he would be considered a highly unorthodox [[conservative]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:16, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
*I don't really know. Perhaps we should at least invite them to make a page here. Feebasfactor, could you set that up? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:05, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Sure thing. Upon reflection, they deserve it. :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:33, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== possible bias ==

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps"
--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, that's typical [[liberal]] bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by [[user:KalleF|KalleF]]

== Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups ==

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.
:I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".
:Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.
:However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:::My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.
:::Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles ([[Atheism]], [[Homosexuality]], [[Theory of Evolution]], etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).
:::Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like [[placement bias]]) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated info ==
Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?[[User:KalleF|KalleF]] 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. A shorter list of more significant "biases" would do more to convince me than the paranoid diatribe currently available.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia in its article Politics of Eritrea clearly describes the country as a "one-party state", so quit the garbage about Wikipedia refusing to recognize the fact.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:18, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about '''1 1/2 hours''' with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his '''one''' previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

*Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.
::And there is a factual error in the entry: It did ''not'' take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins#Richard_Dawkins Talk page]
::That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have [[Special:Contributions/Stephenblack|User:Stephenblack]] editing [[Stephen Black]] and [[First Stone Ministries]] ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite [[User talk:Stephenblack|delighted]] about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== grammatical note ==

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], who's official website..." should read "whose official website." [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:And Committe should be Committee. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did." ==

Ouch. Is this a POV statement? Merely associating one with the John Birch Society is ''worse'' than McCarthy-esque destruction of someone's career and life because of perceived communist undertones? Knowing Conservapedia's user base wouldn't association with the JBS be flattery?[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 10:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps it should also be noted that three of those examples, as they remain in the present tense, are patently FALSE and have been so for some time. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:18, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Wikipedia removed the smear against the [[Democrat]], the deceased person and the baseball player. It left the smear against the most influential conservative group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::While I disagree that the association between the John Birch Society and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons really constitutes a "smear" (regardless of the publication date, the assertion is properly attributed, and at the time Paul W. Leithart, a President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, was in fact a member of the JBS), I will leave the definitions of what text and deeds at Wikipedia constitute "bias" up to you. I appreciate the adjusting of the tense in the example to be more factually and objectively correct. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Feebasfactor, as in our discussion about [[Richard Dawkins]], where you missed the point about how the purchase of a professorship is inappropriate, you seem to miss the point here. Guilt-by-association is wrong regardless of whether it is true. In fact, it is '''more''' wrong if it is true!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I think I understand... The association is not an example of "bias" because it is factually incorrect, but rather because it is unnecessary and misleading, presenting "facts" in such a way as to imply a false relationship and paint an unflattering picture of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That seems to make sense; did I... get the point this time? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. It is "guilt by association" to smear one group based on the possibility that some of its members belong to another group found objectionable. Did you know that thousands of Democratic voters are communists???? Yet you won't see [[Wikipedia]] using guilt-by-association to smear [[liberals]]. Instead, the biased [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] only.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

I did some research on the accusations about the Henry Liddell article. Though Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 is used in many articles, it was not used in the Henry Liddell article. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Liddell&diff=3213370&oldid=3213308 edit] that first inserted the names and social distinctions of his grandparents wasn't from Encyclopedia Britannica. This first edit was made in 2005 by an anonymous IP shortly after the article was created. The IP address has not made any edits since. The accusation about Alice Liddell were moved up into the introduction in February. The grammar error was also fixed in February. Last week the years that he was dean at Christ Church were written into the article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 19:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

: We didn't say that Liddell was based on the Encyclopedia Britannica, just that many entries are. And how do you know those edits didn't come from the Encyclopedia Britannica???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:: I know because I looked at the edit history in detail, compared versions, and saw the exact points where each relative was added in (they weren't all added in at once). Fascinating things, edit histories. That and the paragraph isn't in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

==Interesting study of Wikipedians' political beliefs==
I studied the political beliefs of Wikipedians after reading that you said that they have a strong [[liberal]] bias. I found that, although it's mostly liberal, it's pretty evenly distributed ([http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Pol-access.PNG see graph]). This should be incorporated into the article. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:12, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:That's interesting and surprising. And as an engineer I'll take graphs over words anyday :) Could I ask the methodology involved? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:29, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: The graph makes it look like all three categories are comparable in size. They are actually vastly different in size. Factor size of the groups into this, and you'll see that the 3:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives as stated in the entry here is about right. The general [[U.S.]] public is 2:1 conservative-to-liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Andy's right that registered users vastly outnumber administrators and bureaucrats; in terms of quantity alone, the ratio of liberals to conservatives probably does approach 3:1. However, this study raises another interesting question: if Wikipedia's administrators and bureaucrats are surprisingly balanced in their political views, then why does Wikipedia seem to have such a [[liberal bias]]? Does this mean that the population of casual Wikipedia users is predominately [[liberal]]? In which case: how much is to blame on the sytem, and how much on the public? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:Are there really so few moderates among signed-in users? I'd be interested in the methodology as well.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 21:03, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I simply went by what users put on their userpages, so it's not completely accurate. Perhaps certain people with a particular belief tend to be less likely to pronounce it. That's definitely a downfall, but it's as accurate of a study as one can get limited resources.

Also, I don't find the bias too harsh. You should see what people put on Obama's and Clinton's pages. If Wikipedia was horribly biased, I wouldn't edit there, as I certainly find myself conservative. I think it's just that it's uncensored and open, which may make it more liberal.

However, if you researched for your facts, then I suppose you're correct. I just try to correct biases both ways everyday. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Another thing: as for the moderates in regular editors, I suppose they're more likely to put their beliefs on their userpages if they feel really strongly either way. And the opposite goes for admins/crats: they probably want to seem neutral, so make sure to state that they are if they are, and maybe not give their true beliefs to avoid conflict. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Why does this matter?==
I don't understand why enumerating the examples of bias in Wikipedia matters that much, obviously every person has a bias of some sort, so every article written in wikipedia or otherwise has some degree of personal opinion. The general idea I get from reading this article is that Wikipedia as an entity is responsible for this bias, which is obviously incorrect since its the users provide the information it contains. maybe I don't understand what Conservapedia is about but it seems that this list is mostly filled with either misleading facts, isolated incidents, or gossip that has no place in a proper Encyclopedia.[[User:Morgoth|Morgoth]] 00:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia doesn't admit its bias, and hence it is important to expose it. And, yes, groups or mobs can have biases too. Spend some time with the attendees at the Democratic National Convention and you'll notice they have a bias, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

==Heavy Promotion of Liberals in Inappropriate Places==
I hope I'm not missing anything here, but while the "Boy Scouts v. Dale" articles still promotes liberal Evan Wolfson, I could no longer find the claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'" - it appears to have been changed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale]. Should I look for the appropriate version in the article history? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:Aha, here it is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885] Compared to Conservapedia, I'm always suprised at how long it takes to fix these sorts of mistakes at Wikipedia. Then again, considering the political slant of the "mistakes" there, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: I updated this within minutes of this being pointed out here, and within weeks of the change on [[Wikipedia]]. That's quicker than the time it took [[Wikipedia]] to reduce (and not eliminate) its bias in that entry there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Upon rereading the unsigned comment above, it seems to agree that the [[liberal]] "mistakes" on [[Wikipedia]] are very, very slow in being corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do! :-) And sorry about the signature. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:45, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

: My apologies. I realized after posting that I completely misread your additional (unsigned) comment. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The ''disambiguation'' page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part.
--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell me how the Oxford statement "was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)
==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

User talk:IanMacGillacuty

2007-12-21T15:17:17Z

TrueGrit: add signature

I wouldn't say that a liberal like me won't last long here, because I make it a point to carefully craft my contributions on irrefutable fact, and reference them when necessary. Besides, you misunderestimate my primary purpose here; I'm not here just to contribute, I'm a sociologist. I'm here to study the arguments that occur when there are edit wars over content. You see, I carefully document the language used by the liberals and the conservatives, and I'm looking for specific instances of educational stratification among other things. I like to examine the way people make their arguments. Today I was watching CNN, and there was a really great article on these two black labs the US Army is sending to Iraq to help with troop stress. (On a side note, I think this shows a great commitment to troop welfare BTW). But, what I found disturbing was that the SSgt who was speaking said "The dog has a natural uncanny way of reducing stress. It's kind of a magical thing. '''And huma- uh, Americans are dog lovers.'''" One can only assume that he was about to say that humans like dogs, but for some reason felt it necessary to change the language and differentiate between humans and Americans. I'm not going to speculate at this point as to what he could have meant, or why he changed it, just point out that the distinction was made. Don't you find that sort of language interesting? If you find these linguistic nuances interesting, perhaps you'll consider reading Noam Chomsky, he's a linguist you know.

In any case, it's nice to meet you. Cheers. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 20:14, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:I am Canadian. And, I wasn't overly bothered by your remarks BTW (in ref to the blocking below). I enjoy being challenged in that manner, it just gives me more reason to hang around. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:17, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Welcome to Conservapedia!! --[[User:Jose83|Jose83]] 17:17, 18 December 2007 (PST)

== Blocking explained ==

You have been blocked for one day for making trolling remarks on user talk pages. Please behave in a more civil manner from here on out. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:00, 20 December 2007 (EST)

User talk:IanMacGillacuty

2007-12-21T15:16:56Z

TrueGrit:

I wouldn't say that a liberal like me won't last long here, because I make it a point to carefully craft my contributions on irrefutable fact, and reference them when necessary. Besides, you misunderestimate my primary purpose here; I'm not here just to contribute, I'm a sociologist. I'm here to study the arguments that occur when there are edit wars over content. You see, I carefully document the language used by the liberals and the conservatives, and I'm looking for specific instances of educational stratification among other things. I like to examine the way people make their arguments. Today I was watching CNN, and there was a really great article on these two black labs the US Army is sending to Iraq to help with troop stress. (On a side note, I think this shows a great commitment to troop welfare BTW). But, what I found disturbing was that the SSgt who was speaking said "The dog has a natural uncanny way of reducing stress. It's kind of a magical thing. '''And huma- uh, Americans are dog lovers.'''" One can only assume that he was about to say that humans like dogs, but for some reason felt it necessary to change the language and differentiate between humans and Americans. I'm not going to speculate at this point as to what he could have meant, or why he changed it, just point out that the distinction was made. Don't you find that sort of language interesting? If you find these linguistic nuances interesting, perhaps you'll consider reading Noam Chomsky, he's a linguist you know.

In any case, it's nice to meet you. Cheers. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 20:14, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:I am Canadian. And, I wasn't overly bothered by your remarks BTW (in ref to the blocking below). I enjoy being challenged in that manner, it just gives me more reason to hang around.

Welcome to Conservapedia!! --[[User:Jose83|Jose83]] 17:17, 18 December 2007 (PST)

== Blocking explained ==

You have been blocked for one day for making trolling remarks on user talk pages. Please behave in a more civil manner from here on out. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:00, 20 December 2007 (EST)

User talk:IanMacGillacuty

2007-12-19T01:32:47Z

TrueGrit: fixed grammar

I wouldn't say that a liberal like me won't last long here, because I make it a point to carefully craft my contributions on irrefutable fact, and reference them when necessary. Besides, you misunderestimate my primary purpose here; I'm not here just to contribute, I'm a sociologist. I'm here to study the arguments that occur when there are edit wars over content. You see, I carefully document the language used by the liberals and the conservatives, and I'm looking for specific instances of educational stratification among other things. I like to examine the way people make their arguments. Today I was watching CNN, and there was a really great article on these two black labs the US Army is sending to Iraq to help with troop stress. (On a side note, I think this shows a great commitment to troop welfare BTW). But, what I found disturbing was that the SSgt who was speaking said "The dog has a natural uncanny way of reducing stress. It's kind of a magical thing. '''And huma- uh, Americans are dog lovers.'''" One can only assume that he was about to say that humans like dogs, but for some reason felt it necessary to change the language and differentiate between humans and Americans. I'm not going to speculate at this point as to what he could have meant, or why he changed it, just point out that the distinction was made. Don't you find that sort of language interesting? If you find these linguistic nuances interesting, perhaps you'll consider reading Noam Chomsky, he's a linguist you know.

In any case, it's nice to meet you. Cheers. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 20:14, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Welcome to Conservapedia!! --[[User:Jose83|Jose83]] 17:17, 18 December 2007 (PST)

User talk:IanMacGillacuty

2007-12-19T01:14:37Z

TrueGrit: New page: I wouldn't say that a liberal like me won't last long here, because I make it a point to carefully craft my contributions on irrefutable fact, and reference them when necessary. Besides, y...

I wouldn't say that a liberal like me won't last long here, because I make it a point to carefully craft my contributions on irrefutable fact, and reference them when necessary. Besides, you misunderestimate my primary purpose here; I'm not here just to contribute, I'm a sociologist. I'm here to study the arguments that occur when there are edit wars over content. You see, I carefully document the language used by the liberals and the conservatives, and I'm looking for specific instances of educational stratification among other things. I like to examine the way people make their arguments. Today I was watching CNN, and there was a really great article on these two black labs the US Army is sending to Iraq to help with troop stress. (On a side note, I think this shows a great commitment to troop welfare BTW). But, what I found disturbing was that the SSgt who was speaking started said "The dog has a natural uncanny way of reducing stress. It's kind of a magical thing. '''And huma- uh, Americans are dog lovers.'''" One can only assume that he was about to say that humans like dogs, but for some reason felt it necessary to change the language and differentiate between humans and Americans. I'm not going to speculate at this point as to what he could have meant, or why he changed it, just point out that the distinction was made. Don't you find that sort of language interesting? If you find these linguistic nuances interesting, perhaps you'll consider reading Noam Chomsky, he's a linguist you know.

In any case, it's nice to meet you. Cheers. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 20:14, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Canada

2007-12-19T00:59:03Z

TrueGrit: /* Military */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Canada pol99.jpg|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|''Canada''
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Flag
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|50px|]]
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Arms
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Canada arms.png|48px|]]
|-
|-
|Capital
|[[Ottawa]]
|-
|Government
|[[Parliamentary Democracy]]/[[Federal]] [[Constitutional Monarchy]]
|-
|Monarch
|[[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]]
|-
|Official Languages
|[[English]] and [[French]]
|-
|Governor General
|Her Excellency the Right Honourable [[Michaëlle Jean]]
|-
|Prime Minister
|The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]]
|-
|Area
|3,854,085 sq mi 9,984,670 km2
|-
|Population (2007 estimate)
|32,907,500
|-
|GDP (2007 estimate)
|$1.105 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2007 estimate)
|$35,133
|-
|}
'''Canada''' is the largest country in [[North America]], and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation. Canada borders the [[United States]] to the south and northwest. The country's motto is A Mari Usque Ad Mare, or "From Sea to Sea" (taken from Psalm 72:8 - "He shall have dominion from sea to sea.") <ref>[http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000001]</ref>
==Etymology==
The name Canada comes from the St. Lawrence Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village" or "settlement". In 1535, two Huron youths directed [[Jacques Cartier]] to "kanata", their village. The village they referred to was Stadacona, the future site of Quebec City.<ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, European books and maps began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during Confederation in 1867, and kept until the Constitution Act of 1982, when "Canada" became the only legal name.

== History and the Constitution ==
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
Canada was officially created by the signing of the British North America Act, which came into force on July 1, 1867. The BNA Act was an [[Act of Parliament|Act of the British Parliament]], and is also referred to as the Constitution Act of 1867. The first Prime Minister, Sir John A. MacDonald, was a member of the Liberal-Conservative Party.
The BNA Act was later amended in 1982 by the Constitution Act of 1982. The Right Honourable [[Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada at the time, also established the Canadian [[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] as part of the Constitution Act. The Charter sets clear, fundamental freedoms for all Canadians. It has been cited in thousands of court challenges and is the fundamental legal document supporting the national legalization of same-sex marriages and the prevention of government intervention regarding abortion.

The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The new flag was imposed by the Liberal government in an effort to appease socialists and Quebec Nationalists. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgement of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, 'O Canada', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

== Provinces and Territories ==
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A satellite image of Canada.]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government

== Government ==
The government of Canada is split into three tiers, as outlined by the BNA Act. The levels are Federal, Provincial, and Municipal; each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments.

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the lower house, known as the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [http://www.forces.gc.ca/ Canadian Forces]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system. The Prime Minister is the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, but it is not necessary that the Prime Minister actually have won a seat in that house.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].

== Present Day ==
Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]]. In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, and by 2010, over 50% of Toronto's population is expected to be a visible minority. {{fact}}

== Public Health Care ==
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for necessary surgeries depending on the nature of the surgery, and province of residence.{{fact}} The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system. However, the government under the Liberal Party was aggressively opposed to this. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition improves the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

== Secession movements ==
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Québec. The only movement of real significance is in Québec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

== Culture ==
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] cultures and traditions. In more modern times, Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by United States' culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, [[television]] shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States.

Canada tends to reflect more liberal ideals than the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances. [[Same sex marriage]] has been recognized by the Canadian government since 2005.<ref>[http://marriage.about.com/cs/samesexmarriage/a/samesex.htm About.com]</ref>

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada generally does not do well in the Summer Olympics: in 2004 Canada only collected 12 medals (3 gold, 6 silver and 3 bronze). This is especially astonishing when taken in comparison with countries that usually perform very well, such as [[Australia]], which, although it has 12 million less people, collected 49 Olympic medals (17 gold, 16 silver and 16 bronze). However, given the nordic nature of the country, it is no surprise that it finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

==Religion==
For the total population, approximately 44% of the population of Canada is Catholic, with a another 29% being Protestant (all denominations). However, while 16% of the total population has no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics), 20% of the population under 25 has declared no religion, which might imply that the younger generation in Canada is becoming more secular, but statistics world-wide always indicate such in the younger demographics. <ref>Statistics Canada - Cat. No. 97F0022XCB2001002</ref>

== Taxation ==
The average tax rate in Canada is much higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years. Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments. Additionally Quebec, the most populous of the "have not" provinces, receives the largest payments.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 6% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

== Education ==
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education. For example, Ontario has public, separate (Catholic), and private schools. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

The Canadian grading scale markedly differs from the grading scale in the United States. In the US, a 59% or below earns you an F, a 60% nets a D-, and 80% a B. However, in Canadian universities, only 49% or below is an F, 60% will net a C+, and 80% is an A-. <ref>http://www.federal-realestate.com/info-schools/mcgill-university.html</ref> This differs somewhat from their secondary schooling systems, where the mark F is absent and substituted by E. A are marks of 85% or above, B is from there to 75%, C is from that to 65%, and D fills the gap between C and E. This may vary from province to province. It is also important to note that comparison of educational achievement requires more than a cursory observation of grading scales. Perhaps a better source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, with Norway at number one, Canada falls in at number four and the United States ranks at 12.

== Military ==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force, the Reserve Force, and the Special Force (when so in service). The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
=== Political Party Websites ===
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]

Canada

2007-12-19T00:39:07Z

TrueGrit: /* Education */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Canada pol99.jpg|300px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|''Canada''
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Flag
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|50px|]]
|-
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|Arms
!align ="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: white no-repeat scroll top left;"|[[Image:Canada arms.png|48px|]]
|-
|-
|Capital
|[[Ottawa]]
|-
|Government
|[[Parliamentary Democracy]]/[[Federal]] [[Constitutional Monarchy]]
|-
|Monarch
|[[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]]
|-
|Official Languages
|[[English]] and [[French]]
|-
|Governor General
|Her Excellency the Right Honourable [[Michaëlle Jean]]
|-
|Prime Minister
|The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]]
|-
|Area
|3,854,085 sq mi 9,984,670 km2
|-
|Population (2007 estimate)
|32,907,500
|-
|GDP (2007 estimate)
|$1.105 trillion
|-
|GDP per capita (2007 estimate)
|$35,133
|-
|}
'''Canada''' is the largest country in [[North America]], and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation. Canada borders the [[United States]] to the south and northwest. The country's motto is A Mari Usque Ad Mare, or "From Sea to Sea" (taken from Psalm 72:8 - "He shall have dominion from sea to sea.") <ref>[http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000001]</ref>
==Etymology==
The name Canada comes from the St. Lawrence Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village" or "settlement". In 1535, two Huron youths directed [[Jacques Cartier]] to "kanata", their village. The village they referred to was Stadacona, the future site of Quebec City.<ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, European books and maps began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during Confederation in 1867, and kept until the Constitution Act of 1982, when "Canada" became the only legal name.

== History and the Constitution ==
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
Canada was officially created by the signing of the British North America Act, which came into force on July 1, 1867. The BNA Act was an [[Act of Parliament|Act of the British Parliament]], and is also referred to as the Constitution Act of 1867. The first Prime Minister, Sir John A. MacDonald, was a member of the Liberal-Conservative Party.
The BNA Act was later amended in 1982 by the Constitution Act of 1982. The Right Honourable [[Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada at the time, also established the Canadian [[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] as part of the Constitution Act. The Charter sets clear, fundamental freedoms for all Canadians. It has been cited in thousands of court challenges and is the fundamental legal document supporting the national legalization of same-sex marriages and the prevention of government intervention regarding abortion.

The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The new flag was imposed by the Liberal government in an effort to appease socialists and Quebec Nationalists. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgement of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, 'O Canada', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

== Provinces and Territories ==
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A satellite image of Canada.]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government

== Government ==
The government of Canada is split into three tiers, as outlined by the BNA Act. The levels are Federal, Provincial, and Municipal; each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments.

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the lower house, known as the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [http://www.forces.gc.ca/ Canadian Forces]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system. The Prime Minister is the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, but it is not necessary that the Prime Minister actually have won a seat in that house.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].

== Present Day ==
Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]]. In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, and by 2010, over 50% of Toronto's population is expected to be a visible minority. {{fact}}

== Public Health Care ==
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for necessary surgeries depending on the nature of the surgery, and province of residence.{{fact}} The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system. However, the government under the Liberal Party was aggressively opposed to this. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition improves the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

== Secession movements ==
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Québec. The only movement of real significance is in Québec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

== Culture ==
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] cultures and traditions. In more modern times, Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by United States' culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, [[television]] shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States.

Canada tends to reflect more liberal ideals than the United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances. [[Same sex marriage]] has been recognized by the Canadian government since 2005.<ref>[http://marriage.about.com/cs/samesexmarriage/a/samesex.htm About.com]</ref>

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada generally does not do well in the Summer Olympics: in 2004 Canada only collected 12 medals (3 gold, 6 silver and 3 bronze). This is especially astonishing when taken in comparison with countries that usually perform very well, such as [[Australia]], which, although it has 12 million less people, collected 49 Olympic medals (17 gold, 16 silver and 16 bronze). However, given the nordic nature of the country, it is no surprise that it finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

==Religion==
For the total population, approximately 44% of the population of Canada is Catholic, with a another 29% being Protestant (all denominations). However, while 16% of the total population has no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics), 20% of the population under 25 has declared no religion, which might imply that the younger generation in Canada is becoming more secular, but statistics world-wide always indicate such in the younger demographics. <ref>Statistics Canada - Cat. No. 97F0022XCB2001002</ref>

== Taxation ==
The average tax rate in Canada is much higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years. Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments. Additionally Quebec, the most populous of the "have not" provinces, receives the largest payments.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 6% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

== Education ==
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education. For example, Ontario has public, separate (Catholic), and private schools. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

The Canadian grading scale markedly differs from the grading scale in the United States. In the US, a 59% or below earns you an F, a 60% nets a D-, and 80% a B. However, in Canadian universities, only 49% or below is an F, 60% will net a C+, and 80% is an A-. <ref>http://www.federal-realestate.com/info-schools/mcgill-university.html</ref> This differs somewhat from their secondary schooling systems, where the mark F is absent and substituted by E. A are marks of 85% or above, B is from there to 75%, C is from that to 65%, and D fills the gap between C and E. This may vary from province to province. It is also important to note that comparison of educational achievement requires more than a cursory observation of grading scales. Perhaps a better source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, with Norway at number one, Canada falls in at number four and the United States ranks at 12.

== Military ==
The [[Canadian Forces]] have over 63,000 active personnel<ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>, equipped with modern vehicles such as German-built Leopard II tanks and American-built F-18 Hornets (which have been upgraded in Canada with new avionics). The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has put more emphasis on defence spending than the previous Liberal governments.

Canadian troops are currently deployed in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations.

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
=== Political Party Websites ===
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]

Talk:Karl Marx

2007-12-19T00:31:28Z

TrueGrit: Constructionism

I don't even know where to start with this one... did whoever write this article actually read Capital (or any of Marx's works), or is she paraphrasing Wikipedia?
:Really, opium was a good thing? That's weird. I thought that statement would imply that religion is a drug that desensitizes people... (In Marx's opinion, of course) I don't know too much about this guy, but from what I've seen, he looks kind of um... whacked. [[User:Mskreuz|Mskreuz]] 12:58, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== Sociologist? ==

Rob, why do you have a problem with categorizing Marx as a socilogist? Capital goes beyond being an analysis of political economy to an examination of the sociological effects (as Marx understood them) of that political economy. Please discuss. [[User:Claude|Claude]] 17:16, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:So, Is this the "poor Marx, he was misunderstood by [[mass murder]]ers" school of logic? We can save ourselves a lot of time and trouble right now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:38, 6 December 2007 (EST)

No, it's not - in fact, you can read my comments on that subject on the Main Page talk page, where I clearly disavow those sorts of apologetics. What I'm saying is that one cannot ignore the fact that Marx's work had huge impacts on several fields - 18th Bruimaire is a key historical text, for example - just because one (rightfully) holds communism in low regard. [[User:Claude|Claude]] 17:41, 6 December 2007 (EST)

:Hitler was a social theoritician too, with about as good a credentials as Marx in the field. Should we put Hitler in Category:Philosphers & Category:Sociologists? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::You appear to lack fundamental understanding of sociology as a field. Karl Marx was as much a product of his upbringing as you are. For the same reason the students who started this site believe in God, Marx was the person that he was. He is a product of his social interactions, much like the God fearing parents of American youth bring them up with the same beliefs. If you cannot understand such fundamental concepts of sociology, you should avoid editing any related pages. And thank you for invoking [[Godwin's Law]], you only further demonstrate your lack of maturity. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 18:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Are people in the academy still writing about his ideas and applying them to new situations as they are the ideas of Marx? Did Hitler's ideas lead to the work of such a large body of scholars such as Marcuse, Gramsci, Habermas, Jameson, CLR James, Padmore, Althuser, Benjamin, Lukacs, Fiske, Zizek, Dobnik, Foucault, Bhaba, Hebdige, Hall, Wallerstein, etc, etc.??? [[User:Claude|Claude]] 17:50, 6 December 2007 (EST)

As someone who has a degree in Sociology, I must state that in the field of Sociology we view Marx as one of three formative theorists. Marx works are extensively studied, and his views in respect of Conflict Theory are a major part of Sociological analysis. Rob, you should consider leaving the editing of these sections to people with some knowledge of the issue. Marx is a sociologist, and you cannot deny that fact just because you don't like him. Have you actually studied any of his work? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 18:40, 6 December 2007 (EST)

:Study ''communism''?? What are you, a ''commie''?!
:Joking aside, I would tentatively stand along the line that most everyone already knows that communism ''is'' bad, and that this article should focus a little more on actually explaining the theory behind it (and by extension, why it turned out so bad). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Constructionism ==

I particularly enjoy adding "Sociologist" to the bottom of this article once a week. Because, every time I have to do it, it reminds me of how much more intelligent I am than the people who remove it. I mean, they've not yet been able to produce a valid argument as to why it shouldn't be included. Please leave the sociology to the people with formal education on the subject. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 19:31, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Karl Marx

2007-12-19T00:23:57Z

TrueGrit: /* See also */

[[Image:KarlMarx.jpg|right|frame|Karl Marx]]
'''Karl Marx''' (1818-1883) was born in Prussia, educated in [[Germany]], and a writer in [[London]]. Marx was an economist who sought to set [[socialism]] and [[communism]] on, what he saw as, a scientific basis.

Marx saw "primitive" socialist thought as fundamentally a moral movement with no base in a practical science. Marx's solution was to ground an analysis of society on his principle of dialectical materialism.

[[Dialectic]] was a principle created by German philosopher [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] which, although ferociously complex in his works, is based on the fairly straightforward conception of action and reaction. A situation arises that is less than perfect ("thesis") which provokes a reaction ("[[antithesis]]"), eventually a settlement is reached ("synthesis") which, is still far from perfect and provokes its own antithesis. Hegel saw the driving force of changes being the "Geist", variously translated as "spirit" or "mind".

Marx took the dialectic and replaced Geist with [[materialism]], at root the [[metabolism]] of man. To put it bluntly: you've got to eat!. The difference between the ideal spirit and reality translates into Marx's view that man had become [[alienation|alienated]] from his true nature. Man had been created different from animals: he is creative, this is essential to his nature. However, in modern days, man is just automatically producing: he works to earn his wage, but has no tie to the product of his labor at all. This is the alienation from his true nature. Marx proposed a solution: outlaw wages.

The necessity for material sustenance gives rise to an imperfect [[means of production]], which changes as the internal contradictions of [[thesis and antithesis]] work themselves out. A key feature of Marx's theory was his contention that [[competition]] for resources splits society into mutually antagonistic classes ("The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of [[class struggle]]s.") whilst the operation of the dialectic serves to continually reduce the numbers of classes until, in the [[Industrial Age]], society was almost wholly split between "[[bourgeoisie]]" and "[[proletariat]]".

[[Capitalism]], according to Marx, is just one system in a long series of [[economic systems]] in the world. He held that a so-called "[[capitalist society]]" had strong internal inherent tensions. In the development of capitalism, [[capital]], which Marx confuses with money or [[currency]], would be increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. <ref>See his "Law of the Centralization of Capital".</ref> The difference in income between the poorest and richest would always increase. Through economic crises, the poor laborers could be inflamed to believe that the system would always be disadvantageous to them.

''Das Kapital'' (''Capital'') seeks to explain that the "bourgeoisie" make [[profit]]s by [[exploitation]] of the "proletariat." The exploitation arises where the value of the goods produced by workers is much more than the wages paid, and this "[[surplus value]]" is allegedly stolen from workers by the people who make it possible for them to earn a living. Marx sought to agitate class envy by alleging that the competition amongst the bourgeoisie forced them to exploit their workers as much as possible. If an individual bourgeois refused to continue the "exploitation" he would soon be forced into [[bankruptcy]] or be taken over by someone who would. The result is persistent low wages among the proletariat who, eventually, would rebel and replace the existing capitalist system with a [[socialist]]/communist system.

However, in his other works, Marx could not foretell if this fantasy would make an end to the capitalist system: he knew there are too many factors in history to make a prediction possible. He did not have a clear idea about what the next supposed stage after capitalism would be. The increasing concentration, he thought, would facilitate a [[communist]] system. In that system, however, man also would have to eliminate his "alienation." One possibility, which Marx imagined, was complete mechanization of production, so that any man could do any job<ref>Marx, K. Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, [[Berlin]]</ref>.
In the ''Communist Manifesto'', Marx went into greater detail about how this [[revolution]] would unfold. As well as proposing an economic system, Marx also advocated [[education]] for all including women and the lower classes who at the time were without any education.

==Critique of Marxists==
[[Mikhail Bakunin]] observed how rather than discussion of issues, the tried and tested method of [[leftism]] and [[Marxism]] was spread through the art of [[character assassination]], <ref>Guy A. Aldred, ''Bakunin'', Strickland Press, [[Glasgow]], (1940). </ref> close associates of Marx were adept in the art of
{{Cquote|cowardly, odious and perfidious insinuations. They seldom make open accusation, but they insinuate, saying they "have heard - it is said - it may not be true, but', and then they hurl the most abominable calumnies in your face.}}

===Views on Religion===
Marx' view on [[religion]] is mostly based on [[Ludwig Feuerbach's]] ideas<ref>Feuerbach, L. ''The Essence of Christianity'', New York, 1957</ref>. Marx is considered very controversial in religious circles for his statement, "Religion...is the opium of the masses." This was written in his 1843 work "A Contribution to the [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]" and expresses Marx's belief that religion offers a false palliative to assuage the suffering of "the oppressed", which in his view essentially blames [[faith]] in [[God]] as the hindrance to carrying out the Marxist program.

Karl Marx is often labeled an [[anti-Semite]] or a "self-hating [[Jew]]" for statements such as, "Money is the [[jealous god]] of [[Israel]], in face of which no other god may exist", "The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the [[god of the world]]. The [[bill of exchange]] is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange", and "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly [[God]]? Money."

== See also ==

*[[Baldomero Ortoneda]]
*[[Max Weber]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Marx, Karl}}

[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category:Sociologists]]

Karl Marx

2007-12-19T00:21:45Z

TrueGrit:

[[Image:KarlMarx.jpg|right|frame|Karl Marx]]
'''Karl Marx''' (1818-1883) was born in Prussia, educated in [[Germany]], and a writer in [[London]]. Marx was an economist who sought to set [[socialism]] and [[communism]] on, what he saw as, a scientific basis.

Marx saw "primitive" socialist thought as fundamentally a moral movement with no base in a practical science. Marx's solution was to ground an analysis of society on his principle of dialectical materialism.

[[Dialectic]] was a principle created by German philosopher [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] which, although ferociously complex in his works, is based on the fairly straightforward conception of action and reaction. A situation arises that is less than perfect ("thesis") which provokes a reaction ("[[antithesis]]"), eventually a settlement is reached ("synthesis") which, is still far from perfect and provokes its own antithesis. Hegel saw the driving force of changes being the "Geist", variously translated as "spirit" or "mind".

Marx took the dialectic and replaced Geist with [[materialism]], at root the [[metabolism]] of man. To put it bluntly: you've got to eat!. The difference between the ideal spirit and reality translates into Marx's view that man had become [[alienation|alienated]] from his true nature. Man had been created different from animals: he is creative, this is essential to his nature. However, in modern days, man is just automatically producing: he works to earn his wage, but has no tie to the product of his labor at all. This is the alienation from his true nature. Marx proposed a solution: outlaw wages.

The necessity for material sustenance gives rise to an imperfect [[means of production]], which changes as the internal contradictions of [[thesis and antithesis]] work themselves out. A key feature of Marx's theory was his contention that [[competition]] for resources splits society into mutually antagonistic classes ("The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of [[class struggle]]s.") whilst the operation of the dialectic serves to continually reduce the numbers of classes until, in the [[Industrial Age]], society was almost wholly split between "[[bourgeoisie]]" and "[[proletariat]]".

[[Capitalism]], according to Marx, is just one system in a long series of [[economic systems]] in the world. He held that a so-called "[[capitalist society]]" had strong internal inherent tensions. In the development of capitalism, [[capital]], which Marx confuses with money or [[currency]], would be increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. <ref>See his "Law of the Centralization of Capital".</ref> The difference in income between the poorest and richest would always increase. Through economic crises, the poor laborers could be inflamed to believe that the system would always be disadvantageous to them.

''Das Kapital'' (''Capital'') seeks to explain that the "bourgeoisie" make [[profit]]s by [[exploitation]] of the "proletariat." The exploitation arises where the value of the goods produced by workers is much more than the wages paid, and this "[[surplus value]]" is allegedly stolen from workers by the people who make it possible for them to earn a living. Marx sought to agitate class envy by alleging that the competition amongst the bourgeoisie forced them to exploit their workers as much as possible. If an individual bourgeois refused to continue the "exploitation" he would soon be forced into [[bankruptcy]] or be taken over by someone who would. The result is persistent low wages among the proletariat who, eventually, would rebel and replace the existing capitalist system with a [[socialist]]/communist system.

However, in his other works, Marx could not foretell if this fantasy would make an end to the capitalist system: he knew there are too many factors in history to make a prediction possible. He did not have a clear idea about what the next supposed stage after capitalism would be. The increasing concentration, he thought, would facilitate a [[communist]] system. In that system, however, man also would have to eliminate his "alienation." One possibility, which Marx imagined, was complete mechanization of production, so that any man could do any job<ref>Marx, K. Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, [[Berlin]]</ref>.
In the ''Communist Manifesto'', Marx went into greater detail about how this [[revolution]] would unfold. As well as proposing an economic system, Marx also advocated [[education]] for all including women and the lower classes who at the time were without any education.

==Critique of Marxists==
[[Mikhail Bakunin]] observed how rather than discussion of issues, the tried and tested method of [[leftism]] and [[Marxism]] was spread through the art of [[character assassination]], <ref>Guy A. Aldred, ''Bakunin'', Strickland Press, [[Glasgow]], (1940). </ref> close associates of Marx were adept in the art of
{{Cquote|cowardly, odious and perfidious insinuations. They seldom make open accusation, but they insinuate, saying they "have heard - it is said - it may not be true, but', and then they hurl the most abominable calumnies in your face.}}

===Views on Religion===
Marx' view on [[religion]] is mostly based on [[Ludwig Feuerbach's]] ideas<ref>Feuerbach, L. ''The Essence of Christianity'', New York, 1957</ref>. Marx is considered very controversial in religious circles for his statement, "Religion...is the opium of the masses." This was written in his 1843 work "A Contribution to the [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]" and expresses Marx's belief that religion offers a false palliative to assuage the suffering of "the oppressed", which in his view essentially blames [[faith]] in [[God]] as the hindrance to carrying out the Marxist program.

Karl Marx is often labeled an [[anti-Semite]] or a "self-hating [[Jew]]" for statements such as, "Money is the [[jealous god]] of [[Israel]], in face of which no other god may exist", "The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the [[god of the world]]. The [[bill of exchange]] is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange", and "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly [[God]]? Money."

== See also ==

*[[Baldomero Ortoneda]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Marx, Karl}}

[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category:Sociologists]]

Emile Durkheim

2007-12-08T03:44:21Z

TrueGrit:

One of the formative theorists, '''Emile Durkheim''' (1858-1917) was a French scholar known as the 'Father of [[Sociology]]'; his life work helped sociology to become established as a reputable social science. Unlike some of his contemporaries however, it was his expressed purpose to develop sociology as a discipline. This is evident through his work ''The Rules of the Sociological Method''(1885).

Emile was born on April 15th, 1858 in Epinal, France, as the son of a rabbi.<ref>Edles, L.D., & Appelrouth, S. (2005). Sociological theory in the classical era. California: Pine Forge.</ref><ref>Thompson, K. (2007). Emile Durkheim. In J. Scott (Ed.), Fifty key sociologists: the formative theorists (pp. 40-46). New York: Routledge.</ref> Initially Durkheim seemed destined to follow in the footsteps of his paternal line, and become a fourth generation rabbi. However, he appears to have abandoned religious belief as he concluded his education, considering both Judaism and Christianity "outmoded". Durkheim went on to study at École Normale Supérieure in Paris beginning in 1879. Initially studying philosophy, he shifted his studies to sociology. While still intrigued by larger, philosophical questions, his method of exploration was through sociology. Sociology had developed as a social science, and thus followed a rational, scientific method of exploration. Following his studies, he went on to teach philosophy at several small secondary schools outisde Paris.

1887 was a busy year for Durkheim, as he married Louise Dreyfus, and began his tenure as a professor at the University of Bordeaux.

Emile Durkheim is probably best known for his work on Suicide, published in 1897. Rather than focusing on the personal aspects of suicide, Durkheim focused on the social aspects. In this he borrowed the idea of anomie. As one of two major uses of the term anomie across the field, Durkheim's use refers to a state of normlessness. This is the case of an individual having only very loose ties to society. In the following year, Durkheim started L'année Sociologique, one of the first sociology journals in the world. This publication was an annual publication which ran for 16 years, until the outbreak of World War I.

==References==
<references/>



[[Category:Social Sciences]]
[[Category:Sociologists]]

Talk:Karl Marx

2007-12-06T23:47:55Z

TrueGrit: /* Sociologist? */

Talk:Karl Marx

2007-12-06T23:40:22Z

TrueGrit: /* Sociologist? */

Karl Marx

2007-12-06T23:37:19Z

TrueGrit:

[[Image:KarlMarx.jpg|right|frame|Karl Marx]]
'''Karl Marx''' (1818-1883) was born in Prussia, educated in [[Germany]], and a writer in [[London]]. Marx was an economist who sought to set [[socialism]] and [[communism]] on, what he saw as, a scientific basis.

Marx saw "primitive" socialist thought as fundamentally a moral movement with no base in a practical science. Marx's solution was to ground an analysis of society on his principle of dialectical materialism.

[[Dialectic]] was a principle created by German philosopher [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] which, although ferociously complex in his works, is based on the fairly straightforward conception of action and reaction. A situation arises that is less than perfect ("thesis") which provokes a reaction ("[[antithesis]]"), eventually a settlement is reached ("synthesis") which, is still far from perfect and provokes its own antithesis. Hegel saw the driving force of changes being the "Geist", variously translated as "spirit" or "mind".

Marx took the dialectic and replaced Geist with [[materialism]], at root the [[metabolism]] of man. To put it bluntly: you've got to eat!. The difference between the ideal spirit and reality translates into Marx's view that man had become [[alienation|alienated]] from his true nature. Man had been created different from animals: he is creative, this is essential to his nature. However, in modern days, man is just automatically producing: he works to earn his wage, but has no tie to the product of his labor at all. This is the alienation from his true nature. Marx proposed a solution: outlaw wages.

The necessity for material sustenance gives rise to an imperfect [[means of production]], which changes as the internal contradictions of [[thesis and antithesis]] work themselves out. A key feature of Marx's theory was his contention that [[competition]] for resources splits society into mutually antagonistic classes ("The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of [[class struggle]]s.") whilst the operation of the dialectic serves to continually reduce the numbers of classes until, in the [[Industrial Age]], society was almost wholly split between "[[bourgeoisie]]" and "[[proletariat]]".

[[Capitalism]], according to Marx, is just one system in a long series of [[economic systems]] in the world. He held that a so-called "[[capitalist society]]" had strong internal inherent tensions. In the development of capitalism, [[capital]], which Marx confuses with money or [[currency]], would be increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. <ref>See his "Law of the Centralization of Capital".</ref> The difference in income between the poorest and richest would always increase. Through economic crises, the poor laborers could be inflamed to believe that the system would always be disadvantageous to them.

''Das Kapital'' (''Capital'') seeks to explain that the "bourgeoisie" make [[profit]]s by [[exploitation]] of the "proletariat." The exploitation arises where the value of the goods produced by workers is much more than the wages paid, and this "[[surplus value]]" is allegedly stolen from workers by the people who make it possible for them to earn a living. Marx sought to agitate class envy by alleging that the competition amongst the bourgeoisie forced them to exploit their workers as much as possible. If an individual bourgeois refused to continue the "exploitation" he would soon be forced into [[bankruptcy]] or be taken over by someone who would. The result is persistent low wages among the proletariat who, eventually, would rebel and replace the existing capitalist system with a [[socialist]]/communist system.

However, in his other works, Marx could not foretell if this fantasy would make an end to the capitalist system: he knew there are too many factors in history to make a prediction possible. He did not have a clear idea about what the next supposed stage after capitalism would be. The increasing concentration, he thought, would facilitate a [[communist]] system. In that system, however, man also would have to eliminate his "alienation." One possibility, which Marx imagined, was complete mechanization of production, so that any man could do any job<ref>Marx, K. Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, [[Berlin]]</ref>.
In the ''Communist Manifesto'', Marx went into greater detail about how this [[revolution]] would unfold. As well as proposing an economic system, Marx also advocated [[education]] for all including women and the lower classes who at the time were without any education.

==Critique of Marxists==
[[Mikhail Bakunin]] observed how rather than discussion of issues, the tried and tested method of [[leftism]] and [[Marxism]] was spread through the art of [[character assassination]], <ref>Guy A. Aldred, ''Bakunin'', Strickland Press, [[Glasgow]], (1940). </ref> close associates of Marx were adept in the art of
{{Cquote|cowardly, odious and perfidious insinuations. They seldom make open accusation, but they insinuate, saying they "have heard - it is said - it may not be true, but', and then they hurl the most abominable calumnies in your face.}}

===Views on Religion===
Marx' view on [[religion]] is mostly based on [[Ludwig Feuerbach's]] ideas<ref>Feuerbach, L. ''The Essence of Christianity'', New York, 1957</ref>. Marx is considered very controversial in religious circles for his statement, "Religion...is the opium of the masses." This was written in his 1843 work "A Contribution to the [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]" and expresses Marx's belief that religion offers a false palliative to assuage the suffering of "the oppressed", which in his view essentially blames [[faith]] in [[God]] as the hindrance to carrying out the Marxist program.

Karl Marx is often labeled an [[anti-Semite]] or a "self-hating [[Jew]]" for statements such as, "Money is the [[jealous god]] of [[Israel]], in face of which no other god may exist", "The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the [[god of the world]]. The [[bill of exchange]] is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange", and "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly [[God]]? Money."

== See also ==

*[[Baldomero Ortoneda]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Marx, Karl}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category:Sociologists]]

Conservapedia:AFD Homosexuality and the Military

2007-12-06T19:14:13Z

TrueGrit:

This page serves no scholastic purpose. It is merely a collection of opinions, and quotes alone do not merit a page. I should add that it undermines the intent of this website, as I understand it, and may also only incite "tit-for-tat" behaviour, which also has no place on Conservapedia. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 14:12, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia:AFD Homosexuality and the Military

2007-12-06T19:12:27Z

TrueGrit: New page: This page serves no scholastic purpose. It is merely a collection of opinions, and very one sided at that. --~~~~

This page serves no scholastic purpose. It is merely a collection of opinions, and very one sided at that. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 14:12, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Rodney Stark

2007-12-06T19:05:42Z

TrueGrit:

'''Rodney Stark''' is "one of the world’s most respected [[sociologist]]s of [[religion]]." <ref>[http://www.jknirp.com/stark.htm An Interview With Rodney Stark]</ref>. Stark has studied the phenomenon of [[conversion]] scientifically. <ref>[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8294(199009)29%3A3%3C362%3ARSTBY%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B Rodney Stark: The Berkeley Years] - Armand L. Mauss - ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion'', Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 1990), pp. 362-366</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Sociologists]]

Category:Sociologists

2007-12-06T19:04:37Z

TrueGrit:

[[Category:Sociology]]

Emile Durkheim

2007-12-06T18:46:48Z

TrueGrit:

'''Emile Durkheim''' (1858-1917) was a French scholar known as the 'Father of [[Sociology]]'; his life work helped sociology to become established as a reputable social science.

[[Category:Social Sciences]]
[[Category:Sociologists]]

Category:Sociologists

2007-12-06T18:45:49Z

TrueGrit: Removing all content from page

Karl Marx

2007-12-06T18:43:50Z

TrueGrit: Marx is one of the formative theorists of sociology.

[[Image:KarlMarx.jpg|right|frame|Karl Marx]]
'''Karl Marx''' (1818-1883) was born in Prussia, educated in [[Germany]], and a writer in [[London]]. Marx was an economist who sought to set [[socialism]] and [[communism]] on, what he saw as, a scientific basis.

Marx saw "primitive" socialist thought as fundamentally a moral movement with no base in a practical science. Marx's solution was to ground an analysis of society on his principle of dialectical materialism.

[[Dialectic]] was a principle created by German philosopher [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] which, although ferociously complex in his works, is based on the fairly straightforward conception of action and reaction. A situation arises that is less than perfect ("thesis") which provokes a reaction ("[[antithesis]]"), eventually a settlement is reached ("synthesis") which, is still far from perfect and provokes its own antithesis. Hegel saw the driving force of changes being the "Geist", variously translated as "spirit" or "mind".

Marx took the dialectic and replaced Geist with [[materialism]], at root the [[metabolism]] of man. To put it bluntly: you've got to eat!. The difference between the ideal spirit and reality translates into Marx's view that man had become [[alienation|alienated]] from his true nature. Man had been created different from animals: he is creative, this is essential to his nature. However, in modern days, man is just automatically producing: he works to earn his wage, but has no tie to the product of his labor at all. This is the alienation from his true nature. Marx proposed a solution: outlaw wages.

The necessity for material sustenance gives rise to an imperfect [[means of production]], which changes as the internal contradictions of [[thesis and antithesis]] work themselves out. A key feature of Marx's theory was his contention that [[competition]] for resources splits society into mutually antagonistic classes ("The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of [[class struggle]]s.") whilst the operation of the dialectic serves to continually reduce the numbers of classes until, in the [[Industrial Age]], society was almost wholly split between "[[bourgeoisie]]" and "[[proletariat]]".

[[Capitalism]], according to Marx, is just one system in a long series of [[economic systems]] in the world. He held that a so-called "[[capitalist society]]" had strong internal inherent tensions. In the development of capitalism, [[capital]], which Marx confuses with money or [[currency]], would be increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. <ref>See his "Law of the Centralization of Capital".</ref> The difference in income between the poorest and richest would always increase. Through economic crises, the poor laborers could be inflamed to believe that the system would always be disadvantageous to them.

''Das Kapital'' (''Capital'') seeks to explain that the "bourgeoisie" make [[profit]]s by [[exploitation]] of the "proletariat." The exploitation arises where the value of the goods produced by workers is much more than the wages paid, and this "[[surplus value]]" is allegedly stolen from workers by the people who make it possible for them to earn a living. Marx sought to agitate class envy by alleging that the competition amongst the bourgeoisie forced them to exploit their workers as much as possible. If an individual bourgeois refused to continue the "exploitation" he would soon be forced into [[bankruptcy]] or be taken over by someone who would. The result is persistent low wages among the proletariat who, eventually, would rebel and replace the existing capitalist system with a [[socialist]]/communist system.

However, in his other works, Marx could not foretell if this fantasy would make an end to the capitalist system: he knew there are too many factors in history to make a prediction possible. He did not have a clear idea about what the next supposed stage after capitalism would be. The increasing concentration, he thought, would facilitate a [[communist]] system. In that system, however, man also would have to eliminate his "alienation." One possibility, which Marx imagined, was complete mechanization of production, so that any man could do any job<ref>Marx, K. Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, [[Berlin]]</ref>.
In the ''Communist Manifesto'', Marx went into greater detail about how this [[revolution]] would unfold. As well as proposing an economic system, Marx also advocated [[education]] for all including women and the lower classes who at the time were without any education.

==Critique of Marxists==
[[Mikhail Bakunin]] observed how rather than discussion of issues, the tried and tested method of [[leftism]] and [[Marxism]] was spread through the art of [[character assassination]], <ref>Guy A. Aldred, ''Bakunin'', Strickland Press, [[Glasgow]], (1940). </ref> close associates of Marx were adept in the art of
{{Cquote|cowardly, odious and perfidious insinuations. They seldom make open accusation, but they insinuate, saying they "have heard - it is said - it may not be true, but', and then they hurl the most abominable calumnies in your face.}}

===Views on Religion===
Marx' view on [[religion]] is mostly based on [[Ludwig Feuerbach's]] ideas<ref>Feuerbach, L. ''The Essence of Christianity'', New York, 1957</ref>. Marx is considered very controversial in religious circles for his statement, "Religion...is the opium of the masses." This was written in his 1843 work "A Contribution to the [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]" and expresses Marx's belief that religion offers a false palliative to assuage the suffering of "the oppressed", which in his view essentially blames [[faith]] in [[God]] as the hindrance to carrying out the Marxist program.

Karl Marx is often labeled an [[anti-Semite]] or a "self-hating [[Jew]]" for statements such as, "Money is the [[jealous god]] of [[Israel]], in face of which no other god may exist", "The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the [[god of the world]]. The [[bill of exchange]] is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange", and "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly [[God]]? Money."

== See also ==

*[[Baldomero Ortoneda]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Marx, Karl}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category:Sociologists]]

Sociology

2007-12-06T02:59:37Z

TrueGrit:

{{Template:Sociology}}
'''Sociology''' is a branch of Social Sciences concerned with the study of human behaviour, specifically in social relations, using the scientific method of observation. Sociology, with psychology, is at the crux of the long standing Nature vs. Nurture debate. Sociology represents nurture and psychology represents nature.



==History==
The term sociology was coined by [[Auguste Comte]] in 1839. Comte is also the father of [[positivism]]. <ref> Pickering, M. (2007). Auguste Comte. In J. Scott (Ed.), ''Fifty key sociologists: the formative theorists'' (pp. 21-26). New York: Routledge.</ref> Comte's theory of positivism limits knowledge to the observable, and is crucial in approaching sociology as a science. The study of society dates back to Greek philosophers, however it was not distinguished as its own field of study until Comte.

==Key Theories==
There are a number of formative theorists who laid the groundwork for sociology, who have had a great deal of influence in Sociology through the following key theories:

===Conflict Theory===
[[Conflict theory]] strives to explain social facts in terms of different groups competing for control of resources, or advantages. This process occurs on macro levels, such as class groups, and tries to explain stability and change in terms of the conflict between these macro level structures. Two central premises to this theory are that privileged groups are working to maintain their privileges, while the disadvantaged are constantly trying to attain more. [[Karl Marx]] is regarded as the father of conflict theory, and the idea of human society. Communism is the modern day incarnation of Marx ideal human society. Central to the ideas of conflict theory are that by eliminating privilege, the overall welfare of the society can be increased. That is, a true equality amongst members of a society. Through class consciousness, Marx believed that the workers would eventually recognize they were being exploited, and put an end to privilege. <ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society: sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref>

'''Key Figures:''' Karl Marx, [[Frederich Engels]]

;Notable works include
:''Das Kapital'' by Karl Marx
:''The Communist Manifesto'' by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels
:''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'' by Max Weber

===Functionalism===
[[Functionalism]] is a theory which examines society through interdependent elements, using a somewhat biological approach. In essence, social institutions have a specific function for the welfare of the entire society, in much the same way that the body's organs have specific functions that contribute to the overall welfare of the body. Functionalists believe that it is stable social relations or structures that influence human behaviour; these structures arise from shared values, and can either contribute to, or detract from the social stability. Functionalists believe that restoring equilibrium and increasing social cohesion can solve most social problems. In the late 40s, Robert Merton made a significant contribution to functionalist thought with his theories of manifest and latent functions. That is, a social structure can have both intentional functions, and unintentional functions respectively. Merton also believed that social structures can have a varying impact on different groups.<ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref><ref>Gomme, I.M. (2002). The shadow line: deviance and crime in Canada (3rd ed.). Toronto:Nelson.</ref>

Example: The functionalist approach to deviant behaviour takes the position that a certain amount of deviance or crime is necessary in society. At the correct balance, deviance has latent functions that contribute to the health of society. When the balance is disrupted, social cohesion deteriorates. More specifically, latent functions of deviance include providing an example of unacceptable conduct to other members of society. Criminals and ''others'' demonstrate unacceptable conduct by incurring sanctions from other formal structures, such as the courts, or mental health institutions.

'''Key Figures:''' Auguste Comte, [[Emile Durkheim]], [[Talcott Parsons]], [[Robert Merton]]

;Notable works include
:''Cours de philosophie positive'' by Auguste Compte
:''Suicide: A study in sociology'' by Emile Durkheim
:''Social Theory and Social Structure'' by Robert Merton

===Symbolic Interactionism===
As one of the key theories in Sociology, [[symbolic interactionism]] concerns itself with social interaction in microlevel settings, unlike conflict theory and functionalism. Symbolic interactionism assumes that person's social behaviour occurs only in the context of the subjective meanings he or she attach to his or her social position. It is important to note however, that the social position of the individual is influenced by his or her own actions; one does not simply ''react'' to one's position in society. <ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref>

Example: Weber's work ''The Protestant Ethic'' is a prime example of symbolic interactionism. Weber looked at the roots of modern capitalism in Protestant asceticism. Weber argues that the first capitalists were Calvanists, though not all Calvanists becamecapitalists. These Calvanists believed in working hard, and not wasting any money on unnecessary material possessions was the way to gain eternal salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven. The actions taken by the Calvanists who became capitalists cannot be separated from the definition they applied to their actions, otherwise meaning is lost. The idea is, that even a good thing done for the wrong reasons can be wrong. Consider the difference between an ascetic Calvanist, and Ebeneezer Scrooge; both have essentially the same idea, however one is more likely to reach eternal salvation.

'''Key Figures:''' George Herbert Mead

;Notable works include
:''Mind, Self, and Society'' by George Herbert Mead
:''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'' by Max Weber

===Feminist Theory===
The science of sociology would not be complete without the [[Feminist Sociology|feminist]] perspective. While feminism continues today to be a point of contention, it nevertheless has an important contribution to the science. At the time when sociology was born, and throughout its early years, women were not regarded as full citizens in the same way as men. The best evidence to support that position, is the role women played in the home and their limited participation outside the home. Feminist theory focuses on "the system of male domination in society" (Brym, 2001:15). This theory maintains that the relative positions of men and women in society is a social construct, which can and should be changed for the benefit of all members of society. Feminist theory examines structures on both a macrolevel and microlevel setting. The theory holds that the inequalities are institutionalized, even in the field of sociology. The most notable figure is Harriet Martineau, regarded as the first woman sociologist.

Example: Early theories on social inequality examined the paid work done by men, but ignored completely the unpaid work done by women in the home. To answer the question of why unpaid labour in the home would be of sociological consequence, one must consider the remuneration earned by professional house cleaning services. It is undeniable in light of this evidence, that a spouse's (or parent's) work in the home, is of economic consequence, regardless of the sex of the partner.<ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref>

'''Key Figures:''' Harriet Martineau, Charlotte Perkins Gilman

;Notable works include
:''Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution.'' by Charlotte Perkins Gilman
:''Illustrations of Political Economy'' by Harriet Martineau

==Top Ten Most Influential Books==

# Max Weber, Economy and Society
# C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination
# Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure
# Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
# P.L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality
# Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste
# Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process
# Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action
# Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action
# Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

Source: [http://www.isa-sociology.org/books/books10.htm Books of the Century]

==External Links==

===Professional Organizations===
* [http://www.asanet.org/ American Sociological Association]
* [http://www.csaa.ca Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association]
* [http://www.isa-sociology.org International Sociological Association]

===Resources===
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Project Gutenburg]
* [http://muse.jhu.edu/ Project Muse]
* [http://www.jstor.org/ Journal Storage]

==References==
<references/>



[[Category:Sociology]]

Karl Marx

2007-12-06T02:58:53Z

TrueGrit:

[[Image:KarlMarx.jpg|right|frame|Karl Marx]]
'''Karl Marx''' (1818-1883) was born in Prussia, educated in [[Germany]], and a writer in [[London]]. Marx was an economist who sought to set [[socialism]] and [[communism]] on, what he saw as, a scientific basis.

Marx saw "primitive" socialist thought as fundamentally a moral movement with no base in a practical science. Marx's solution was to ground an analysis of society on his principle of dialectical materialism.

[[Dialectic]] was a principle created by German philosopher [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] which, although ferociously complex in his works, is based on the fairly straightforward conception of action and reaction. A situation arises that is less than perfect ("thesis") which provokes a reaction ("[[antithesis]]"), eventually a settlement is reached ("synthesis") which, is still far from perfect and provokes its own antithesis. Hegel saw the driving force of changes being the "Geist", variously translated as "spirit" or "mind".

Marx took the dialectic and replaced Geist with [[materialism]], at root the [[metabolism]] of man. To put it bluntly: you've got to eat!. The difference between the ideal spirit and reality translates into Marx's view that man had become [[alienation|alienated]] from his true nature. Man had been created different from animals: he is creative, this is essential to his nature. However, in modern days, man is just automatically producing: he works to earn his wage, but has no tie to the product of his labor at all. This is the alienation from his true nature. Marx proposed a solution: outlaw wages.

The necessity for material sustenance gives rise to an imperfect [[means of production]], which changes as the internal contradictions of [[thesis and antithesis]] work themselves out. A key feature of Marx's theory was his contention that [[competition]] for resources splits society into mutually antagonistic classes ("The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of [[class struggle]]s.") whilst the operation of the dialectic serves to continually reduce the numbers of classes until, in the [[Industrial Age]], society was almost wholly split between "[[bourgeoisie]]" and "[[proletariat]]".

[[Capitalism]], according to Marx, is just one system in a long series of [[economic systems]] in the world. He held that a so-called "[[capitalist society]]" had strong internal inherent tensions. In the development of capitalism, [[capital]], which Marx confuses with money or [[currency]], would be increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. <ref>See his "Law of the Centralization of Capital".</ref> The difference in income between the poorest and richest would always increase. Through economic crises, the poor laborers could be inflamed to believe that the system would always be disadvantageous to them.

''Das Kapital'' (''Capital'') seeks to explain that the "bourgeoisie" make [[profit]]s by [[exploitation]] of the "proletariat." The exploitation arises where the value of the goods produced by workers is much more than the wages paid, and this "[[surplus value]]" is allegedly stolen from workers by the people who make it possible for them to earn a living. Marx sought to agitate class envy by alleging that the competition amongst the bourgeoisie forced them to exploit their workers as much as possible. If an individual bourgeois refused to continue the "exploitation" he would soon be forced into [[bankruptcy]] or be taken over by someone who would. The result is persistent low wages among the proletariat who, eventually, would rebel and replace the existing capitalist system with a [[socialist]]/communist system.

However, in his other works, Marx could not foretell if this fantasy would make an end to the capitalist system: he knew there are too many factors in history to make a prediction possible. He did not have a clear idea about what the next supposed stage after capitalism would be. The increasing concentration, he thought, would facilitate a [[communist]] system. In that system, however, man also would have to eliminate his "alienation." One possibility, which Marx imagined, was complete mechanization of production, so that any man could do any job<ref>Marx, K. Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, [[Berlin]]</ref>.
In the ''Communist Manifesto'', Marx went into greater detail about how this [[revolution]] would unfold. As well as proposing an economic system, Marx also advocated [[education]] for all including women and the lower classes who at the time were without any education.

==Critique of Marxists==
[[Mikhail Bakunin]] observed how rather than discussion of issues, the tried and tested method of [[leftism]] and [[Marxism]] was spread through the art of [[character assassination]], <ref>Guy A. Aldred, ''Bakunin'', Strickland Press, [[Glasgow]], (1940). </ref> close associates of Marx were adept in the art of
{{Cquote|cowardly, odious and perfidious insinuations. They seldom make open accusation, but they insinuate, saying they "have heard - it is said - it may not be true, but', and then they hurl the most abominable calumnies in your face.}}

===Views on Religion===
Marx' view on [[religion]] is mostly based on [[Ludwig Feuerbach's]] ideas<ref>Feuerbach, L. ''The Essence of Christianity'', New York, 1957</ref>. Marx is considered very controversial in religious circles for his statement, "Religion...is the opium of the masses." This was written in his 1843 work "A Contribution to the [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right]" and expresses Marx's belief that religion offers a false palliative to assuage the suffering of "the oppressed", which in his view essentially blames [[faith]] in [[God]] as the hindrance to carrying out the Marxist program.

Karl Marx is often labeled an [[anti-Semite]] or a "self-hating [[Jew]]" for statements such as, "Money is the [[jealous god]] of [[Israel]], in face of which no other god may exist", "The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the [[god of the world]]. The [[bill of exchange]] is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange", and "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly [[God]]? Money."

== See also ==

*[[Baldomero Ortoneda]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Marx, Karl}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Communists]]
[[Category:Sociologists]]

Auguste Comte

2007-12-06T02:58:19Z

TrueGrit:

'''Isidore Auguste Marie François Xavier Comte''' was born in Montpellier, France on January 19th, 1798, and died in Paris on September 5th, 1857. Comte is best known as the father of postivism, and was the first to utilize the scientific method in exploration of the social world. It was Comte who coined the term ''[[sociology]]''.

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Sociologists]]

Hoser

2007-10-14T02:12:06Z

TrueGrit: New page: The derogatory term "hoser" comes from the pre-Zamboni days of hockey<ref>http://attaboy.ca/archives/2007/02/000986.php</ref>. In the days before the advent of the Zamboni, it was nece...

The derogatory term "hoser" comes from the pre-[[Zamboni]] days of hockey<ref>http://attaboy.ca/archives/2007/02/000986.php</ref>. In the days before the advent of the Zamboni, it was necessary to flood the rink at the conclusion of the game. The losing team would often have to perform this task, by "hosing" down the ice. The match losers were then referred to as "hosers".

Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?

2007-10-09T18:03:56Z

TrueGrit: /* Yes */

==Yes==
Well of course. People have a basic need for intimacy and do not loose this need because the socially accepted partners in this intimacy are unavailable.

:I think it does, if private schools in Britain are anything to go by: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1589948,00.html] (please note - a "fag" in these schools is a junior boy who is a servant of a senior boy, running errands and so on. Nothing to do with "fag" meaning "a homosexual".) [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

In the late 1800s a man named Kraft Ebing was the leading theorist on sexual deviancy (deviancy here has nothing to do with morality but just has to do with sexual acts that don't result in procreation). He did a lot of research into the causes of homosexuality and creates and convincing answer the the question, "Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic." Ebing says its both. In his most well known work Psychopathia Sexualis he writes that some people are born homosexual and others become homosexual.
He points to same sex schooling as one of the ways to "create" a homosexual for just the reason that was posted earlier. Humans have a basic need for sexuality, if a young heterosexual boy is placed in a place where there are no women around to release his need for a sexual relationship than he will turn to those who are around him, other boys in the same predicament. --blutengel

: This same argument can then be expanded to explain sexual deviance among clergy in some denominations, who are segregated and thus prey on young boys as a result of sexual depravity. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 14:03, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

==No==

No, single sex schooling doesn't promote homesexuality. '''Home schooling''' promotes homesexuality. --[[User:Frenchfries|Frenchfries]] 08:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

How does home schooling promote homosexuality? -Lauren

::I think it's a joke. The article title contains an amusing spelling error. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Which I have changed to [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality is a sin. Sin in an innate aspect of the human condition because Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil after God put it there and told here specifically not to eat that fruit. Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it.
:Which begs the question, why was it there in the first place, if its only purpose was to be tempation. Obviously we were meant to fail, for if any other outcome was expected the tree didn't need to exist. It is a representation of tempation that is nigh impossible to resist. Similarly, if we house teenage males, only with other males, they will feel a temptation to have sexual relations with other males. Whether or not they act upon such temptation is up to them. However, they will feel a similar temptation regardless of surrounding. So, are we saying the pre-marital sex with a girl is better than sex with a boy? --[[User:Brainwalker|Brainwalker]] 02:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm... What about Homosexual animals (it does happen!)? Were they told not to do it as well?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

<<...Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it...>>

Only then? So, why do you (Global you, aimed at Christian Conservatives...) keep telling people not to do it? If you just stop telling people not to do it, it will stop happening, Yes?

Citizzzen

:Only if those animals are told not to do it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

That is exactly correct.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Single sex schooling, you aren't serious. If you told me that liberal teaching promotes homosexuality, I would have to say hell yes it does. Not only does it promote but encourage such thoughts. Animals do it? WTF? So it is ok for humans? Boy, America is so messed up.*** Thousands upon thousands of years, homosexuals were looked at as deranged individuals. Now, our generation is so smart, smirk. Eventually, the homosexual movement will die out without reproduction. But at the same time, we must not let our youth be indoctrinated to this evil.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: Heterosexual couples have homosexual children, thus reproduction of homosexuals in independent of homosexuals themselves.--[[User:Brainwalker|Brainwalker]] 02:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:<nowiki>***</nowiki>Humans are animals. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 13:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:You should know that you just argued in favour of evolution. Not only that, but you have defied reason, as there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic. Fortunately for us, our generation is so smart, that eventually the conservative movement will die out without reproduction. Nobody wants to marry a bigot. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Let me be clear, I never endorsed the notion that homosexuality is genetic nor evolution is responsible. If you read into what I wrote, this is a learned lifestyle. At 7 years old, the age of reason, you don't suddenly say- I'm gay, it is learned. Break the education factor, you are left with non reproducing lifestyle. Slowly fading away is not evolution but the result of no reproduction. Let me say this also, I do not proclaim to the absolute notion that stopping indoctrinating youth will ever happen. Thereby homosexuality will continue. As long as these people have rights, the promotion continues. As long as they are allowed to adopt children, the indoctrination continues. Just as it survived underground since times inception from our fall into sin, it will always be with us.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'd be interested to see a citation from where you're getting "you don't just decide that you're gay at 7 years old", because Dateline says different. I'll go pull up some citations of kids outing themselves as "gay" at extremely young ages. On a side note, jp, do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Dateline, please. If they are outing themselves it is from learning it. Conservatives understand that homosexuality is a sin against God. Bigotry will always be with us as well. Conservatives are not bigoted because they dislike homosexuality. The gay movement is not a protected civil right. We love the sinner, we hate the sin. We love the gay person, we hate the gay agenda. The only bigotry displayed is against the conservative view.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Way to completely change the subject and go on a rant. Anyways, [http://www.poststar.com/articles/2007/04/05/ae/today/c2a3b8536c55f8c2852572b4000d0511.txt here] is one I pulled up. 3 straight children, 1 bi.
:::::: You can find articles all day long that prove your views are just. Let me tell you there are plenty of other websites where your view is accepted. Why don't you post on a liberal website. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: My views are accepted here as well; we don't block over content disputes. And you're still dodging the question, does SSS promote homosexuality? You never answered the question. I said no; I think you probably would say "yes"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: Chong, figure it out, what does learned mean?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: My views are accepted here as well; we don't block over content disputes. Not from what I read about you. http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Abuse#ACLU_and_Evolution --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Speaking from personal experience, I can safely say that it's not because it's accepted that it exists. I grew up very conservative, and I always had issues with homosexuality. Of course, because I thought it was wrong I hated myself for looking at other males. Since that time I've found myself, and am a much better person. The mind, like a book, works best when open. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
It isn't a sin because God made you that way. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 13:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm gay and I went to a co-ed public school system. As far as I know, I was always gay. From my earliest memories I was drawn more to males than females, and not only in a sexual way. Friend-wise, sports-wise, etc. I find the idea of a school environment somehow influencing a person's sexual orientation simply laughable. We don't know what causes a person to be straight or gay, but I guarantee you that it isn't school.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:45, 12 June 2007

==OTHER==

promote? no......cuase? maybe....
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:35, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Talk:Marijuana

2007-07-01T02:44:44Z

TrueGrit:

Is this entry a joke? "Favored by many liberals, especially hippies"? Yes, I can guess I can envision some liberals liking marijuana, but that doesn't mean that they all, or even most of them favor it conclusively. And do hippies really even exist anymore? It seems to be an antiquated/obsolete/broad term. And I seem to recall our President having used marijuana and cocaine. Hrm. Essentially, this entry strikes me as a hilarious joke. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:17, 10 March 2007 (EST)
:Where are the citations for this article? Marijauna was not illegal until the Roosevelt administration. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]] 13:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Where to start? Firstly Marijuana, or more correctly, Cannabis, is a Schedule I drug in the United States because all Tetrahydrocannabinols aside from synthetic THC are Schedule I. Many conservatives and liberals alike favor the legalization of Cannibis, and I agree with Cracker about the term hippie being rather antiquated. The effects of Cannabis can include the effects listed, along with others. It is no longer considered a gateway drug by the majority of researchers, this label is primarily only used by those opposed to its legalization. It's medicinal use is still hotly debated, but I think that the current information on its use in medicine is rather limited and should be expanded. Lastly, why does in matter if Clinton smoked marijuana? This seems to be gossip at most. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It is well-known and well-sourced that legalization of Marijuana is a political position favored almost exclusively by liberals. Hmm, do you think perhaps they want to legalize it because they smoke it? --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm pretty sure NORML which is a advocacy group for the legalization of Marijuana includes many conservatives and Libertarians in its ranks. And almost all Libertarians seek the legalization of Marijuana on the basis of principle not because they're users, after all less government interference is what they seek. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::Ron Paul, Larry Elder and William Buckley are not liberal.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 00:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Funny how the source given for liberals favoring legalizing marijuana is about Libertarians supporting its legalization. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I definitely take the Libertarian view on this issue. If tobacco is going to be legal, this should be too. Needless regulation. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Hooray for another supporter. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Illegal drug ==
Who keeps calling it an "illegal drug"? It is possible to get federal approval for using it, under the Controlled Substances Act. Furthermore, many states allow it under medical marijuana laws. Yes, the drug is commonly abused, and sold illegally, but it is not an illegal drug. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:In nearly every concievable use, it is an illegal drug. Lots of illegal things can be done by people with a permit/approval, but that doesn't change the fact that they are almost always illegal. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That is just not true. There are 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California. There are some in other states as well.
:: The existence of illegal use does not make it an illegal drug. A lot of the Viagra use is derived from black-market purchases, but you would not call Viagra an illegal drug. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How about "illegal in most states", or "legal in some states with prescription"; or "has been decriminalized in some states". Something to that effect. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: 1000s of legal medical marijuana users in California, as opposed to California's population of 33.8 million. The U.S. kills hundreds, if not thousands, of death row inmates every year, in a perfectly legal manner. This doesn't mean that wanton killing is legal. And I really think it's usually considered an illegal drug. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Technically it is a "Controlled Substance" not an "Illegal Drug." That way some people can use it, but if you don't have the proper authorization, it is illegal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I think we can agree upon that wording? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Perfect. And blatantly factual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Actually, despite legalization by some states for medicinal purposes or private use in small quantities, it still remains a controlled substance by the federal government and is not allowed for medicinal or recreational use. Though it disappoints me, it still remains more or less illegal in the U.S. ([http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/03/terminal_illness_is_no_excuse.html see here]) [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Angel Raich ==
This section has been copied from wikiepedia and so I am removing it not only as a copyright violation but this is conservapedia and just brionging stuff from wikipedia defeats the point, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 13:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

DOES NOBODY HERE OWN A DICTIONARY? "Colloquial" means "slang" or "casual speech." Marijuana is or is not an illegal drug, but it is not "colloquially known" as one. Marijuana is "colloquaily known"
as pot, grass, weed, etc.

== Appraisal of its effects/consequences ==
RobS is on one, ''again''. He just reverted this eminently sensible addition below. Does anyone else feel that this honest appraisal ''promotes'' its use?

:In low doses, marijuana induces mild euphoria followed by a sense of general relaxation and well-being. Users often report heightened perceptions of music, colours and taste. Its effects at these doses are best likened to those of moderate alcohol consumption, but without the same degree of motor impairment and without the disinhibition towards aggression. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to start a fight when stoned.

:In higher doses, marijuana can induce mild to moderate hallucenations. Unlike the direct distortions of sense perception produced by [[LSD]] or [[psilocybin]], these hallucenations are mostly "internal," i.e. they are simply functions of the user's hyper-stimulated imagination. There is a small risk of adverse side-effects and their likelihood increases with the dosage. They range from the merely inconvenient (short-term memory loss), through to the somewhat unnerving (paranoia/anxiety) and finally to the downright unpleasant (overwhelming disorientation/vomiting).

:Chronic misuse of marijuana has been widely recognised as a significant risk factor for those with a predisposition towards developing various mental illnesses, particularly [[schizophrenia]]. Even for those without such a predisposition, chronic misuse oftens results in the user becoming both very bored and very boring. The key seems to be remembering what the word "recreational" means and moderating one's level of use accordingly.

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:07, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not going to use sales pitches to induce people to use illegal drugs. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

What the sweet ____ are you on about? I simply say what it does - from direct first hand experience, I might add. Have you ever been stoned, RobS? One of the key things in teaching kids about drugs is that you need to be truthful about ''why'' people use it. If you focus purely on the negatives, then your message is flatly contradicted by a wealth of anecdotal evidence from the child's peer group. You end up looking like an idiot and being completely ignored. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 18:32, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree: you really can't start a fight when stoned, just try the "left handed cigarette" once!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

''Allegedly'' harmful affects. Would somebody please make the change. Unfortunately it would be unethical to perform an experiment that could conclude its harm, as it is a controlled substance. Kind of convenient for conservatives, eh? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Help:List of Templates

2007-07-01T02:41:57Z

TrueGrit: /* Notices */

This page contains lists of templates available on Conservapedia.

''Templates'' are predefined blocks of text or other code (including formatting). Advantages of using templates are:
* Consistency of style (using the same template in various articles).
* Save time (reusing text that has been written before).
* Easy updating (Changing the template allows one to change that text in every article that uses that template).
* Automatically include the page in a given category.
NB: This page attempts to document all templates (except user boxes). Inclusion here does not imply endorsement of any template.
 

If you are not familiar with using templates, see [[Help:Using templates|Using templates]] for a guide to using them.

== Creating (or modifying) templates ==
Conservapedia requires that all templates be properly documented. See [[Help:Creating templates|Creating templates]] for details. Failure to document templates will result in the templates being deleted or reverted.

__TOC__

== Templates for Articles ==

=== Formatting and boilerplate text ===
* {{tl|8c}} Inserts a reference to ''The 8th Habit'', by Steven R. Covey. It takes a page number as a parameter.
* {{tl|Clear}} Causes following content to start below previous content, to avoid wrapping around pictures and boxes.
* {{tl|Cquote}} Fancy quote formatting. The first parameter is the quote. The remaining optional paramaters are:
* {{tl|Lowercase}} Advice that the correct case of the title is lowercase.
* {{tl|Nowrap}} Text supplied as a parameter to this template will not be wrapped on white space.
* {{tl|QuoteBox}} Provides a formatted box for quotes.
* {{tl|tt}} Formats text as monospaced and lightly shaded.
* {{tl|Vandalism2}} Place on vandalized articles that contain some factual information, but also has some fake information.

=== Links ===
These are simple '''links''' to a common format. See also [[#Navigation boxes|Navigation boxes]], below, for boxes of links to related articles.

* {{tl|Bible quote}} Quote box for a Bible text and reference, with link to the passage on BibleGateway.com.
* {{tl|Bible ref}} Formatted Bible reference, with link to the passage on BibleGateway.com.
* {{tl|Main}} Notice that a more detailed treatment of the topic is on a different page. The one parameter is the name of the article being linked to.
* {{tl|Wp}} Link to Wikipedia article. NB: Wikipedia is not to be used as a reference, except when talking ''about'' Wikipedia, as in [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. It's one parameter is the English Wikipedia page name.

=== Information boxes ===
An '''information box''' is a box containing standardised information about the topic.

* {{tl|Book}} For an article about a book?
* {{tl|Caselaw}} For a case law. The three parameters are the parties, the citation, and the date it was handed down.
* {{tl|Country}} For a country. There are multiple optional parameters.
* {{tl|Element}} For an element of the periodic table.
* {{tl|Mineral}} For minerals.
* {{tl|Planet}} For a planet.
* {{tl|Powers of ten}} A list of the powers of 10 (actually redirects to the [[List of number words]]).
* {{tl|Ship}} For a ship.
* {{tl|Taxonomy}} For taxonomic information.

=== Navigation boxes ===
A '''navigation box''' is a box that contains links to related articles. It usually appears to the right of an article, or at the bottom.

* {{tl|Algebra Index}} Algebra terms.
* {{tl|American Index}} American history terms.
* {{tl|Ancient Index}} Ancient history terms.
* {{tl|Australian Prime Ministers}} List of all Australian Prime Ministers.
* {{tl|Biology Index}} Biology terms.
* {{tl|Buffalo Bills Roster}} Players on the [[Buffalo Bills]] football team.
* {{tl|Chemistry Index}} Chemistry terms.
* {{tl|Christianity}} Articles about Christianity.
* {{tl|Cleveland Browns Roster}} Players on the [[Cleveland Browns]] football team.
* {{tl|Discrimlaw}} American discrimination law articles.
* {{tl|Miami Dolphins Roster}} Players on the [[Miami Dolphins]] football team.
* {{tl|Economics Lectures}} Economics lectures.
* {{tl|Geology Index}} Geology terms.
* {{tl|Geometry Index}} Geometry terms.
* {{tl|Hetmans of Ukrainian Kozaks}} Hetmans of Ukrainian Kozaks.
* {{tl|Medieval Index}} Middle Ages terms.
* {{tl|Microeconomics Index}} Microeconomics terms.
* {{tl|Middle Ages}} Articles about the Middle Ages.
* {{tl|Modern Index}} Modern era terms.
* {{tl|New England Patriots Roster}} Players on the [[New England Patriots]] football team.
* {{tl|Periodictable}} Periodic table articles.
* {{tl|Philadelphia Eagles Roster}} Players on the [[Philadelphia Eagles]] football team.
* {{tl|PhysSci Index}} Physical Science terms.
* {{tl|Premod Index}} Pre-modern-era terms.
* {{tl|Psychology}} Articles about psychology.
* {{tl|Rome}} Articles about Ancient Rome.
* {{tl|Scientology}} Scientology articles.
* {{tl|Sociology}} Navigation box for Sociology.
* {{tl|Solarsystem}} Navigation box for articles about aspects of the Solar system.
* {{tl|Statistics}} Navigation box for articles about statistics.
* {{tl|Tennessee}} Navigation box listing the counties of Tennesee.
* {{tl|The Beatles}} Navigation box for articles about the Beatles and their works.

=== Notices ===

* {{tl|Attack_page}} Notice and explanation that the user's page / article are a Ad hominem Attack Page; explains what that is, and also a violation of the CP Guidelines.
* {{tl|Controversial}} Notice that editors should carefully consider edits to this controversial article or discuss them first.
* {{tl|Disambig}} Simple notice that this is a disambiguation page.
* {{tl|Disambiguation}} Expanded notice that this is a disambiguation page.
* {{tl|Disputed}} Notice that the page contains disputed material.
* {{tl|EndPJADAA}} Notice of end of sensitive (adult) content.
* {{tl|Endspoiler}} Notice that this is the end of a spoiler section.
* {{tl|Fallacy}} Notice that the content represents a logical fallacy. The type of fallacy can be specified, and a link will be provided to a page explaining that type of fallacy.
* {{tl|Inuse}} Notice that a page is being heavily revised and other editors should refrain from editing whilst the notice is there.
* {{tl|Logical_Fallacy}} Notice that the content represents a logical fallacy.
* {{tl|LPOV}} Notice that the article has a Liberal Point Of View.
* {{tl|LPOV-sect}} Notice that the section of the article has a Liberal Point Of View.
* {{tl|Nominate featured}} Notice that this article has been nominated for "featured article" status. To be placed on the article's talk page.
* {{tl|PJADAA}} Notice that the following material is sensitive (adult) content.
* {{tl|Partially protected}} Notice that parts of the article are protected from editing.
* {{tl|Progress}} Notice that the page is undergoing "massive reconstruction" and inviting help.
* {{tl|Protected}} Notice that the article is protected from editing. To be used on the article page.
* {{tl|Protection Warning}} Notice that the article has been subject to edit warring, arguing, or ideological edits, and is likely to be protected from further editing.
* {{tl|Split}} Suggestion that the article be split into two articles. The parameter is the suggested name of the second article.
* {{tl|Spoiler}} Notice that the article contains plot information.
* {{tl|Temp protected}} Notice that the article is temporarily protected from editing, but another sysop can unprotect if he wishes. The parameter is the protecting sysop. To be placed on the talk page of the article.
* {{tl|Temporarily unprotected theory}} Notice that the page is temporarily unprotected but will again be protected from editing if the theory is made to sound like fact.
* {{tl|Uncited}} Notice that the article could benefit from more citations.
* {{tl|Uncited2}} Same as above, but a blue color theme.
* {{tl|Unofficial}} Notice that the page is not an official Conservapedia page, contents may not necessairly reflect CP's POV.
* {{tl|Unprotected}} Notice that the article was unprotected on a given date by a given sysop.
* {{tl|Unprotected by}} Notice that the page was unprotected by a given sysop.
* {{tl|Templates}} Notice that the page already has too many templates (how many is "too many"?).
* {{tl|Vandalism}} Notice that the page was blanked due to vandalism.

=== Citations ===
* {{tl|Citation/authors}} ??
* {{tl|Citation/core/other}} ??
* {{tl|Cite}} Author, Title, Publisher, Date.
* {{tl|Cite book}} Multi-purpose citation?
* {{tl|Harvard reference}} Formatted reference information, with many optional parameters.
* {{tl|Hnb}} Formatted footnote information citing a reference. Has a number of parameters.

=== Maintenance ===
* {{tl|Afd}} Link to deletion discussion page - not used much, I might delete it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:39, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
* {{tl|Afd entry}} Notice that article has been proposed for deletion.
* {{tl|Db}} Notice that the page may be speedily deleted.
* {{tl|Delete}} Notice that this article has been nominated for deletion.
* {{tl|Delete Notice}} Notice that this article has been proposed for deletion, and should be discussed.
* {{tl|Diacritical}} Notice that the author of the article would like help with diacritical marks.
* {{tl|Expand}} Notice that the article needs expansion. A "a friendlier, more encouraging form of the {{tl|stub}} template".
* {{tl|Fact}} Notice that a citation is needed. Adds page to the category of Articles with unsourced statements.
* {{tl|Fact-historical}} Notice that a citation is needed. Adds page to the category of Articles with unsourced historical statements.
* {{tl|Fact-political}} Notice that a citation is needed. Adds page to the category of Articles with unsourced political statements
* {{tl|Fact-science}} Notice that a citation is needed. Adds page to the category of Articles with unsourced scientific statements.
* {{tl|Format}} Notice that the article needs proper formatting.
* {{tl|Generalize}} Notice that the description is highly specialised and a more general description is required.
* {{tl|Logical Fallacy}} Notice that the article contains at least one logical fallacy.
* {{tl|Merge from}} Notice that a suggestion has been made to merge another article or section with this article.
* {{tl|Merge with}} Notice that a suggestion has been made to merge the section or article to another.
* {{tl|Merging}} Notice that this section or article is being merged with another.
* {{tl|Move}} Request to move this page to a new title.
* {{tl|Nsc}} (Under construction for a special purpose)
* {{tl|Prove}} Notice that (mathematical) proof is needed. Also adds page to the category Articles with unsourced mathematical statements.
* {{tl|RefAppeal}} Notice that the article needs credible references.
* {{tl|Rewrite}} Notice that the article or section needs rewriting.
* {{tl|Science-stub}} Notice that the science article is a stub and needs expansion.
* {{tl|Speedy}} Notice that the article has been nominated for speedy deletion. Unlike {{tl|db}}, it does not allow for a reason.
* {{tl|Stub}} Notice that the article is very short and needs expanding.
* {{tl|Vague word}} Notice that the meaning of the word is unclear.
* {{tl|Weasel words}} Question of who made the claim. Includes the page in the category Articles with weasel-worded statements.
* {{tl|Who says}} Notice that the quotation or view needs clarifying as to who said it or holds the opinion.

== Templates for images ==
* {{tl|Fairuse}} "Fair use" licence information.
* {{tl|license}} General image licence information.

== Templates for talk pages ==
* {{tl|Articlelink}} Link to article, talk, and history pages.
* {{tl|Block}} Warning to vandal that he will be blocked if he vandalises again. The page is specified. (Is this according to the rules?)
* {{tl|BlockNotice}} Warning to vandal that he will be blocked if he vandalises again. No page is specified. (Is this according to the rules?)
* {{tl|Delete personal remark}} Put this template around an inappropriate personal remark to make it "vanish". Includes the page in the category "Personal Remarks".
* {{tl|Hide personal remark}} Put this template around an inappropriate personal remark to make it vanish. This template does ''not'' include the page in the category "Personal Remarks".
* {{tl|Protest}} Advice on where to make a protest about abuse by another editor or a sysop.
* {{tl|Remove personal remark}} Notice that a personal mark has been removed. Adds the page to the category Personal remarks.
* {{tl|Show personal remark}} Reinstate personal remark hidden by {{tl|Remove personal remark}}, and includes page in category Personal Remarks.
* {{tl|Strike personal remark}} Put this template around an inappropriate personal remark to strike it out.
* {{tl|Unsigned}} Notice that the preceding comment was posted by a particular user who didn't sign it.

== Templates for debate pages ==
* {{tl|Debate}} Notice that the page is a debate page. Includes page in the category of debates.
* {{tl|Debate-humorous}} Notice that the page is a debate page. Includes page in the category of humorous debates.
* {{tl|Debate-philosophy}} Notice that the page is a debate page. Includes page in the category of philosophical debates.
* {{tl|Debate-politics}} Notice that the page is a debate page. Includes page in the category of political debates.
* {{tl|Debate-religion}} Notice that the page is a debate page. Includes page in the category of religious debates.
* {{tl|Debate-science}} Notice that the page is a debate page. Includes page in the category of science debates.

== Templates for user pages ==
* {{tl|Babel}} For user boxes, to indicate languages known to the user.
* {{tl|Blocked}} Notice that the user has been blocked, and the log of their blocks. It takes one optional parameter, the length of the block. If the parameter is omitted, the block is shown as indefinite. To insert the length, add a "|" after the word blocked with the amount of time blocked, for example: "2 Weeks", without the quotes.
* {{tl|Blockeduser}} Notice that the user has been blocked. It's three parameters are the blocking sysop, the length of the block, and the reason for the block.
* {{tl|Busy}} Notice that the user is busy in real life.
* {{tl|Clepprep}} Notice that the user is busy preparing for a CLEP test.
* {{tl|Exams}} Notice that the user is busy with exams for a period of time, and a request to block if he returns early. Parameters are for the return date and the number of days to be blocked.
* {{tl|Indefblock}} Notice that the user has been indefinitely blocked.
* {{tl|Indent}} Advice to user on his talk page on how to use indenting.
* {{tl|Paroled}} Notice that the user is on parole. The parameter is the name of the page with the parole details.
* {{tl|Retired user}} Notice for the page of a "retired" user.
* {{tl|RFA user}} Notice that the user is requesting Administrator status.
* {{tl|Sysop Pledge}} Notice that the sysop will not arbitrarily block users.
* {{tl|Sysop Pledge2}} As for {{tl|Sysop Pledge}} with slightly altered wording.
* {{tl|Sysop Pledge3}} As for {{tl|Sysop Pledge}} with slightly altered wording and different formatting.
* {{tl|TemplateDocRqd}} Request to document a template that the user has created. It takes the template name as a parameter, and an optional ''old'' parameter for templates created before documentation was required.
* {{tl|Unblocked}} Notice that the user has been unblocked, with link to their list of contributions and the log of their blocks.
* {{tl|Useful links}} A list of useful links, for inclusion on user pages. See the template page for parameters (all are optional).
* {{tl|User Talk1}} Notice that this page is a user talk page.
* {{tl|Useraway}} Notice that the user is away from Conservapedia for an extended time. Has three optional parameters.
* {{tl|Userboxbottom}} Defines the bottom of a column of user boxes.
* {{tl|Userboxbreak}} Creates a break in a column of user boxes, with either a sub-heading or a horizontal line.
* {{tl|Userboxtop}} Defines the top of a column of user boxes (or other items such as pictures).
* {{tl|Weekend}} Notice that the user is away from Conservapedia for the weekend.
* {{tl|Welcome}} Welcome notice for new users. One (optional) parameter is the welcomer's signature. The notice includes {{tl|useful links}} in the box.

=== User Boxes ===
See [[Conservapedia:Userboxes]] for a list of user box templates, which all start with "User ".

== Templates for other templates ==
* {{tl|!}} Allows the pipe character (|) to be included in a template without it having the normal meaning of a pipe.
* {{tl|H:f}} Used for Mediawiki help pages.
* {{tl|H:f Help}} Used for Mediawiki help pages.
* {{tl|H:f Template}} Used for Mediawiki help pages.
* {{tl|H:h}} Used for Mediawiki help pages.
* {{tl|H:h Help}} Used for Mediawiki help pages.
* {{tl|Infobox}} Base template for infoboxes?
* {{tl|Link}} Unknown. Take two parameters.
* {{tl|t row if}} Conditional Wiki-syntax table row with two columns. The two parameters are the text for the two columns, and the condition is the second parameter being non-empty.
* {{tl|Terms index}} Base for various index navigation boxes.
* {{tl|tl}} Used to show how a template is written and includes a link to the template, but does not include the template (this template is used for the references to templates on this page).
* {{tl|UB}} Used for the indexes to user boxes.
* {{tl|Userbox}} Base template for standard user boxes.
* {{tl|Userbox-2}} Base template for double-ended user boxes.
* {{tl|Userbox-r}} Base template for reversed user boxes.

== Miscellaneous templates ==
* {{tl|Category redirect}} Notice for a category page that the category should not be used.
* {{tl|DeletedAFD}} Advice for a page where deletion of an article was discussed that the article has been deleted.
* {{tl|Deleted page}} Notice that the page has been deleted and protected from re-creation. (Actually diverts to [[Conservapedia:Deleted and Protected]]).
* {{tl|Deletedpage}} As for {{tl|Deleted page}}
* {{tl|essay}} Notice that the page is an original work, and that it might one day be published, with acknowledgements.
* {{tl|EssayAnon}} Notice that the page is an original work, and that it will be published anonymously.
* {{tl|Guideline}} Notice that the page represents a Conservapedia guideline.
* {{tl|Imagefloat}}, adds an image, floating in the upper right hand corner of the page.
* {{tl|Large category}} Notice (for category page?) that the category is becoming very large.
* {{tl|Misspelled}} A helper template, mainly intended to be used on [[Conservapedia:Commonly misspelled words]].
* {{tl|Parm}} Parameter details, for use within a {{tl|Parms}} template. None or more of these templates comprise the one parameter used by the {{tl|Parms}} template. This template has four required parameters.
* {{tl|Parms}} List of parameters used by a template (for use on template documentation pages). Has one parameter, which can be blank.
* {{tl|Policy proposal}} Notice that the following represents a ''proposed'' policy or guideline.
* {{tl|PTElement}} For constructing a periodical table element.
* {{tl|Scientific theory}} Outline for an article on a scientific theory.
* {{tl|Sysopnom}} Sysop nomination. The parameter is the user name.
* {{tl|TemplateCopy}} A box for holding text to copy and paste for placing templates. The one parameter is the text to copy.
* {{tl|TemplateDoc}} Overview of a template (for use on template documentation pages). Has three parameters, one optional.

=== Templates for the Main page ===
These templates comprise the contents of the main sections of the [[Main Page]]. They are protected.
* {{tl|AboutC}}
* {{tl|Newsline}}
* {{tl|Tfa}}

== Unknown ==
* {{tl|Alert}} As for {{tl|User}} but adds their block list.
* {{tl|User}} Links to user's page, talk page, contributions list, and count of edits.

== Obsolete and redirect templates ==
Most of these templates could be deleted (but first the What Links Here function should be used to see if the template is in use), but some should be retained as valid alternatives to the templates they redirect to.
* {{tl|Arkansas Leg-Hound}} Redirects to {{tl|User Arkansas Leg-Hound}}
* {{tl|Aussie}} Redirects to {{tl|User Aussie}}
* {{tl|Catholic}} Redirects to {{tl|User Catholic}}
* {{tl|Cite needed}} Redirects to {{tl|fact}}
* {{tl|Cn}} A citation is needed. (use {{tl|Fact}} instead.)
* {{tl|Fact-history}} Redirect to {{tl|Fact-historical}}
* {{tl|Fact-scientific}} Redirects to {{tl|Fact-science}}
* {{tl|Interest}} Redirects to {{tl|User Interest}}
* {{tl|Merge}} Redirects to {{tl|Merge with}}
* {{tl|Protect}} Redirects to Protected.
* {{tl|Quotebox}} Redirects to {{tl|QuoteBox}} (should be retained as an alternative.)
* {{tl|Says who}} Redirect to {{tl|Who says}}
* {{tl|Stub2}} Redirects to {{tl|Stub}}
* {{tl|Userenuk}} Redirects to {{tl|User en-UK}}
== Geo's Contest Award Templates ==
* {{tl|ClayPin}} Category Award for US Government
* {{tl|CoolidgeMedal}} Category Award for US Government
* {{tl|GipperAward}} Category Award for US Government
* {{tl|MosesAward}} Category Award for Bible

Conflict theory

2007-05-20T21:06:55Z

TrueGrit: Redirecting to Conflict Theory

#REDIRECT [[Conflict_Theory]]

Conflict Theory

2007-05-20T21:06:30Z

TrueGrit: New page: {{Template:Sociology}} ==Introduction== The 19th C economist and revolutionary Karl Marx, born during the industrial revolution, is the father of conflict theory. Marx examined social...

{{Template:Sociology}}

==Introduction==
The 19th C economist and revolutionary [[Karl Marx]], born during the industrial revolution, is the father of conflict theory. Marx examined social organization, with class and status very much central to his ideas. In order to understand the theory and its father however, it is important to understand the historical context in which it developed. Marx ideas came about at the end of the first industrial revolution, and lead into the second. During this time there was a major shift in technological, socioeconomic, and cultural conditions and organization. While these events themselves do not control what we think, it is important to note that current events dictate what we think ''about''.
<ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref><ref>Gomme, I.M. (2002). The shadow line: deviance and crime in Canada (3rd ed.). Toronto:Nelson.</ref>

===Major Events 1830-69===
;1830s
: Railroad construction takes off in the US
;1840s
:First [[telegraph]] – Washington to Baltimore (1844)
:Saxophone invented (1846)
:[[Communist Manifesto]] published (1848)
:Failed harvests in [[Europe]] lead to famine
;1850s
:First transatlantic teleograph cable laid
:First elevator installed
:Revolt in India against British colonial rule
:[[Origin of the Species]] published by Charles Darwin (1859)
;1860s
:First transcontinental railroad in the US is constructed
:Nobel invents dynamite
:American Civil War
:Dominion of [[Canada]] is born (1867)
:Marx publishes ''Das Kapital'' (1867)

==Theory==
Like [[Emile Durkheim|Durkheim's]] functionalism, conflict theory focuses on macrolevel structures. The example from Marx work is the relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoise. The theory examines how under different circumstances social inequality can create both stability and social change. A central argument to the theory is that the privileged will attempt to maintain privilege, whereas the subordinate groups will attempt to improve their circumstances; the elimination of privilege will decrease conflict, and improve social welfare for everyone.

==Further Readings==
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61/61.txt Communist Manifesto]
* [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm Selected Works of Marx and Engels]

==External Links==

===Professional Organizations===
* [http://www.asanet.org/ American Sociological Association]
* [http://www.csaa.ca Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association]
* [http://www.isa-sociology.org International Sociological Association]

===Resources===
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Project Gutenburg]
* [http://muse.jhu.edu/ Project Muse]
* [http://www.jstor.org Journal Storage]

==References==
<references/>



[[Category:Sociology]]

Talk:Canadian slave trade

2007-05-19T13:56:34Z

TrueGrit: New page: AmeriCan, you just don't get it do you. You're a prime example of why so many people don't like Americans. You couldn't have done an article on the topic of Human Trafficking, and had a se...

AmeriCan, you just don't get it do you. You're a prime example of why so many people don't like Americans. You couldn't have done an article on the topic of Human Trafficking, and had a section on countries, you had to start a stub of an article, and base it on human trafficking in Canada. You're just in this to make America look good, and countries you perceive as a threat to look bad. Case in point, you had to title your article "Canadian" slave trade, as if it is some sort of booming industry. I've got news for you, it happens everywhere, including the states. Why don't you open up your mind?

However, I will give you this liberal news source to cite a particular case of slavery in Canada, it's from the Toronto Star Saturday May 19th. [http://www.thestar.com/News/article/215708]

Social constructionism

2007-05-16T03:13:55Z

TrueGrit:

{{Template:Sociology}}
==We Build our World==
Specifically, the theory of social constructionism supposes that the social world is constructed by the participants, rather than having it imposed on them. The central object of this theory is the social construct, which simply put is a social fact or structure that has been constructed by the participants, and is not inherent in nature. From the perspective of sociology, education, religion, marriage, and gender (not to be confused with sex) are all examples of social constructs.

==Gender==
A good example of a social construct is [[gender]]. While sex is based on genetic traits and refers to male or female, gender is a reference to the traits of masculinity and femininity. The traits associated with masculinity and femininity are subject to change from time to time, such as with the role of women in the home.

==External Links==

===Professional Organizations===
* [http://www.asanet.org/ American Sociological Association]
* [http://www.csaa.ca Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association]
* [http://www.isa-sociology.org International Sociological Association]

===Resources===
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Project Gutenburg]
* [http://muse.jhu.edu/ Project Muse]
* [http://www.jstor.org Journal Storage]

==References==
<references/>



[[Category:Sociology]]

Sociology

2007-05-16T03:13:39Z

TrueGrit:

{{Template:Sociology}}
'''Sociology''' is a branch of Social Sciences concerned with the study of human behaviour, specifically in social relations, using the scientific method of observation. Sociology, with psychology, is at the crux of the long standing Nature vs. Nurture debate. Sociology represents nurture and psychology represents nature.



==History==
The term sociology was coined by [[Auguste Comte]] in 1839. Comte is also the father of [positivism]. <ref> Pickering, M. (2007). Auguste Comte. In J. Scott (Ed.), ''Fifty key sociologists: the formative theorists'' (pp. 21-26). New York: Routledge.</ref> Comte's theory of positivism limits knowledge to the observable, and is crucial in approaching sociology as a science. The study of society dates back to Greek philosophers, however it was not distinguished as its own field of study until Comte.

==Key Theories==
There are a number of formative theorists who laid the groundwork for sociology, who have had a great deal of influence in Sociology through the following key theories:

===Conflict Theory===
[[Conflict theory]] strives to explain social facts in terms of different groups competing for control of resources, or advantages. This process occurs on macro levels, such as class groups, and tries to explain stability and change in terms of the conflict between these macro level structures. Two central premises to this theory are that privileged groups are working to maintain their privileges, while the disadvantaged are constantly trying to attain more. [[Karl Marx]] is regarded as the father of conflict theory, and the idea of human society. Communism is the modern day incarnation of Marx ideal human society. Central to the ideas of conflict theory are that by eliminating privilege, the overall welfare of the society can be increased. That is, a true equality amongst members of a society. Through class consciousness, Marx believed that the workers would eventually recognize they were being exploited, and put an end to privilege. <ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society: sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref>

'''Key Figures:''' Karl Marx, [[Frederich Engels]]

;Notable works include
:''Das Kapital'' by Karl Marx
:''The Communist Manifesto'' by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels
:''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'' by Max Weber

===Functionalism===
[[Functionalism]] is a theory which examines society through interdependent elements, using a somewhat biological approach. In essence, social institutions have a specific function for the welfare of the entire society, in much the same way that the body's organs have specific functions that contribute to the overall welfare of the body. Functionalists believe that it is stable social relations or structures that influence human behaviour; these structures arise from shared values, and can either contribute to, or detract from the social stability. Functionalists believe that restoring equilibrium and increasing social cohesion can solve most social problems. In the late 40s, Robert Merton made a significant contribution to functionalist thought with his theories of manifest and latent functions. That is, a social structure can have both intentional functions, and unintentional functions respectively. Merton also believed that social structures can have a varying impact on different groups.<ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref><ref>Gomme, I.M. (2002). The shadow line: deviance and crime in Canada (3rd ed.). Toronto:Nelson.</ref>

Example: The functionalist approach to deviant behaviour takes the position that a certain amount of deviance or crime is necessary in society. At the correct balance, deviance has latent functions that contribute to the health of society. When the balance is disrupted, social cohesion deteriorates. More specifically, latent functions of deviance include providing an example of unacceptable conduct to other members of society. Criminals and ''others'' demonstrate unacceptable conduct by incurring sanctions from other formal structures, such as the courts, or mental health institutions.

'''Key Figures:''' Auguste Comte, [[Emile Durkheim]], [[Talcott Parsons]], [[Robert Merton]]

;Notable works include
:''Cours de philosophie positive'' by Auguste Compte
:''Suicide: A study in sociology'' by Emile Durkheim
:''Social Theory and Social Structure'' by Robert Merton

===Symbolic Interactionism===
As one of the key theories in Sociology, [[symbolic interactionism]] concerns itself with social interaction in microlevel settings, unlike conflict theory and functionalism. Symbolic interactionism assumes that person's social behaviour occurs only in the context of the subjective meanings he or she attach to his or her social position. It is important to note however, that the social position of the individual is influenced by his or her own actions; one does not simply ''react'' to one's position in society. <ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref>

Example: Weber's work ''The Protestant Ethic'' is a prime example of symbolic interactionism. Weber looked at the roots of modern capitalism in Protestant asceticism. Weber argues that the first capitalists were Calvanists, though not all Calvanists becamecapitalists. These Calvanists believed in working hard, and not wasting any money on unnecessary material possessions was the way to gain eternal salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven. The actions taken by the Calvanists who became capitalists cannot be separated from the definition they applied to their actions, otherwise meaning is lost. The idea is, that even a good thing done for the wrong reasons can be wrong. Consider the difference between an ascetic Calvanist, and Ebeneezer Scrooge; both have essentially the same idea, however one is more likely to reach eternal salvation.

'''Key Figures:''' George Herbert Mead

;Notable works include
:''Mind, Self, and Society'' by George Herbert Mead
:''The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism'' by Max Weber

===Feminist Theory===
The science of sociology would not be complete without the [[Feminist Sociology|feminist]] perspective. While feminism continues today to be a point of contention, it nevertheless has an important contribution to the science. At the time when sociology was born, and throughout its early years, women were not regarded as full citizens in the same way as men. The best evidence to support that position, is the role women played in the home and their limited participation outside the home. Feminist theory focuses on "the system of male domination in society" (Brym, 2001:15). This theory maintains that the relative positions of men and women in society is a social construct, which can and should be changed for the benefit of all members of society. Feminist theory examines structures on both a macrolevel and microlevel setting. The theory holds that the inequalities are institutionalized, even in the field of sociology. The most notable figure is Harriet Martineau, regarded as the first woman sociologist.

Example: Early theories on social inequality examined the paid work done by men, but ignored completely the unpaid work done by women in the home. To answer the question of why unpaid labour in the home would be of sociological consequence, one must consider the remuneration earned by professional house cleaning services. It is undeniable in light of this evidence, that a spouse's (or parent's) work in the home, is of economic consequence, regardless of the sex of the partner.<ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref>

'''Key Figures:''' Harriet Martineau, Charlotte Perkins Gilman

;Notable works include
:''Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution.'' by Charlotte Perkins Gilman
:''Illustrations of Political Economy'' by Harriet Martineau

==Top Ten Most Influential Books==

# Max Weber, Economy and Society
# C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination
# Robert Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure
# Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
# P.L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality
# Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste
# Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process
# Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action
# Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action
# Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

Source: [http://www.isa-sociology.org/books/books10.htm Books of the Century]

==External Links==

===Professional Organizations===
* [http://www.asanet.org/ American Sociological Association]
* [http://www.csaa.ca Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association]
* [http://www.isa-sociology.org International Sociological Association]

===Resources===
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Project Gutenburg]
* [http://muse.jhu.edu/ Project Muse]
* [http://www.jstor.org/ Journal Storage]

==References==
<references/>



[[Category:Sociology]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-05-08T22:59:53Z

TrueGrit: /* Funny, maybe? */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==

# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Stem Cells: Why or why not]]
# [[Conservapedia:Front Page| Front Page - Encylopedia? Or Propaganda?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Sarkozy | Enamoured of Sarkozy]]
# [[Conservapedia:Holier Than Thou | Holier Than Thou]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia: 'το πνευμα ἁγιον'; how would you translate it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?|Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible|On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible...]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Are there any people who visit this site and contribute to debates that aren’t Christian?? ]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Are Souls Unlimited?]]
# [[The current front page focus on homosexuality]]
# [[Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britian become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Keep Richard Around?|Should Richard Stay?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]

==Scientific debates==

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Do violent video games play a role in people on the edge of sanity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God did not mean us to develop a Theory of Evolution, why did he provide us with the capacity to do science, and leave such convincing evidence lying around ?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==

# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Communists at Conservapedia|Should known communists be banned from editing at Conservapedia??]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Should I remove the gross Spanish profanity passing itself off as translations in several articles?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Why do so many topical debates descend into embarassing personal attacks?]]
# [[Why are editors allowed to use personal blogs and other unsourced sites as citations?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Does Aschlafly deserve an article on himself?]]
# [[Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Why does every two-bit bunch of pea brains in America want its own encyclopedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Lightbulb|How many Baptist Conservatives does it take to screw in a lightbulb?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are we living in a computer simulation?| Are we living in a computer simulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Who named our planet "Earth"?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should some of the Sysops on here Lighten Up?]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does your mom go to college?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]

Sex

2007-05-08T18:16:50Z

TrueGrit:

'''Gender''' is the attribute of being either [[male]] or [[female]]. Gender differs from sex in that while sex deals with the biological attributes of male and female, gender may be understood more as a cultural concept and a complex set of learned behaviors that is contingent not only on culture, but also on history. Gender roles and expecatations are always in flux and vary from one society to another and one time to another. Thus, the qualities and behaviors expected of [[women]] by a particular society at a particular historical time is called [[femininity]]; [[masculinity]] is what is expected of [[men]] in a particular cultural and historical setting.

An organism's sex category reflects its biological reproductive function rather than its sexuality or other behavior. The female sex is defined as the one which produces the larger gamete and which typically bears the offspring. In contrast, the male sex has a smaller gamete and rarely bears offspring. In some animals, sex may be assigned to specific structures rather than the entire organism. Earthworms, for example, are normally hermaphrodites.

Alternately, "gender" may be defined to be the norm of social conduct, based on sex. That is, "sex" defines what is biologically present, whereas "gender" defines what society expects of persons of different sexes. The distinction is important: the law tends to forbid discrimination on the basis of both (effeminate men cannot be fired for not acting according to their "gender"), but matters in terms of more abstracted social and legal arguments.

[[category:biology]]
[[category:sociology]]

Talk:Gender roles

2007-05-08T18:16:00Z

TrueGrit:

That explains why in every instance and every culture all men and women fall into such rigid roles. After all if these roles were in fact constucted that would mean some got the short end of the stick. Now that we know the reasons are biological, no one needs to feel oppressed or oppressive.

Cut (entire contents of article):

:'''Gender role''' refers to the notion that the traits of [[men]] and [[women]] and their places in society are learned behavior, social constructs, or based on stereotypes, rather than biological differences between the sexes that men and women are born with.

I had a hard time parsing the grammar of this. Is this an assertion, or what?

I just want to know what a gender role '''*is*'''. Like daddy goes out to work, mommy stays home with the kids. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:13, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

This is covered in [[Gender]] already. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 14:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Constitutional monarchy

2007-05-07T11:32:26Z

TrueGrit:

A [[government]] with a constitution which acknowledges a monarch as head of state with varying degrees of influence in the running of the country. Constitutional monarchy is generally held by conservative philosophers (e.g. [[Plato]], [[Hobbes]], [[Locke]]) to be the ideal form of government.

Countries with constitutional monarchies include the United Kingdom, Canada and Spain.

A monarch <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monarchy definition of monarch]</ref> is a head of state, but the amount of power a head of state holds can vary. The United Kingdom's approach to government has the reigning monarch publically represent the UK. The day-to-day work of keeping government in place and working is handled by other constitutionally directed organization. The UK monarchary is granted little power beyond publically representing the UK. The monarchy, for example, could not make an independent decision; which party in a law case was guilty and decree the guilty party. The UK constition limits the power of the UK monarchy. There is good reason for this kind of approach because some past monarchs in history (and not exclusively in the UK) have misued their vested powers and, over time, constitutions have been written. A constitutional monarchy's position is below and constrained by the country's constitution.

A monarchy can be the very best form of government, as measured by the betterment of the people during a monarch's reign. The UK has had some benevolent monarchs who wielded great power. But, in general, to fit all possible monarchs, experience has shown that a constitution needs be carefully written.

Presently, the country of Qatar is considered by many to be ruled by a benevolent monarch, though his title, in keeping with the Arabic language, is Emirate. [[Saudi Arabia]] is also a governed by a monarchy, though not a constitutional one.<ref>[http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html CIA Factbook]</ref> [[Canada]] is a constitutional monarchy with a [[parliamentary system]].

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

Template:Sociology

2007-05-06T20:13:18Z

TrueGrit:

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="15%" style="margin-left:5px"
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: #3685B4 no-repeat scroll top left;"|'''[[Sociology]]'''
|-
|[[Image:Sociology.jpg |175px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: navy; height: 30px; background: #FACA0A no-repeat scroll top left;"|'''Theories'''
|-
|<center>[[Conflict Theory]]</center>
|-
|<center>[[Functionalism (sociology) | Functionalism]]</center>
|-
|<center>[[Symbolic Interactionism]]</center>
|-
|<center>[[Social Constructionism]]</center>
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: navy; height: 30px; background: #FACA0A no-repeat scroll top left;"|'''Topics'''
|-
|<center>[[Deviant Behaviour]]</center>
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: navy; height: 30px; background: #FACA0A no-repeat scroll top left;"|'''Theorists'''
|-
|<center>[[Auguste Comte]]</center>
|-
|<center>[[Karl Marx]]</center>
|-
|<center>[[Emile Durkheim]]</center>
|-
|<center>[[Max Weber]]</center>
|}

Auguste Comte

2007-05-06T20:04:17Z

TrueGrit:

Auguste Comte

2007-05-06T20:03:45Z

TrueGrit: New page: '''Isidore Auguste Marie François Xavier Comte''' was born in Montpellier, France, January 19th, 1798, and died in Paris, France, on September 5th, 1857. Comte is best known as the fathe...

'''Isidore Auguste Marie François Xavier Comte''' was born in Montpellier, France, January 19th, 1798, and died in Paris, France, on September 5th, 1857. Comte is best known as the father of postivism, and was the first to utilize the scientific method in exploration of the social world. It was Comte who coined the term ''[[sociology]]''.

Functionalism (sociology)

2007-05-05T04:00:31Z

TrueGrit:

{{Template:Sociology}}
[[Functionalism]] is a theory which examines society through interdependent elements, using a somewhat biological approach. For other definitions of functionalism see the [[Functionalism|disambiguation]] page.

==Introduction==
Social institutions have a specific function for the welfare of the entire society, in much the same way that the body's organs have specific functions that contribute to the overall welfare of the body. Functionalists believe that it is stable social relations or structures that influence human behaviour; these structures arise from shared values, and can either contribute to, or detract from the social stability. Functionalists believe that restoring equilibrium and increasing social cohesion can solve most social problems. In the late 40s, Robert Merton made a significant contribution to functionalist thought with his theories of manifest and latent functions. That is, a social structure can have both intentional functions, and unintentional functions respectively. Merton also believed that social structures can have a varying impact on different groups.<ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref><ref>Gomme, I.M. (2002). The shadow line: deviance and crime in Canada (3rd ed.). Toronto:Nelson.</ref>

Example: The functionalist approach to deviant behaviour takes the position that a certain amount of deviance or crime is necessary in society. At the correct balance, deviance has latent functions that contribute to the health of society. When the balance is disrupted, social cohesion deteriorates. More specifically, latent functions of deviance include providing an example of unacceptable conduct to other members of society. Criminals and ''others'' demonstrate unacceptable conduct by incurring sanctions from other formal structures, such as the courts, or mental health institutions.

'''Key Figures:''' Auguste Comte, [[Emile Durkheim]], [[Talcott Parsons]], [[Robert Merton]]

;Notable works include
:''Cours de philosophie positive'' by Auguste Compte
:''Suicide: A study in sociology'' by Emile Durkheim
:''Social Theory and Social Structure'' by Robert Merton

==External Links==

===Professional Organizations===
* [http://www.asanet.org/ American Sociological Association]
* [http://www.csaa.ca Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association]
* [http://www.isa-sociology.org International Sociological Association]

===Resources===
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Project Gutenburg]
* [http://muse.jhu.edu/ Project Muse]
* [http://www.jstor.org Journal Storage]

==References==
<references/>



[[Category:Sociology]]

Social Construct

2007-05-05T03:58:21Z

TrueGrit:

{{Template:Sociology}}

A social construct is associated with the concept of [[Social Constructionism]]. The main premise is that humans construct their social reality, rather than having it imposed upon them. As a result of the nature of social constructs, their definition is constantly in flux as norms and values of society constantly change. For instance, as attitudes toward homosexuality, premarital sex, and other cultural phenomenon change, their definition changes. In some cases, activities once considered perfectly normal become deviant, and deviant behaviours become perfectly normal.
A comprehensive example of the shift in definitions comes from the narcotics legislation introduced in Canada in the 1920s. Prior to 1923, marijuana was an uncontrolled substance. However, as a crackdown on opium dens began in British Columbia, and a moral panic began regarding drugs, there was a sudden change in the status of marijuana. Marijuana itself was not the subject of any debate, nor was it included in the initial readings of the introduced legislation. More than likely, it was written in at the last minute, with no member of parliament having significant feelings one way or another, nor was it supported by any significant scientific evidence regarding its harmful nature. To this day the behaviour of marijuana use is formally considered deviant, and therefore a crime. The definition of the behaviour is socially constructed, as there is no '''natural''' reason for it to be a crime.

Social Construct

2007-05-05T03:57:54Z

TrueGrit: New page: A social construct is associated with the concept of Social Constructionism. The main premise is that humans construct their social reality, rather than having it imposed upon them. As...

A social construct is associated with the concept of [[Social Constructionism]]. The main premise is that humans construct their social reality, rather than having it imposed upon them. As a result of the nature of social constructs, their definition is constantly in flux as norms and values of society constantly change. For instance, as attitudes toward homosexuality, premarital sex, and other cultural phenomenon change, their definition changes. In some cases, activities once considered perfectly normal become deviant, and deviant behaviours become perfectly normal.
A comprehensive example of the shift in definitions comes from the narcotics legislation introduced in Canada in the 1920s. Prior to 1923, marijuana was an uncontrolled substance. However, as a crackdown on opium dens began in British Columbia, and a moral panic began regarding drugs, there was a sudden change in the status of marijuana. Marijuana itself was not the subject of any debate, nor was it included in the initial readings of the introduced legislation. More than likely, it was written in at the last minute, with no member of parliament having significant feelings one way or another, nor was it supported by any significant scientific evidence regarding its harmful nature. To this day the behaviour of marijuana use is formally considered deviant, and therefore a crime. The definition of the behaviour is socially constructed, as there is no '''natural''' reason for it to be a crime.

Talk:Sweden

2007-05-05T03:40:39Z

TrueGrit: Readability

Why did you erase the information from MissisppiMud?

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

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

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

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

According to the WHO

Although it is true that Sweden has some of the highest suicide rates in the world however Sweden is one of the richest country’s in the world.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 16:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Removed ==
I removed the part which said something along the lines of: The swedes pay about 65% in taxes, if counting all taxes.
This is simply not true as they use a scaling system if ones income is above a certain amount. I've written this.

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

== Too much opinion and editorializing ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Readability ==

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

Sweden

2007-05-05T03:33:54Z

TrueGrit: /* Politics */ improved readability - still needs work/expansion

'''Sweden''' is a country in [[Scandinavia]]. The capital city is [[Stockholm]], which is also the largest city. Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants. With an area of 173,750 square miles (450,000 square kilometers), Sweden is a big country in [[Western Europe]].

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

== Swedish Viking History ==

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

Christianity only took root in the 11th century.

== Christianity in Sweden ==

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

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

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

== Politics ==

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

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

== Economy ==

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

==Some Notable Swedes==
* [[Alfred Nobel]], instigator of the [[Nobel Prize]]
* Greta Garbo, actress
* ABBA
* Roxette
* Dag Hammarskjöld
* [[Anders Celsius]]
* Astrid Lindgren
* Carl von Linné
* Fredrik Ljungberg
* Henrik Larsson
* Stellan Skarsgård
* Saint Bridgid
* Lars Magnus Ericsson
* Gustavus Adolphus (king, founder of Gothenburg etc, died 1632 in the Thirty Years War)
* Björn Borg, tennis player
* Olof Palme
* Ingemar Bergman

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

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

Talk:Canada

2007-05-01T19:46:18Z

TrueGrit: Human Trafficking

==No Room For Unsubstantiated Claims==

Why is it necessary for me to keep correcting the work of vandals? This page is not for comparing Canada to the United States. This is a page for reporting facts about the country. If I was so inclined, I could come up with some really nice things to say about Canada that make us look much better than the United States- but I don't. It's people that come in here and try to drag down my country that make their country look bad. Lose the attitude of superiority. This is not "An American Site". This is a wiki which is open to users around the world. If this site is to gain credibility, then it has to be balanced. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== About Canada ==

This is an encyclopedic entry on Canada. This not a page designed to highlight how the US is better than Canada. Please take your heads out of your hind quarters. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Marijuana ==

On the subject of Canada exporting pot to the US, I don't see the big deal. It is fair to include that, as it is something that we aim to improve. You say we supply your 5% like its a bad thing? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

You should have seen waht was there before I softened it up a little. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 00:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Canada's Response to SARS ==

Comparisons of the incidence of SARS in different jurisdictions is problematic, because it depends on health care professionals diagnosing the illness. In the US, for example, an unknown respiratory illness was reported which might have been diagnosed as SARS in Ontario. In fact, no real diagnosis of a "syndrome" can be made, because a syndrome is merely a collection of symptoms. Only when a virus or other cause is identified can a true diagnosis be made. The best known example of this is AIDS, which was later found to be caused by HIV infection.

During the epidemic, Chinese and American health officials may have wished to minimize its perceived gravity, while Toronto officials were more concerned with containing the actual illness. At the same time, the Canadian and Ontario governments largely ignored the problem, which they saw as a local matter.

The main article implies that Canada had a higher mortality rate for SARS because of its public health care system. While that is an interesting hypothesis, it would be helpful if the writer could provide a comparison of the treatment given to SARS victims to show how improved care in Ontario's hospitals could have improved the rate.

:I agree whole heartedly. However, the problem we are left with is that what is there now is a compromise from the original contribution. A very bitter user contributed a handful of sections that made Canada look like the worst country in the world to live, and was rife with tabloidization. We need more editors to squeeze out those with fuzzy logic. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Top 10 places to live in the world==

We really need a citation for that. According to whom? A travel magazine? The UN? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human Trafficking ==

I do not believe that this fits in the article on Canada. It provides no information on Canada as a country, it just highlights some opportunities for improvement. It's not something that anyone would allow done to an article on the United States, so why allow it here? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Canada

2007-05-01T19:44:42Z

TrueGrit: /* Canada's Response to SARS */

User talk:AmeriCan

2007-05-01T19:41:10Z

TrueGrit: /* Canada */

Let me be the first to welcome you to Conservapedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:24, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:And me the second. '''''Welcome!''''' --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Help ==

Thank you for your help in "[[Vicente Fox]]".

Could you take a look to "[[Luigi Giussani]]"?. I think there are some little english problems also.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you again.

:::--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Canada ==

Great contribution on culture. Thanks. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:46, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I removed your "contribution" (i use this term very loosely) because it was argued by another user that we should be cleaning up certain high traffic articles to ensure they are of encyclopedic quality. Your addition is very much tabloidization, and I respectfully request you remove it. I know that you only included it in order to mount an attack on Canada, and you find smug satisfaction in irritating liberals, and probably Canadians in general. Otherwise, I will be forced to find other means of cleaning up the article. I will continue to revert the edit unless you are willing to commit to a debate on the issue. Regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:41, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Attack Box ==

Sorry AmeriCan, but I think that [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:AmeriCan&curid=19007&diff=113965&oldid=112383&rcid=118654 this] constitutes an attack box, and request that you remove it. Sorry, just enforcing the [[User:Aschlafly|the grand exalted leader]]'s rules. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[National Rifle Association]] and [[Human Rights]] ==

Please see my comments at the talk page there. I'll change it back, if you don't want to debate there. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Copying ==

Please respond to allegations of copying, and/or stop copying by [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:AmeriCan

2007-05-01T19:39:58Z

TrueGrit: /* Canada */

Let me be the first to welcome you to Conservapedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:24, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:And me the second. '''''Welcome!''''' --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Help ==

Thank you for your help in "[[Vicente Fox]]".

Could you take a look to "[[Luigi Giussani]]"?. I think there are some little english problems also.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you again.

:::--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Canada ==

Great contribution on culture. Thanks. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:46, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I removed your "contribution" (i use this term very loosely) because it was argued by another user that we should be cleaning up certain high traffic articles to ensure they are of encyclopedic quality. Your addition is very much tabloidization, and I respectfully request you remove it. I know that you only included it in order to mount an attack on Canada, and you find smug satisfaction in irritating liberals, and probably Canadians in general. Otherwise, I will be forced to find other means of cleaning up the article.

== Attack Box ==

Sorry AmeriCan, but I think that [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:AmeriCan&curid=19007&diff=113965&oldid=112383&rcid=118654 this] constitutes an attack box, and request that you remove it. Sorry, just enforcing the [[User:Aschlafly|the grand exalted leader]]'s rules. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:49, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[National Rifle Association]] and [[Human Rights]] ==

Please see my comments at the talk page there. I'll change it back, if you don't want to debate there. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Copying ==

Please respond to allegations of copying, and/or stop copying by [[Conservapedia:Abuse]]. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Functionalism (sociology)

2007-05-01T03:43:44Z

TrueGrit:

{{Template:Sociology}}
[[Functionalism]] is a theory which examines society through interdependent elements, using a somewhat biological approach.

==Introduction==
Social institutions have a specific function for the welfare of the entire society, in much the same way that the body's organs have specific functions that contribute to the overall welfare of the body. Functionalists believe that it is stable social relations or structures that influence human behaviour; these structures arise from shared values, and can either contribute to, or detract from the social stability. Functionalists believe that restoring equilibrium and increasing social cohesion can solve most social problems. In the late 40s, Robert Merton made a significant contribution to functionalist thought with his theories of manifest and latent functions. That is, a social structure can have both intentional functions, and unintentional functions respectively. Merton also believed that social structures can have a varying impact on different groups.<ref>Brym, R.J. (2001). Introducing sociology. In R.J. Brym (Ed.), New society:sociology for the 21st century (pp. 2-25). Toronto: Harcourt.</ref><ref>Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S. (2000). The penguin dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). Toronto:Penguin.</ref><ref>Gomme, I.M. (2002). The shadow line: deviance and crime in Canada (3rd ed.). Toronto:Nelson.</ref>

Example: The functionalist approach to deviant behaviour takes the position that a certain amount of deviance or crime is necessary in society. At the correct balance, deviance has latent functions that contribute to the health of society. When the balance is disrupted, social cohesion deteriorates. More specifically, latent functions of deviance include providing an example of unacceptable conduct to other members of society. Criminals and ''others'' demonstrate unacceptable conduct by incurring sanctions from other formal structures, such as the courts, or mental health institutions.

'''Key Figures:''' Auguste Comte, [[Emile Durkheim]], [[Talcott Parsons]], [[Robert Merton]]

;Notable works include
:''Cours de philosophie positive'' by Auguste Compte
:''Suicide: A study in sociology'' by Emile Durkheim
:''Social Theory and Social Structure'' by Robert Merton

==External Links==

===Professional Organizations===
* [http://www.asanet.org/ American Sociological Association]
* [http://www.csaa.ca Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association]
* [http://www.isa-sociology.org International Sociological Association]

===Resources===
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Project Gutenburg]
* [http://muse.jhu.edu/ Project Muse]
* [http://www.jstor.org Journal Storage]

==References==
<references/>



[[Category:Sociology]]