Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:M14 automatic rifle

2015-02-09T20:50:24Z

Wschact: Created page with "If the M14 is an "automatic" rife (e.g., "machine gun") how is it avaiable for home protection? The article is confusing. Thanks, ~~~~"

If the M14 is an "automatic" rife (e.g., "machine gun") how is it avaiable for home protection? The article is confusing. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:50, 9 February 2015 (EST)

User talk:JaylesHowler

2015-02-09T19:40:40Z

Wschact: welcome

{{welcome}}
I have read your draft Wikipedia article. I was wondering why you shortened the history to remove many important events along the way that are covered in the current article? Since [[Wikipedia]] is one of CP's most popular articles, we should be careful that it does a good job of covering the topic. Thank you for your work. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:40, 9 February 2015 (EST)

User talk:JaylesHowler

2015-02-09T19:40:08Z

Wschact: Very interesting

I have read your draft Wikipedia article. I was wondering why you shortened the history to remove many important events along the way that are covered in the current article? Since [[Wikipedia]] is one of CP's most popular articles, we should be careful that it does a good job of covering the topic. Thank you for your work. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:40, 9 February 2015 (EST)

Unalienable rights

2015-02-09T19:29:50Z

Wschact: /* Threats & Safeguards */ expand

'''Unalienable rights''' are those which [[God]] gave to man at the [[Creation]], once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In [[America]], this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation's birth certificate, the ''[[Declaration of Independence]]'':

<blockquote>
"[A]ll men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, [[Liberty]] and the pursuit of Happiness."</blockquote>

It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these [[rights]] are "[[God-given]]." If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human [[government]], then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God's will. Rights that is subject to government restriction or [[license]] is called a [[privilege]] rather than a right. The [[Founding Fathers]] understood this principle and created a [[Republicanism|revolution]] in [[political theory]] by enacting, for the first time in [[history]], a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God.

<blockquote>
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of [[citizen|the governed]]." </blockquote>

According to the [[Founding Fathers|Founders]], unalienable rights belong to each person by [[virtue]] of the fact that man is made in God’s image, and is therefore endowed with certain attributes, powers, [[freedom]]s, and [[legal]] protections as part of his essence. These rights are thus inseparable -- or unalienable -- from each person individually and from the human race in general. They are a gift from the Creator and it is impossible for government to alter or nullify mankind’s divine inheritance. Except in extremely rare and limited circumstances, the unalienable rights of a particular individual, or the population at large, cannot be suspended, [[abrogate]]d, or diminished by government. When government does take action against a particular right, it may only do so to the extent necessary to address a genuine concern for [[public safety]]. (See "Legitimate Exceptions" below.) Unalienable rights automatically belong to each individual at the moment his or her life begins and continue throughout that person’s time on earth.

An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes. However, at a minimum they include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In general, the courts have not decided which rights are unalienable and which are not. Nonetheless, some philosophers have identified the following items, derived from the American Bill of Rights, as expanding on these themes:

# To act in [[self-defense]] (personal, [[family]], innocents, nation against [[tyranny]]). ([[Second Amendment]])
# To own and carry at [[home security|home]] and [[constitutional carry|in public]] [[weapon]]s ([[firearms]] and [[knife|knives]], etc.) for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains [[freedom|free]] against tyranny from enemies both [[foreign]] and [[police state|domestic]]. ([[Second Amendment]])
# To own and control [[private property]] (land, [[money]], personal items, [[intellectual property]], etc.)
# To earn a living and keep the [[profit|fruit]] of one’s labor.
# To freely [[migrate]] within the country or to leave the country.
# To [[worship]] -- or not worship -- God in the manner one chooses. ([[First Amendment]])
# To associate with -- or disassociate from -- any person or group. ([[First Amendment]])
# To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media. ([[First Amendment]])
# To be [[Fourth Amendment|secure in one’s home, papers, and person]] against un[[warrant]]ed searches and seizures ([[privacy]]). ([[Fourth Amendment]])
# To be advised of the charges, in the event of [[arrest]].
# To have a [[judge]] determine if the accused should be held for [[trial]] or for punishment.
# To be tried by a [[jury]] of one's peers and face one's accuser, in the event of being charged with a [[crime]].
# To be tried by a [[jury of one's peers]], in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive.
# To suffer no [[cruel or unusual punishment]].
# To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.
# To abolish said [[government]], when it becomes [[Police state|destructive]] [[tyranny|of these rights]].

== Early History in America ==

In England as with much of the medieval world until the 16th century, people accepted the view called the "devine right of kings" to govern. God gave a king the right to govern, and the king would then grant rights, privileges and titles to people. To the extent that the English people enjoyed freedoms, it was because '''the King of England''' had signed the [[Magna Carta]]. Because rights did not inherently belong to each individual, English society accepted many inequities that would not be accepted today, such as slavery, indentured servitude, and limited rights for women.

The concept of unalienable rights in America extends as far back as 1620, when the first Pilgrims arrived on the shores of what is now [[Massachusetts]], in search of religious freedom. According to Governor [[William Bradford]], it was the unending attack on the rights of religious minorities in [[Britain]] which convinced the [[Pilgrims]] that leaving [[England]] was the only way to secure their liberties:

<blockquote>
“The one side laboured to have the right worship of God and discipline of Christ established in the church… The other partie…endevored to have the episcopall dignitie (after the popish manner) with their large power and jurisdiction still retained; with all those courts, cannons, and ceremonies, together with all such livings, revenues, and subordinate officers, with other such means as formerly upheld their antichristian greatnes, and enabled them with lordly and tyranous power to persecute the poore servants of God.” (''History of Plymouth Plantation'')
</blockquote>

Other pilgrims soon followed those carried by the ''[[Mayflower]]''.

As these early [[Christian]] communities continued to grow and flourish in the new world, the notion that each individual possesses inherent dignity, value, and freedoms which the government ought to protect, became a recurring theme in political discussions and in religious writings and sermons. Preachers, pastors, civic leaders, and lawyers drew extensively from the [[Bible|Bible’s]] teachings on morality, Creation, and the nature of God to support this position, and the American public was very receptive. By 1775 the concept of unalienable rights was firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the thirteen colonies, having been sharpened by decades of abuse and taxation under British colonial rule. The time was right for change. In the hope of achieving a new political construct dedicated to preserving each person’s God-given rights and liberties, American patriots severed all ties with the British Crown and initiated a [[Revolutionary War|daring war]] against the most powerful nation at that time:

<blockquote>
* “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain '''unalienable Rights''', that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — '''That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men''', deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” -- [[Declaration of Independence|The Declaration of Independence]] (1776)
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “For the principle aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those '''absolute rights''', which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature.” -- [[William Blackstone]], Authority on English Law
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain '''inherent natural rights''', of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.” -- [[George Mason]], Father of the Bill of Rights
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example, of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of '''private rights''' and public happiness.” -- [[James Madison]], Father of the Constitution
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “Nothing then is unchangeable but the '''inherent and inalienable rights''' of man.” -- [[Thomas Jefferson]], Author of the [[Declaration of Independence]]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “Among the '''natural rights''' of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” -- [[Samuel Adams]], American Statesman and Patriot
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual's '''private rights'''.” -- [[William Blackstone]], Authority on English Law
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “The principle view of human law is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce '''such rights''' as are absolute.” -- [[William Blackstone]]
</blockquote>

The successful conclusion of the [[Revolutionary War|War for Independence]] in 1783 left the Americans free of their British oppressors, but faced with the daunting task of creating a new type of government that would transform the dream of ''universally protected God-given rights'' into a practical reality. Nothing like this before had ever been attempted. Consequently, the representatives of the thirteen states who assembled for the constitutional convention in Philadelphia (1787) had no illusions that the destiny of the new nation lay in their hands. To their great credit, they soon produced a legal manuscript which is arguably the greatest charter of liberty the world has ever known: the Constitution of the United States of America. This document, along with its first ten amendments -- commonly called the Bill of Rights -- set forth the framework and mechanisms by which the unalienable rights of the People would be recognized and protected from overreaching officials. Simply put, the Constitution establishes a limited government (a [[Constitutional Republic]]) that is empowered to protect the unalienable rights of the People, and is prohibited from doing virtually anything else. After two hundred years, the principle of unalienable rights, though buffeted by statism, atheism, communism, and individual ambition, remains at the core of American political, legal, economic, and social theory:

<blockquote>
*“The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the [[Constitution]], expressed a desire, in order '''to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers''', that further '''declaratory and restrictive clauses''' should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” -- Preamble to the [[Bill of Rights]] (NOTE: This means the Bill of Rights is not a ''grant'' of rights, but a ''prohibition'' against government infringement. It also means the Bill of Rights takes precedence over the main body of the Constitution.)</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* "The '''right of the individual against the State''' has ever been one of our most cherished political principles. The American Constitution has set down for all men to see the essentially Christian and American principle that there are '''certain rights''' held by every man which no government and no majority, however powerful, can deny. Conceived in Grecian thought, strengthened by Christian morality, and stamped indelibly into American political philosophy, the '''right of the individual against the State''' is the keystone of our Constitution. Each man is free." -- President [[John F. Kennedy]]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* "All men are made in the image of God; all men are brothers; all men are created equal; every man is heir to a legacy of dignity and worth; every man has '''rights''' that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state, they are '''God-given'''." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, [and] for those '''inalienable rights''' that make for human dignity and progress.” -- President Ronald Reagan
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other '''fundamental rights''' may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “As drafters of our '''Bill of Rights''', the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter…” -- Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court William Rehnquist
</blockquote>

== Legitimate Exceptions ==
Despite the sacred nature of unalienable rights, there are circumstances when one or more of them can be legitimately abridged or violated. Under the Constitution of the United States and American legal tradition, there are at least six times when the unalienable rights of a person, or the nation at large, may be legitimately infringed or suspended:

===Due Process===
Certain rights may be temporarily or permanently suspended through a court trial, or ''due process''. If someone has committed a theft, for example, he may be found guilty by a jury of his peers, incarcerated, and thus lose a great deal of his personal freedom for a certain period of time. He may also be forced to turn over some of his property to settle the related fine or to pay restitution. In the most extreme criminal cases, such as capital murder, the accused may forfeit his right to life.

===Injunctions===
A court may also issue an injunction to temporarily suspend a person’s right to conduct certain activities. Technically speaking, an injunction does not constitute due process, since no jury is involved. However, an injunction is generally regarded as an acceptable infringement on personal rights, inasmuch as it is a temporary measure and seeks only to block activities which may be harmful to others, or which may be found illegal at a subsequent trial. Nevertheless, injunctions cannot compel any person to do what is otherwise illegal or unconstitutional, such as forcing a witness to testify against himself or forcing a witness to change testimony which the witness believes to be true.

===Lawsuits To Protect the Rights of Others===
Although not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is clear that the exercise of one person’s unalienable rights may not interfere with the exercise of another. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is alleged to have said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” In other words, a person is free to exercise his or her unalienable rights without restraint, so long as he harms no other person, nor prevents anyone from exercising their own rights. When conflict does arise, the offended party may sue in a court of law in order to have their rights restored, or to be made financially whole, by legal process.

===Eminent Domain===
Whenever there is a compelling need to appropriate privately owned real estate for use by the general public, the government may exercise the power of ''eminent domain'' to take the land. There are two provisos. First, the land must be used for a public benefit. Second, the owner must be fairly compensated for the cost of the land. The fair market value is the highest price the owner would get for the property, were he to make it publicly available. In the event that the owner and the government cannot agree on a price, an appraiser may be asked to help assess the value. If there is still no agreement, the case may be put before a court and both sides may produce expert witnesses to attest the property’s worth.

===Invasion and Rebellion===
In the event of an invasion of the United States, or a rebellion against the government, the right of ''[[habeas corpus]]'' may be temporarily withheld. Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution provides: “The privilege [right] of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial order that commands a prison official or jailer to bring a detainee before a judge to determine if said person is being lawfully held and, if not, to command his release. Anyone who objects to someone’s detention may petition for the writ. This right is therefore one of the surest guarantees of liberty, because it prevents the government from arbitrarily imprisoning those it sees as a threat to its power. The right may only be suspended when the nation faces imminent or actual invasion, or when a violent rebellion has been launched against federal personnel or property, and then only to the extent the "public safety" requires it.

===Direct Taxation===
Any activity or right that is taxed is necessarily infringed. In ''McCulloch vs. Maryland'', U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall observed that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." The fiscal encumbrance of any unalienable right, therefore, is a violation of that right and may lead to its destruction. For that reason, the taxing power of Congress is strictly limited. For example, churches have special, limited tax exemptions.

==Nature, scope and limits==
The concept of "unalienable rights" draws controversy over how they are identified and enforced. In the eighteenth century, the definition that unalienable rights were defined by God, meant that the rights were not subject to the whim of the King to grant or withdraw. Social structures have evolved since then, so the debate has shifted to whether a particular right originates with God or is recognized by a particular society. In a society with freedom of religion, the practical definition of the nature, scope and limits of rights is not decided by theologians. If unalienable rights come from God, then people will differ on those rights in societies with many religions. For example, the early [[Mormon]] Church accepted polygamy, where a man could marry more than one woman at a time. American society did not accept that as an unalienable right, and armed conflict resulted. Similarly, the [[Roman Catholic Church]] did not recognize the rights of people to [[divorce]], while the views of American society as a whole viewed people as holding those rights. People can debate whether someone's views on these subjects are inspired by God, but probably both sides could argue whether divorce or polygamy were included in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So, in a democracy, individuals' understanding of their unalienable rights get resolved in the context of maintaining social order through the rule of law. While unalienable rights should in theory be protected from the opinions of the majority, as a practical matter, if there is a consensus in society, legislation and litigation will result in the scope and limits of a right being set in a manner that does not reflect the opinions of a minority. Because consensus evolves over time, the latitude that people have to enjoy what they believe are unalienable rights can shift as well.

== Threats and safeguards ==
A number of safeguards are built into the American system of government to protect our rights whether or not someone would classify them as "unalienable". These include:

* The Bill of Rights
* Grand Juries
* Jury trials (Petit Juries)
* [[Habeas corpus]]
* Popular vote of congressmen and senators
* Recall of elected officials
* [[Impeachment|Impeachment and removal]] of the President
* The right to petition for redress of grievances
* The right to demonstrate against the government
* The right to publish critiques of the government
* The right to petition a [[grand jury]] to indict officials
* Constitutional checks and balances between the various branches of government
* Limitation on [[Enumerated Powers]] to 19 (plus the power to remove the President)
* The right to appeal executive or agency actions and lower court decisions to a higher court
* The right to place referenda or citizen originated questions on the ballot
* The right to abolish the government and start over

Recent threats to our unalienable rights come mainly from the exercise of government power. Of late, they include:

* [[Hate crime|Hate Crime]] laws - Infringe on the right to think in a [[political correctness|politically incorrect]] manner; they also give special rights and status to privileged groups.
* [[McCain-Feingold]] law - Infringes on freedom of expression immediately before an [[election]].
* [[Fairness Doctrine]] - Infringes on the right of a person (or group) to express ''only'' what they believe.
* [[Executive Order]]s - Hundreds of directives issued by the [[President]] carrying the force of law, but not legislated by [[Congress]].
* The [[War on Terror]] - Military Tribunals / Denial of [[Habeas corpus]] / [[Rendition]] / [[Patriot Act|PATRIOT ACT]] / [[FISA]] Violations
* The [[War on Drugs]] - [[Asset forfeiture|Asset Forfeiture]] Laws (permit the government to deprive someone of their [[property]] without [[due process]].)
* U.S. [[Supreme Court]] ''Kelo'' decision - Distortion of the power of [[eminent domain]], allowing the government to take land which belongs to one private person or group, and give it to another. See [[income redistribution]].
* Suspension of Habeas corpus during the war on terrorism.

== Human Rights==
"[[Human rights]]" is often used interchangeably with the term "unalienable rights." The difference between these two concepts, however, is that unalienable rights are those authored by God. They are thus both irrevocable and nearly unlimited in scope. Man’s role is simply to discover and protect them. The common idea stems from the belief that the rights are inherent in all mankind. People from across the spectrum of political thought can protect these rights whether they believe in God or moral philosophy.

The fundamental challenge is the difficulty to assert a right in a government or society that denies its existence. So, if a member of a society wants a new right recognized, a local political or legal process is involved. But if there were a universally recognized set of unalienable or human rights, then that person could argue that the universal right should apply in all societies.

In the 20th century, [[secular]] concepts of human rights proliferated: the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]; the American Convention on Human Rights; the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; the European Convention of Human Rights; various [[United Nations]] conferences' declarations on the [[environment]], economic development, [[AIDS]], and other topics; and the [[Geneva Convention]]s and their additional protocols.

The most well-known example of human rights is the United Nations 1948 '''[[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]''' or '''UDHR'''. This document contains thirty articles listing about fifty rights authored and approved by the UN under the leadership of [[Eleanor Roosevelt]], among others. At the time the UN Declaration was ratified by its members, it was hailed by Americans as a major advancement in the cause of [[liberty]].

The Universal Declaration provides:
:Article 29 (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The first International Conference on Human Rights was held in Tehran, Iran, in 1968. A powerful bloc of Asian, African, and Arab states successfully asserted their control over the UN Human Rights Program. Their aggressive conference diplomacy was the culmination of a major transition in UN politics, with supposedly Western notions of individual freedom rejected in favor of an agenda that privileged economic modernization and the collective rights of peoples in Third World nations over those of individuals in those nations. Twenty years after the iconic image of [[Eleanor Roosevelt]] holding the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], the residual elements of the program she presided over were repudiated in a storm of insistent demands from the new anti-colonial order.<ref>Burke (2008)</ref>

The UDHR implicitly asserted that human rights are superior to notions of state sovereignty and called for the imposing of moral standards across the globe. These notions of universal human rights derive in part from [[Wilsonianism]]--the efforts of President [[Woodrow Wilson]] after World War I. They were reiterated in 2002 by President [[George W. Bush]] in his refusal to recognize Iraqi sovereignty and his efforts to impose a new democratic system of governance upon Iraq, and are a component of the [[Neoconservative]] effort to spread democracy in the Middle East, even in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The UN has supported this program, but the high cost has troubled Americans.

===India===
Deeply influenced by the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the [[India]]n constitution provides for a host of rights, including the right of equality, cultural and religious freedoms, and the right to education. Discrimination based on race, caste, gender, birthplace, and religion was subsequently outlawed. Yet, political and social realities have intruded. Because of India's multiplicity of religious and ethnic groups, each with their own traditions and beliefs, and the complex interplay between these groups, the principles contained in the constitution have not always been followed in practice.

==References==
<references/>
==Further reading==
* Burke, Roland. "From Individual Rights to National Development: the First UN International Conference on Human Rights, Tehran, 1968," ''Journal of World History'' 2008 19(3): 275-296, in [[EBSCO]]
* Devine, Carol et al. ''Human Rights: The Essential Reference'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/human-rights-the-essential-reference-by-carol-devine-carol-rae-hansen.jsp online edition]
* Langley, Winston E. ''Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues since 1945'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/111443595?title=Encyclopedia%20of%20Human%20Rights%20Issues%20since%201945 online edition]

==Primary sources==
* UN. ''Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments - Vol. 1 pt. 1'' (2002) by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva; [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Office%20of%20the%20United%20Nations%20High%20Commissioner%20for%20Human%20Rights%20Geneva&dcontributors=Office%20of%20the%20United%20Nations%20High%20Commissioner%20for%20Human%20Rights%20Geneva online edition]

[[Category : Republicanism]]
[[Category : Law]]
[[Category : Political Terms]]

Unalienable rights

2015-02-09T19:20:06Z

Wschact: /* Nature, scope and limits */ better flow

'''Unalienable rights''' are those which [[God]] gave to man at the [[Creation]], once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In [[America]], this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation's birth certificate, the ''[[Declaration of Independence]]'':

<blockquote>
"[A]ll men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, [[Liberty]] and the pursuit of Happiness."</blockquote>

It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these [[rights]] are "[[God-given]]." If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human [[government]], then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God's will. Rights that is subject to government restriction or [[license]] is called a [[privilege]] rather than a right. The [[Founding Fathers]] understood this principle and created a [[Republicanism|revolution]] in [[political theory]] by enacting, for the first time in [[history]], a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God.

<blockquote>
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of [[citizen|the governed]]." </blockquote>

According to the [[Founding Fathers|Founders]], unalienable rights belong to each person by [[virtue]] of the fact that man is made in God’s image, and is therefore endowed with certain attributes, powers, [[freedom]]s, and [[legal]] protections as part of his essence. These rights are thus inseparable -- or unalienable -- from each person individually and from the human race in general. They are a gift from the Creator and it is impossible for government to alter or nullify mankind’s divine inheritance. Except in extremely rare and limited circumstances, the unalienable rights of a particular individual, or the population at large, cannot be suspended, [[abrogate]]d, or diminished by government. When government does take action against a particular right, it may only do so to the extent necessary to address a genuine concern for [[public safety]]. (See "Legitimate Exceptions" below.) Unalienable rights automatically belong to each individual at the moment his or her life begins and continue throughout that person’s time on earth.

An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes. However, at a minimum they include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In general, the courts have not decided which rights are unalienable and which are not. Nonetheless, some philosophers have identified the following items, derived from the American Bill of Rights, as expanding on these themes:

# To act in [[self-defense]] (personal, [[family]], innocents, nation against [[tyranny]]). ([[Second Amendment]])
# To own and carry at [[home security|home]] and [[constitutional carry|in public]] [[weapon]]s ([[firearms]] and [[knife|knives]], etc.) for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains [[freedom|free]] against tyranny from enemies both [[foreign]] and [[police state|domestic]]. ([[Second Amendment]])
# To own and control [[private property]] (land, [[money]], personal items, [[intellectual property]], etc.)
# To earn a living and keep the [[profit|fruit]] of one’s labor.
# To freely [[migrate]] within the country or to leave the country.
# To [[worship]] -- or not worship -- God in the manner one chooses. ([[First Amendment]])
# To associate with -- or disassociate from -- any person or group. ([[First Amendment]])
# To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media. ([[First Amendment]])
# To be [[Fourth Amendment|secure in one’s home, papers, and person]] against un[[warrant]]ed searches and seizures ([[privacy]]). ([[Fourth Amendment]])
# To be advised of the charges, in the event of [[arrest]].
# To have a [[judge]] determine if the accused should be held for [[trial]] or for punishment.
# To be tried by a [[jury]] of one's peers and face one's accuser, in the event of being charged with a [[crime]].
# To be tried by a [[jury of one's peers]], in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive.
# To suffer no [[cruel or unusual punishment]].
# To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.
# To abolish said [[government]], when it becomes [[Police state|destructive]] [[tyranny|of these rights]].

== Early History in America ==

In England as with much of the medieval world until the 16th century, people accepted the view called the "devine right of kings" to govern. God gave a king the right to govern, and the king would then grant rights, privileges and titles to people. To the extent that the English people enjoyed freedoms, it was because '''the King of England''' had signed the [[Magna Carta]]. Because rights did not inherently belong to each individual, English society accepted many inequities that would not be accepted today, such as slavery, indentured servitude, and limited rights for women.

The concept of unalienable rights in America extends as far back as 1620, when the first Pilgrims arrived on the shores of what is now [[Massachusetts]], in search of religious freedom. According to Governor [[William Bradford]], it was the unending attack on the rights of religious minorities in [[Britain]] which convinced the [[Pilgrims]] that leaving [[England]] was the only way to secure their liberties:

<blockquote>
“The one side laboured to have the right worship of God and discipline of Christ established in the church… The other partie…endevored to have the episcopall dignitie (after the popish manner) with their large power and jurisdiction still retained; with all those courts, cannons, and ceremonies, together with all such livings, revenues, and subordinate officers, with other such means as formerly upheld their antichristian greatnes, and enabled them with lordly and tyranous power to persecute the poore servants of God.” (''History of Plymouth Plantation'')
</blockquote>

Other pilgrims soon followed those carried by the ''[[Mayflower]]''.

As these early [[Christian]] communities continued to grow and flourish in the new world, the notion that each individual possesses inherent dignity, value, and freedoms which the government ought to protect, became a recurring theme in political discussions and in religious writings and sermons. Preachers, pastors, civic leaders, and lawyers drew extensively from the [[Bible|Bible’s]] teachings on morality, Creation, and the nature of God to support this position, and the American public was very receptive. By 1775 the concept of unalienable rights was firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the thirteen colonies, having been sharpened by decades of abuse and taxation under British colonial rule. The time was right for change. In the hope of achieving a new political construct dedicated to preserving each person’s God-given rights and liberties, American patriots severed all ties with the British Crown and initiated a [[Revolutionary War|daring war]] against the most powerful nation at that time:

<blockquote>
* “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain '''unalienable Rights''', that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — '''That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men''', deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” -- [[Declaration of Independence|The Declaration of Independence]] (1776)
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “For the principle aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those '''absolute rights''', which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature.” -- [[William Blackstone]], Authority on English Law
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain '''inherent natural rights''', of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.” -- [[George Mason]], Father of the Bill of Rights
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example, of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of '''private rights''' and public happiness.” -- [[James Madison]], Father of the Constitution
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “Nothing then is unchangeable but the '''inherent and inalienable rights''' of man.” -- [[Thomas Jefferson]], Author of the [[Declaration of Independence]]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “Among the '''natural rights''' of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” -- [[Samuel Adams]], American Statesman and Patriot
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual's '''private rights'''.” -- [[William Blackstone]], Authority on English Law
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “The principle view of human law is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce '''such rights''' as are absolute.” -- [[William Blackstone]]
</blockquote>

The successful conclusion of the [[Revolutionary War|War for Independence]] in 1783 left the Americans free of their British oppressors, but faced with the daunting task of creating a new type of government that would transform the dream of ''universally protected God-given rights'' into a practical reality. Nothing like this before had ever been attempted. Consequently, the representatives of the thirteen states who assembled for the constitutional convention in Philadelphia (1787) had no illusions that the destiny of the new nation lay in their hands. To their great credit, they soon produced a legal manuscript which is arguably the greatest charter of liberty the world has ever known: the Constitution of the United States of America. This document, along with its first ten amendments -- commonly called the Bill of Rights -- set forth the framework and mechanisms by which the unalienable rights of the People would be recognized and protected from overreaching officials. Simply put, the Constitution establishes a limited government (a [[Constitutional Republic]]) that is empowered to protect the unalienable rights of the People, and is prohibited from doing virtually anything else. After two hundred years, the principle of unalienable rights, though buffeted by statism, atheism, communism, and individual ambition, remains at the core of American political, legal, economic, and social theory:

<blockquote>
*“The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the [[Constitution]], expressed a desire, in order '''to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers''', that further '''declaratory and restrictive clauses''' should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” -- Preamble to the [[Bill of Rights]] (NOTE: This means the Bill of Rights is not a ''grant'' of rights, but a ''prohibition'' against government infringement. It also means the Bill of Rights takes precedence over the main body of the Constitution.)</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* "The '''right of the individual against the State''' has ever been one of our most cherished political principles. The American Constitution has set down for all men to see the essentially Christian and American principle that there are '''certain rights''' held by every man which no government and no majority, however powerful, can deny. Conceived in Grecian thought, strengthened by Christian morality, and stamped indelibly into American political philosophy, the '''right of the individual against the State''' is the keystone of our Constitution. Each man is free." -- President [[John F. Kennedy]]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* "All men are made in the image of God; all men are brothers; all men are created equal; every man is heir to a legacy of dignity and worth; every man has '''rights''' that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state, they are '''God-given'''." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, [and] for those '''inalienable rights''' that make for human dignity and progress.” -- President Ronald Reagan
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other '''fundamental rights''' may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “As drafters of our '''Bill of Rights''', the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter…” -- Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court William Rehnquist
</blockquote>

== Legitimate Exceptions ==
Despite the sacred nature of unalienable rights, there are circumstances when one or more of them can be legitimately abridged or violated. Under the Constitution of the United States and American legal tradition, there are at least six times when the unalienable rights of a person, or the nation at large, may be legitimately infringed or suspended:

===Due Process===
Certain rights may be temporarily or permanently suspended through a court trial, or ''due process''. If someone has committed a theft, for example, he may be found guilty by a jury of his peers, incarcerated, and thus lose a great deal of his personal freedom for a certain period of time. He may also be forced to turn over some of his property to settle the related fine or to pay restitution. In the most extreme criminal cases, such as capital murder, the accused may forfeit his right to life.

===Injunctions===
A court may also issue an injunction to temporarily suspend a person’s right to conduct certain activities. Technically speaking, an injunction does not constitute due process, since no jury is involved. However, an injunction is generally regarded as an acceptable infringement on personal rights, inasmuch as it is a temporary measure and seeks only to block activities which may be harmful to others, or which may be found illegal at a subsequent trial. Nevertheless, injunctions cannot compel any person to do what is otherwise illegal or unconstitutional, such as forcing a witness to testify against himself or forcing a witness to change testimony which the witness believes to be true.

===Lawsuits To Protect the Rights of Others===
Although not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is clear that the exercise of one person’s unalienable rights may not interfere with the exercise of another. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is alleged to have said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” In other words, a person is free to exercise his or her unalienable rights without restraint, so long as he harms no other person, nor prevents anyone from exercising their own rights. When conflict does arise, the offended party may sue in a court of law in order to have their rights restored, or to be made financially whole, by legal process.

===Eminent Domain===
Whenever there is a compelling need to appropriate privately owned real estate for use by the general public, the government may exercise the power of ''eminent domain'' to take the land. There are two provisos. First, the land must be used for a public benefit. Second, the owner must be fairly compensated for the cost of the land. The fair market value is the highest price the owner would get for the property, were he to make it publicly available. In the event that the owner and the government cannot agree on a price, an appraiser may be asked to help assess the value. If there is still no agreement, the case may be put before a court and both sides may produce expert witnesses to attest the property’s worth.

===Invasion and Rebellion===
In the event of an invasion of the United States, or a rebellion against the government, the right of ''[[habeas corpus]]'' may be temporarily withheld. Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution provides: “The privilege [right] of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial order that commands a prison official or jailer to bring a detainee before a judge to determine if said person is being lawfully held and, if not, to command his release. Anyone who objects to someone’s detention may petition for the writ. This right is therefore one of the surest guarantees of liberty, because it prevents the government from arbitrarily imprisoning those it sees as a threat to its power. The right may only be suspended when the nation faces imminent or actual invasion, or when a violent rebellion has been launched against federal personnel or property, and then only to the extent the "public safety" requires it.

===Direct Taxation===
Any activity or right that is taxed is necessarily infringed. In ''McCulloch vs. Maryland'', U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall observed that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." The fiscal encumbrance of any unalienable right, therefore, is a violation of that right and may lead to its destruction. For that reason, the taxing power of Congress is strictly limited. For example, churches have special, limited tax exemptions.

==Nature, scope and limits==
The concept of "unalienable rights" draws controversy over how they are identified and enforced. In the eighteenth century, the definition that unalienable rights were defined by God, meant that the rights were not subject to the whim of the King to grant or withdraw. Social structures have evolved since then, so the debate has shifted to whether a particular right originates with God or is recognized by a particular society. In a society with freedom of religion, the practical definition of the nature, scope and limits of rights is not decided by theologians. If unalienable rights come from God, then people will differ on those rights in societies with many religions. For example, the early [[Mormon]] Church accepted polygamy, where a man could marry more than one woman at a time. American society did not accept that as an unalienable right, and armed conflict resulted. Similarly, the [[Roman Catholic Church]] did not recognize the rights of people to [[divorce]], while the views of American society as a whole viewed people as holding those rights. People can debate whether someone's views on these subjects are inspired by God, but probably both sides could argue whether divorce or polygamy were included in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So, in a democracy, individuals' understanding of their unalienable rights get resolved in the context of maintaining social order through the rule of law. While unalienable rights should in theory be protected from the opinions of the majority, as a practical matter, if there is a consensus in society, legislation and litigation will result in the scope and limits of a right being set in a manner that does not reflect the opinions of a minority. Because consensus evolves over time, the latitude that people have to enjoy what they believe are unalienable rights can shift as well.

== Threats & Safeguards ==
A number of safeguards are built into the American system of government to protect our rights whether or not someone would classify them as "unalienable". These include:

* The Bill of Rights
* Grand Juries
* Jury trials (Petit Juries)
* [[Jury nullification]]
* [[Habeas corpus]]
* Popular vote of congressmen and senators
* Recall of elected officials
* [[Impeachment|Impeachment and removal]] of the President
* The right to petition for redress of grievances
* The right to demonstrate against the government
* The right to publish critiques of the government
* The right to petition a [[grand jury]] to indict officials
* Constitutional checks and balances between the various branches of government
* Limitation on [[Enumerated Powers]] to 19 (plus the power to remove the President)
* Courts of appeal and the Supreme Court
* The right to abolish the government and start over

Recent threats to our unalienable rights come mainly from the [[big government|federal government]]. Of late, they include:

* [[Hate crime|Hate Crime]] laws - Infringe on the right to think in a [[political correctness|politically incorrect]] manner; they also give special rights and status to privileged groups.
* [[McCain-Feingold]] law - Infringes on freedom of expression immediately before an [[election]].
* [[Fairness Doctrine]] - Infringes on the right of a person (or group) to express ''only'' what they believe.
* [[Executive Order]]s - Hundreds of directives issued by the [[President]] carrying the force of law, but not legislated by [[Congress]].
* The [[War on Terror]] - Military Tribunals / Denial of [[Habeas corpus]] / [[Rendition]] / [[Patriot Act|PATRIOT ACT]] / [[FISA]] Violations
* The [[War on Drugs]] - [[Asset forfeiture|Asset Forfeiture]] Laws (permit the government to deprive someone of their [[property]] without [[due process]].)
* U.S. [[Supreme Court]] ''Kelo'' decision - Distortion of the power of [[eminent domain]], allowing the government to take land which belongs to one private person or group, and give it to another. See [[income redistribution]].

== Human Rights==
"[[Human rights]]" is often used interchangeably with the term "unalienable rights." The difference between these two concepts, however, is that unalienable rights are those authored by God. They are thus both irrevocable and nearly unlimited in scope. Man’s role is simply to discover and protect them. The common idea stems from the belief that the rights are inherent in all mankind. People from across the spectrum of political thought can protect these rights whether they believe in God or moral philosophy.

The fundamental challenge is the difficulty to assert a right in a government or society that denies its existence. So, if a member of a society wants a new right recognized, a local political or legal process is involved. But if there were a universally recognized set of unalienable or human rights, then that person could argue that the universal right should apply in all societies.

In the 20th century, [[secular]] concepts of human rights proliferated: the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]; the American Convention on Human Rights; the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; the European Convention of Human Rights; various [[United Nations]] conferences' declarations on the [[environment]], economic development, [[AIDS]], and other topics; and the [[Geneva Convention]]s and their additional protocols.

The most well-known example of human rights is the United Nations 1948 '''[[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]''' or '''UDHR'''. This document contains thirty articles listing about fifty rights authored and approved by the UN under the leadership of [[Eleanor Roosevelt]], among others. At the time the UN Declaration was ratified by its members, it was hailed by Americans as a major advancement in the cause of [[liberty]].

The Universal Declaration provides:
:Article 29 (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The first International Conference on Human Rights was held in Tehran, Iran, in 1968. A powerful bloc of Asian, African, and Arab states successfully asserted their control over the UN Human Rights Program. Their aggressive conference diplomacy was the culmination of a major transition in UN politics, with supposedly Western notions of individual freedom rejected in favor of an agenda that privileged economic modernization and the collective rights of peoples in Third World nations over those of individuals in those nations. Twenty years after the iconic image of [[Eleanor Roosevelt]] holding the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], the residual elements of the program she presided over were repudiated in a storm of insistent demands from the new anti-colonial order.<ref>Burke (2008)</ref>

The UDHR implicitly asserted that human rights are superior to notions of state sovereignty and called for the imposing of moral standards across the globe. These notions of universal human rights derive in part from [[Wilsonianism]]--the efforts of President [[Woodrow Wilson]] after World War I. They were reiterated in 2002 by President [[George W. Bush]] in his refusal to recognize Iraqi sovereignty and his efforts to impose a new democratic system of governance upon Iraq, and are a component of the [[Neoconservative]] effort to spread democracy in the Middle East, even in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The UN has supported this program, but the high cost has troubled Americans.

===India===
Deeply influenced by the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the [[India]]n constitution provides for a host of rights, including the right of equality, cultural and religious freedoms, and the right to education. Discrimination based on race, caste, gender, birthplace, and religion was subsequently outlawed. Yet, political and social realities have intruded. Because of India's multiplicity of religious and ethnic groups, each with their own traditions and beliefs, and the complex interplay between these groups, the principles contained in the constitution have not always been followed in practice.

==References==
<references/>
==Further reading==
* Burke, Roland. "From Individual Rights to National Development: the First UN International Conference on Human Rights, Tehran, 1968," ''Journal of World History'' 2008 19(3): 275-296, in [[EBSCO]]
* Devine, Carol et al. ''Human Rights: The Essential Reference'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/human-rights-the-essential-reference-by-carol-devine-carol-rae-hansen.jsp online edition]
* Langley, Winston E. ''Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues since 1945'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/111443595?title=Encyclopedia%20of%20Human%20Rights%20Issues%20since%201945 online edition]

==Primary sources==
* UN. ''Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments - Vol. 1 pt. 1'' (2002) by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva; [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Office%20of%20the%20United%20Nations%20High%20Commissioner%20for%20Human%20Rights%20Geneva&dcontributors=Office%20of%20the%20United%20Nations%20High%20Commissioner%20for%20Human%20Rights%20Geneva online edition]

[[Category : Republicanism]]
[[Category : Law]]
[[Category : Political Terms]]

Unalienable rights

2015-02-09T19:17:37Z

Wschact: /* Nature, scope and limits */ wikify

'''Unalienable rights''' are those which [[God]] gave to man at the [[Creation]], once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In [[America]], this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation's birth certificate, the ''[[Declaration of Independence]]'':

<blockquote>
"[A]ll men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, [[Liberty]] and the pursuit of Happiness."</blockquote>

It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these [[rights]] are "[[God-given]]." If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human [[government]], then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God's will. Rights that is subject to government restriction or [[license]] is called a [[privilege]] rather than a right. The [[Founding Fathers]] understood this principle and created a [[Republicanism|revolution]] in [[political theory]] by enacting, for the first time in [[history]], a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God.

<blockquote>
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of [[citizen|the governed]]." </blockquote>

According to the [[Founding Fathers|Founders]], unalienable rights belong to each person by [[virtue]] of the fact that man is made in God’s image, and is therefore endowed with certain attributes, powers, [[freedom]]s, and [[legal]] protections as part of his essence. These rights are thus inseparable -- or unalienable -- from each person individually and from the human race in general. They are a gift from the Creator and it is impossible for government to alter or nullify mankind’s divine inheritance. Except in extremely rare and limited circumstances, the unalienable rights of a particular individual, or the population at large, cannot be suspended, [[abrogate]]d, or diminished by government. When government does take action against a particular right, it may only do so to the extent necessary to address a genuine concern for [[public safety]]. (See "Legitimate Exceptions" below.) Unalienable rights automatically belong to each individual at the moment his or her life begins and continue throughout that person’s time on earth.

An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes. However, at a minimum they include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In general, the courts have not decided which rights are unalienable and which are not. Nonetheless, some philosophers have identified the following items, derived from the American Bill of Rights, as expanding on these themes:

# To act in [[self-defense]] (personal, [[family]], innocents, nation against [[tyranny]]). ([[Second Amendment]])
# To own and carry at [[home security|home]] and [[constitutional carry|in public]] [[weapon]]s ([[firearms]] and [[knife|knives]], etc.) for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains [[freedom|free]] against tyranny from enemies both [[foreign]] and [[police state|domestic]]. ([[Second Amendment]])
# To own and control [[private property]] (land, [[money]], personal items, [[intellectual property]], etc.)
# To earn a living and keep the [[profit|fruit]] of one’s labor.
# To freely [[migrate]] within the country or to leave the country.
# To [[worship]] -- or not worship -- God in the manner one chooses. ([[First Amendment]])
# To associate with -- or disassociate from -- any person or group. ([[First Amendment]])
# To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media. ([[First Amendment]])
# To be [[Fourth Amendment|secure in one’s home, papers, and person]] against un[[warrant]]ed searches and seizures ([[privacy]]). ([[Fourth Amendment]])
# To be advised of the charges, in the event of [[arrest]].
# To have a [[judge]] determine if the accused should be held for [[trial]] or for punishment.
# To be tried by a [[jury]] of one's peers and face one's accuser, in the event of being charged with a [[crime]].
# To be tried by a [[jury of one's peers]], in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive.
# To suffer no [[cruel or unusual punishment]].
# To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.
# To abolish said [[government]], when it becomes [[Police state|destructive]] [[tyranny|of these rights]].

== Early History in America ==

In England as with much of the medieval world until the 16th century, people accepted the view called the "devine right of kings" to govern. God gave a king the right to govern, and the king would then grant rights, privileges and titles to people. To the extent that the English people enjoyed freedoms, it was because '''the King of England''' had signed the [[Magna Carta]]. Because rights did not inherently belong to each individual, English society accepted many inequities that would not be accepted today, such as slavery, indentured servitude, and limited rights for women.

The concept of unalienable rights in America extends as far back as 1620, when the first Pilgrims arrived on the shores of what is now [[Massachusetts]], in search of religious freedom. According to Governor [[William Bradford]], it was the unending attack on the rights of religious minorities in [[Britain]] which convinced the [[Pilgrims]] that leaving [[England]] was the only way to secure their liberties:

<blockquote>
“The one side laboured to have the right worship of God and discipline of Christ established in the church… The other partie…endevored to have the episcopall dignitie (after the popish manner) with their large power and jurisdiction still retained; with all those courts, cannons, and ceremonies, together with all such livings, revenues, and subordinate officers, with other such means as formerly upheld their antichristian greatnes, and enabled them with lordly and tyranous power to persecute the poore servants of God.” (''History of Plymouth Plantation'')
</blockquote>

Other pilgrims soon followed those carried by the ''[[Mayflower]]''.

As these early [[Christian]] communities continued to grow and flourish in the new world, the notion that each individual possesses inherent dignity, value, and freedoms which the government ought to protect, became a recurring theme in political discussions and in religious writings and sermons. Preachers, pastors, civic leaders, and lawyers drew extensively from the [[Bible|Bible’s]] teachings on morality, Creation, and the nature of God to support this position, and the American public was very receptive. By 1775 the concept of unalienable rights was firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the thirteen colonies, having been sharpened by decades of abuse and taxation under British colonial rule. The time was right for change. In the hope of achieving a new political construct dedicated to preserving each person’s God-given rights and liberties, American patriots severed all ties with the British Crown and initiated a [[Revolutionary War|daring war]] against the most powerful nation at that time:

<blockquote>
* “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain '''unalienable Rights''', that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — '''That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men''', deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” -- [[Declaration of Independence|The Declaration of Independence]] (1776)
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “For the principle aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those '''absolute rights''', which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature.” -- [[William Blackstone]], Authority on English Law
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain '''inherent natural rights''', of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.” -- [[George Mason]], Father of the Bill of Rights
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example, of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of '''private rights''' and public happiness.” -- [[James Madison]], Father of the Constitution
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “Nothing then is unchangeable but the '''inherent and inalienable rights''' of man.” -- [[Thomas Jefferson]], Author of the [[Declaration of Independence]]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “Among the '''natural rights''' of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” -- [[Samuel Adams]], American Statesman and Patriot
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual's '''private rights'''.” -- [[William Blackstone]], Authority on English Law
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “The principle view of human law is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce '''such rights''' as are absolute.” -- [[William Blackstone]]
</blockquote>

The successful conclusion of the [[Revolutionary War|War for Independence]] in 1783 left the Americans free of their British oppressors, but faced with the daunting task of creating a new type of government that would transform the dream of ''universally protected God-given rights'' into a practical reality. Nothing like this before had ever been attempted. Consequently, the representatives of the thirteen states who assembled for the constitutional convention in Philadelphia (1787) had no illusions that the destiny of the new nation lay in their hands. To their great credit, they soon produced a legal manuscript which is arguably the greatest charter of liberty the world has ever known: the Constitution of the United States of America. This document, along with its first ten amendments -- commonly called the Bill of Rights -- set forth the framework and mechanisms by which the unalienable rights of the People would be recognized and protected from overreaching officials. Simply put, the Constitution establishes a limited government (a [[Constitutional Republic]]) that is empowered to protect the unalienable rights of the People, and is prohibited from doing virtually anything else. After two hundred years, the principle of unalienable rights, though buffeted by statism, atheism, communism, and individual ambition, remains at the core of American political, legal, economic, and social theory:

<blockquote>
*“The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the [[Constitution]], expressed a desire, in order '''to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers''', that further '''declaratory and restrictive clauses''' should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” -- Preamble to the [[Bill of Rights]] (NOTE: This means the Bill of Rights is not a ''grant'' of rights, but a ''prohibition'' against government infringement. It also means the Bill of Rights takes precedence over the main body of the Constitution.)</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* "The '''right of the individual against the State''' has ever been one of our most cherished political principles. The American Constitution has set down for all men to see the essentially Christian and American principle that there are '''certain rights''' held by every man which no government and no majority, however powerful, can deny. Conceived in Grecian thought, strengthened by Christian morality, and stamped indelibly into American political philosophy, the '''right of the individual against the State''' is the keystone of our Constitution. Each man is free." -- President [[John F. Kennedy]]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* "All men are made in the image of God; all men are brothers; all men are created equal; every man is heir to a legacy of dignity and worth; every man has '''rights''' that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state, they are '''God-given'''." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, [and] for those '''inalienable rights''' that make for human dignity and progress.” -- President Ronald Reagan
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other '''fundamental rights''' may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “As drafters of our '''Bill of Rights''', the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter…” -- Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court William Rehnquist
</blockquote>

== Legitimate Exceptions ==
Despite the sacred nature of unalienable rights, there are circumstances when one or more of them can be legitimately abridged or violated. Under the Constitution of the United States and American legal tradition, there are at least six times when the unalienable rights of a person, or the nation at large, may be legitimately infringed or suspended:

===Due Process===
Certain rights may be temporarily or permanently suspended through a court trial, or ''due process''. If someone has committed a theft, for example, he may be found guilty by a jury of his peers, incarcerated, and thus lose a great deal of his personal freedom for a certain period of time. He may also be forced to turn over some of his property to settle the related fine or to pay restitution. In the most extreme criminal cases, such as capital murder, the accused may forfeit his right to life.

===Injunctions===
A court may also issue an injunction to temporarily suspend a person’s right to conduct certain activities. Technically speaking, an injunction does not constitute due process, since no jury is involved. However, an injunction is generally regarded as an acceptable infringement on personal rights, inasmuch as it is a temporary measure and seeks only to block activities which may be harmful to others, or which may be found illegal at a subsequent trial. Nevertheless, injunctions cannot compel any person to do what is otherwise illegal or unconstitutional, such as forcing a witness to testify against himself or forcing a witness to change testimony which the witness believes to be true.

===Lawsuits To Protect the Rights of Others===
Although not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is clear that the exercise of one person’s unalienable rights may not interfere with the exercise of another. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is alleged to have said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” In other words, a person is free to exercise his or her unalienable rights without restraint, so long as he harms no other person, nor prevents anyone from exercising their own rights. When conflict does arise, the offended party may sue in a court of law in order to have their rights restored, or to be made financially whole, by legal process.

===Eminent Domain===
Whenever there is a compelling need to appropriate privately owned real estate for use by the general public, the government may exercise the power of ''eminent domain'' to take the land. There are two provisos. First, the land must be used for a public benefit. Second, the owner must be fairly compensated for the cost of the land. The fair market value is the highest price the owner would get for the property, were he to make it publicly available. In the event that the owner and the government cannot agree on a price, an appraiser may be asked to help assess the value. If there is still no agreement, the case may be put before a court and both sides may produce expert witnesses to attest the property’s worth.

===Invasion and Rebellion===
In the event of an invasion of the United States, or a rebellion against the government, the right of ''[[habeas corpus]]'' may be temporarily withheld. Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution provides: “The privilege [right] of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial order that commands a prison official or jailer to bring a detainee before a judge to determine if said person is being lawfully held and, if not, to command his release. Anyone who objects to someone’s detention may petition for the writ. This right is therefore one of the surest guarantees of liberty, because it prevents the government from arbitrarily imprisoning those it sees as a threat to its power. The right may only be suspended when the nation faces imminent or actual invasion, or when a violent rebellion has been launched against federal personnel or property, and then only to the extent the "public safety" requires it.

===Direct Taxation===
Any activity or right that is taxed is necessarily infringed. In ''McCulloch vs. Maryland'', U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall observed that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." The fiscal encumbrance of any unalienable right, therefore, is a violation of that right and may lead to its destruction. For that reason, the taxing power of Congress is strictly limited. For example, churches have special, limited tax exemptions.

==Nature, scope and limits==
The concept of "unalienable rights" draws controversy over how they are identified and enforced. In the eighteenth century, the definition that unalienable rights were defined by God, meant that the rights were not subject to the whim of the King to grant or withdraw. Social structures have evolved since then, so the debate has shifted to whether a particular right originates with God or is recognized by a particular society. If unalienable rights come from God, then people will differ on those rights in societies with many religions. For example, the early [[Mormon]] Church accepted polygamy, where a man could marry more than one woman at a time. American society did not accept that as an unalienable right, and armed conflict resulted. Similarly, the [[Roman Catholic Church]] did not recognize the rights of people to [[divorce]], while the views of American society as a whole viewed people as holding those rights. People can debate whether someone's views on these subjects are inspired by God, but probably both sides could argue whether divorce or polygamy were included in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So, in a democracy, individuals' understanding of their unalienable rights get resolved in the context of maintaining social order through the rule of law. While unalienable rights should in theory be protected from the opinions of the majority, as a practical matter, if there is a consensus in society, legislation and litigation will result in the scope and limits of a right being set in a manner that does not reflect the opinions of a minority. Because consensus evolves over time, the latitude that people have to enjoy what they believe are unalienable rights can shift as well. In a society with freedom of religion, the practical definition of the nature, scope and limits of rights is not decided by theologians.

== Threats & Safeguards ==
A number of safeguards are built into the American system of government to protect our rights whether or not someone would classify them as "unalienable". These include:

* The Bill of Rights
* Grand Juries
* Jury trials (Petit Juries)
* [[Jury nullification]]
* [[Habeas corpus]]
* Popular vote of congressmen and senators
* Recall of elected officials
* [[Impeachment|Impeachment and removal]] of the President
* The right to petition for redress of grievances
* The right to demonstrate against the government
* The right to publish critiques of the government
* The right to petition a [[grand jury]] to indict officials
* Constitutional checks and balances between the various branches of government
* Limitation on [[Enumerated Powers]] to 19 (plus the power to remove the President)
* Courts of appeal and the Supreme Court
* The right to abolish the government and start over

Recent threats to our unalienable rights come mainly from the [[big government|federal government]]. Of late, they include:

* [[Hate crime|Hate Crime]] laws - Infringe on the right to think in a [[political correctness|politically incorrect]] manner; they also give special rights and status to privileged groups.
* [[McCain-Feingold]] law - Infringes on freedom of expression immediately before an [[election]].
* [[Fairness Doctrine]] - Infringes on the right of a person (or group) to express ''only'' what they believe.
* [[Executive Order]]s - Hundreds of directives issued by the [[President]] carrying the force of law, but not legislated by [[Congress]].
* The [[War on Terror]] - Military Tribunals / Denial of [[Habeas corpus]] / [[Rendition]] / [[Patriot Act|PATRIOT ACT]] / [[FISA]] Violations
* The [[War on Drugs]] - [[Asset forfeiture|Asset Forfeiture]] Laws (permit the government to deprive someone of their [[property]] without [[due process]].)
* U.S. [[Supreme Court]] ''Kelo'' decision - Distortion of the power of [[eminent domain]], allowing the government to take land which belongs to one private person or group, and give it to another. See [[income redistribution]].

== Human Rights==
"[[Human rights]]" is often used interchangeably with the term "unalienable rights." The difference between these two concepts, however, is that unalienable rights are those authored by God. They are thus both irrevocable and nearly unlimited in scope. Man’s role is simply to discover and protect them. The common idea stems from the belief that the rights are inherent in all mankind. People from across the spectrum of political thought can protect these rights whether they believe in God or moral philosophy.

The fundamental challenge is the difficulty to assert a right in a government or society that denies its existence. So, if a member of a society wants a new right recognized, a local political or legal process is involved. But if there were a universally recognized set of unalienable or human rights, then that person could argue that the universal right should apply in all societies.

In the 20th century, [[secular]] concepts of human rights proliferated: the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]; the American Convention on Human Rights; the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; the European Convention of Human Rights; various [[United Nations]] conferences' declarations on the [[environment]], economic development, [[AIDS]], and other topics; and the [[Geneva Convention]]s and their additional protocols.

The most well-known example of human rights is the United Nations 1948 '''[[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]''' or '''UDHR'''. This document contains thirty articles listing about fifty rights authored and approved by the UN under the leadership of [[Eleanor Roosevelt]], among others. At the time the UN Declaration was ratified by its members, it was hailed by Americans as a major advancement in the cause of [[liberty]].

The Universal Declaration provides:
:Article 29 (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The first International Conference on Human Rights was held in Tehran, Iran, in 1968. A powerful bloc of Asian, African, and Arab states successfully asserted their control over the UN Human Rights Program. Their aggressive conference diplomacy was the culmination of a major transition in UN politics, with supposedly Western notions of individual freedom rejected in favor of an agenda that privileged economic modernization and the collective rights of peoples in Third World nations over those of individuals in those nations. Twenty years after the iconic image of [[Eleanor Roosevelt]] holding the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], the residual elements of the program she presided over were repudiated in a storm of insistent demands from the new anti-colonial order.<ref>Burke (2008)</ref>

The UDHR implicitly asserted that human rights are superior to notions of state sovereignty and called for the imposing of moral standards across the globe. These notions of universal human rights derive in part from [[Wilsonianism]]--the efforts of President [[Woodrow Wilson]] after World War I. They were reiterated in 2002 by President [[George W. Bush]] in his refusal to recognize Iraqi sovereignty and his efforts to impose a new democratic system of governance upon Iraq, and are a component of the [[Neoconservative]] effort to spread democracy in the Middle East, even in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The UN has supported this program, but the high cost has troubled Americans.

===India===
Deeply influenced by the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the [[India]]n constitution provides for a host of rights, including the right of equality, cultural and religious freedoms, and the right to education. Discrimination based on race, caste, gender, birthplace, and religion was subsequently outlawed. Yet, political and social realities have intruded. Because of India's multiplicity of religious and ethnic groups, each with their own traditions and beliefs, and the complex interplay between these groups, the principles contained in the constitution have not always been followed in practice.

==References==
<references/>
==Further reading==
* Burke, Roland. "From Individual Rights to National Development: the First UN International Conference on Human Rights, Tehran, 1968," ''Journal of World History'' 2008 19(3): 275-296, in [[EBSCO]]
* Devine, Carol et al. ''Human Rights: The Essential Reference'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/human-rights-the-essential-reference-by-carol-devine-carol-rae-hansen.jsp online edition]
* Langley, Winston E. ''Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues since 1945'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/111443595?title=Encyclopedia%20of%20Human%20Rights%20Issues%20since%201945 online edition]

==Primary sources==
* UN. ''Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments - Vol. 1 pt. 1'' (2002) by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva; [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Office%20of%20the%20United%20Nations%20High%20Commissioner%20for%20Human%20Rights%20Geneva&dcontributors=Office%20of%20the%20United%20Nations%20High%20Commissioner%20for%20Human%20Rights%20Geneva online edition]

[[Category : Republicanism]]
[[Category : Law]]
[[Category : Political Terms]]

Unalienable rights

2015-02-09T19:13:08Z

Wschact: new section to explain "unalienable rights" vs "rights" in general

'''Unalienable rights''' are those which [[God]] gave to man at the [[Creation]], once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In [[America]], this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation's birth certificate, the ''[[Declaration of Independence]]'':

<blockquote>
"[A]ll men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, [[Liberty]] and the pursuit of Happiness."</blockquote>

It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these [[rights]] are "[[God-given]]." If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human [[government]], then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God's will. Rights that is subject to government restriction or [[license]] is called a [[privilege]] rather than a right. The [[Founding Fathers]] understood this principle and created a [[Republicanism|revolution]] in [[political theory]] by enacting, for the first time in [[history]], a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God.

<blockquote>
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of [[citizen|the governed]]." </blockquote>

According to the [[Founding Fathers|Founders]], unalienable rights belong to each person by [[virtue]] of the fact that man is made in God’s image, and is therefore endowed with certain attributes, powers, [[freedom]]s, and [[legal]] protections as part of his essence. These rights are thus inseparable -- or unalienable -- from each person individually and from the human race in general. They are a gift from the Creator and it is impossible for government to alter or nullify mankind’s divine inheritance. Except in extremely rare and limited circumstances, the unalienable rights of a particular individual, or the population at large, cannot be suspended, [[abrogate]]d, or diminished by government. When government does take action against a particular right, it may only do so to the extent necessary to address a genuine concern for [[public safety]]. (See "Legitimate Exceptions" below.) Unalienable rights automatically belong to each individual at the moment his or her life begins and continue throughout that person’s time on earth.

An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes. However, at a minimum they include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In general, the courts have not decided which rights are unalienable and which are not. Nonetheless, some philosophers have identified the following items, derived from the American Bill of Rights, as expanding on these themes:

# To act in [[self-defense]] (personal, [[family]], innocents, nation against [[tyranny]]). ([[Second Amendment]])
# To own and carry at [[home security|home]] and [[constitutional carry|in public]] [[weapon]]s ([[firearms]] and [[knife|knives]], etc.) for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains [[freedom|free]] against tyranny from enemies both [[foreign]] and [[police state|domestic]]. ([[Second Amendment]])
# To own and control [[private property]] (land, [[money]], personal items, [[intellectual property]], etc.)
# To earn a living and keep the [[profit|fruit]] of one’s labor.
# To freely [[migrate]] within the country or to leave the country.
# To [[worship]] -- or not worship -- God in the manner one chooses. ([[First Amendment]])
# To associate with -- or disassociate from -- any person or group. ([[First Amendment]])
# To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media. ([[First Amendment]])
# To be [[Fourth Amendment|secure in one’s home, papers, and person]] against un[[warrant]]ed searches and seizures ([[privacy]]). ([[Fourth Amendment]])
# To be advised of the charges, in the event of [[arrest]].
# To have a [[judge]] determine if the accused should be held for [[trial]] or for punishment.
# To be tried by a [[jury]] of one's peers and face one's accuser, in the event of being charged with a [[crime]].
# To be tried by a [[jury of one's peers]], in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive.
# To suffer no [[cruel or unusual punishment]].
# To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.
# To abolish said [[government]], when it becomes [[Police state|destructive]] [[tyranny|of these rights]].

== Early History in America ==

In England as with much of the medieval world until the 16th century, people accepted the view called the "devine right of kings" to govern. God gave a king the right to govern, and the king would then grant rights, privileges and titles to people. To the extent that the English people enjoyed freedoms, it was because '''the King of England''' had signed the [[Magna Carta]]. Because rights did not inherently belong to each individual, English society accepted many inequities that would not be accepted today, such as slavery, indentured servitude, and limited rights for women.

The concept of unalienable rights in America extends as far back as 1620, when the first Pilgrims arrived on the shores of what is now [[Massachusetts]], in search of religious freedom. According to Governor [[William Bradford]], it was the unending attack on the rights of religious minorities in [[Britain]] which convinced the [[Pilgrims]] that leaving [[England]] was the only way to secure their liberties:

<blockquote>
“The one side laboured to have the right worship of God and discipline of Christ established in the church… The other partie…endevored to have the episcopall dignitie (after the popish manner) with their large power and jurisdiction still retained; with all those courts, cannons, and ceremonies, together with all such livings, revenues, and subordinate officers, with other such means as formerly upheld their antichristian greatnes, and enabled them with lordly and tyranous power to persecute the poore servants of God.” (''History of Plymouth Plantation'')
</blockquote>

Other pilgrims soon followed those carried by the ''[[Mayflower]]''.

As these early [[Christian]] communities continued to grow and flourish in the new world, the notion that each individual possesses inherent dignity, value, and freedoms which the government ought to protect, became a recurring theme in political discussions and in religious writings and sermons. Preachers, pastors, civic leaders, and lawyers drew extensively from the [[Bible|Bible’s]] teachings on morality, Creation, and the nature of God to support this position, and the American public was very receptive. By 1775 the concept of unalienable rights was firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the thirteen colonies, having been sharpened by decades of abuse and taxation under British colonial rule. The time was right for change. In the hope of achieving a new political construct dedicated to preserving each person’s God-given rights and liberties, American patriots severed all ties with the British Crown and initiated a [[Revolutionary War|daring war]] against the most powerful nation at that time:

<blockquote>
* “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain '''unalienable Rights''', that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — '''That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men''', deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” -- [[Declaration of Independence|The Declaration of Independence]] (1776)
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “For the principle aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those '''absolute rights''', which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature.” -- [[William Blackstone]], Authority on English Law
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain '''inherent natural rights''', of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.” -- [[George Mason]], Father of the Bill of Rights
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example, of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of '''private rights''' and public happiness.” -- [[James Madison]], Father of the Constitution
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “Nothing then is unchangeable but the '''inherent and inalienable rights''' of man.” -- [[Thomas Jefferson]], Author of the [[Declaration of Independence]]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “Among the '''natural rights''' of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” -- [[Samuel Adams]], American Statesman and Patriot
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual's '''private rights'''.” -- [[William Blackstone]], Authority on English Law
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “The principle view of human law is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce '''such rights''' as are absolute.” -- [[William Blackstone]]
</blockquote>

The successful conclusion of the [[Revolutionary War|War for Independence]] in 1783 left the Americans free of their British oppressors, but faced with the daunting task of creating a new type of government that would transform the dream of ''universally protected God-given rights'' into a practical reality. Nothing like this before had ever been attempted. Consequently, the representatives of the thirteen states who assembled for the constitutional convention in Philadelphia (1787) had no illusions that the destiny of the new nation lay in their hands. To their great credit, they soon produced a legal manuscript which is arguably the greatest charter of liberty the world has ever known: the Constitution of the United States of America. This document, along with its first ten amendments -- commonly called the Bill of Rights -- set forth the framework and mechanisms by which the unalienable rights of the People would be recognized and protected from overreaching officials. Simply put, the Constitution establishes a limited government (a [[Constitutional Republic]]) that is empowered to protect the unalienable rights of the People, and is prohibited from doing virtually anything else. After two hundred years, the principle of unalienable rights, though buffeted by statism, atheism, communism, and individual ambition, remains at the core of American political, legal, economic, and social theory:

<blockquote>
*“The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the [[Constitution]], expressed a desire, in order '''to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers''', that further '''declaratory and restrictive clauses''' should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” -- Preamble to the [[Bill of Rights]] (NOTE: This means the Bill of Rights is not a ''grant'' of rights, but a ''prohibition'' against government infringement. It also means the Bill of Rights takes precedence over the main body of the Constitution.)</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* "The '''right of the individual against the State''' has ever been one of our most cherished political principles. The American Constitution has set down for all men to see the essentially Christian and American principle that there are '''certain rights''' held by every man which no government and no majority, however powerful, can deny. Conceived in Grecian thought, strengthened by Christian morality, and stamped indelibly into American political philosophy, the '''right of the individual against the State''' is the keystone of our Constitution. Each man is free." -- President [[John F. Kennedy]]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* "All men are made in the image of God; all men are brothers; all men are created equal; every man is heir to a legacy of dignity and worth; every man has '''rights''' that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state, they are '''God-given'''." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, [and] for those '''inalienable rights''' that make for human dignity and progress.” -- President Ronald Reagan
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other '''fundamental rights''' may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
* “As drafters of our '''Bill of Rights''', the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter…” -- Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court William Rehnquist
</blockquote>

== Legitimate Exceptions ==
Despite the sacred nature of unalienable rights, there are circumstances when one or more of them can be legitimately abridged or violated. Under the Constitution of the United States and American legal tradition, there are at least six times when the unalienable rights of a person, or the nation at large, may be legitimately infringed or suspended:

===Due Process===
Certain rights may be temporarily or permanently suspended through a court trial, or ''due process''. If someone has committed a theft, for example, he may be found guilty by a jury of his peers, incarcerated, and thus lose a great deal of his personal freedom for a certain period of time. He may also be forced to turn over some of his property to settle the related fine or to pay restitution. In the most extreme criminal cases, such as capital murder, the accused may forfeit his right to life.

===Injunctions===
A court may also issue an injunction to temporarily suspend a person’s right to conduct certain activities. Technically speaking, an injunction does not constitute due process, since no jury is involved. However, an injunction is generally regarded as an acceptable infringement on personal rights, inasmuch as it is a temporary measure and seeks only to block activities which may be harmful to others, or which may be found illegal at a subsequent trial. Nevertheless, injunctions cannot compel any person to do what is otherwise illegal or unconstitutional, such as forcing a witness to testify against himself or forcing a witness to change testimony which the witness believes to be true.

===Lawsuits To Protect the Rights of Others===
Although not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is clear that the exercise of one person’s unalienable rights may not interfere with the exercise of another. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is alleged to have said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” In other words, a person is free to exercise his or her unalienable rights without restraint, so long as he harms no other person, nor prevents anyone from exercising their own rights. When conflict does arise, the offended party may sue in a court of law in order to have their rights restored, or to be made financially whole, by legal process.

===Eminent Domain===
Whenever there is a compelling need to appropriate privately owned real estate for use by the general public, the government may exercise the power of ''eminent domain'' to take the land. There are two provisos. First, the land must be used for a public benefit. Second, the owner must be fairly compensated for the cost of the land. The fair market value is the highest price the owner would get for the property, were he to make it publicly available. In the event that the owner and the government cannot agree on a price, an appraiser may be asked to help assess the value. If there is still no agreement, the case may be put before a court and both sides may produce expert witnesses to attest the property’s worth.

===Invasion and Rebellion===
In the event of an invasion of the United States, or a rebellion against the government, the right of ''[[habeas corpus]]'' may be temporarily withheld. Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution provides: “The privilege [right] of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial order that commands a prison official or jailer to bring a detainee before a judge to determine if said person is being lawfully held and, if not, to command his release. Anyone who objects to someone’s detention may petition for the writ. This right is therefore one of the surest guarantees of liberty, because it prevents the government from arbitrarily imprisoning those it sees as a threat to its power. The right may only be suspended when the nation faces imminent or actual invasion, or when a violent rebellion has been launched against federal personnel or property, and then only to the extent the "public safety" requires it.

===Direct Taxation===
Any activity or right that is taxed is necessarily infringed. In ''McCulloch vs. Maryland'', U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall observed that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." The fiscal encumbrance of any unalienable right, therefore, is a violation of that right and may lead to its destruction. For that reason, the taxing power of Congress is strictly limited. For example, churches have special, limited tax exemptions.

==Nature, scope and limits==
The concept of "unalienable rights" draws controversy over how they are identified and enforced. In the eighteenth century, the definition that unalienable rights were defined by God, meant that the rights were not subject to the whim of the King to grant or withdraw. Social structures have evolved since then, so the debate has shifted to whether a particular right originates with God or is recognized by a particular society. If unalienable rights come from God, then people will differ on those rights in societies with many religions. For example, the early [[Mormon]] Church accepted polygamy, where a man could marry more than one woman at a time. American society did not accept that as an unalienable right, and armed conflict resulted. Similarly, the Roman Catholic Church did not recognize the rights of people to divorce, while the views of American society as a whole viewed people as holding those rights. People can debate whether someone's views on these subjects are inspired by God, but probably both sides could argue whether divorce or polygamy were included in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So, in a democracy, individuals' understanding of their unalienable rights get resolved in the context of maintaining social order through the rule of law. While unalienable rights should in theory be protected from the opinions of the majority, as a practical matter, if there is a consensus in society, legislation and litigation will result in the scope and limits of a right being set in a manner that does not reflect the opinions of a minority. Because consensus evolves over time, the latitude that people have to enjoy what they believe are unalienable rights can shift as well. In a society with freedom of religion, the practical definition of the nature, scope and limits of rights is not decided by theologians.
== Threats & Safeguards ==
A number of safeguards are built into the American system of government to protect our rights whether or not someone would classify them as "unalienable". These include:

* The Bill of Rights
* Grand Juries
* Jury trials (Petit Juries)
* [[Jury nullification]]
* [[Habeas corpus]]
* Popular vote of congressmen and senators
* Recall of elected officials
* [[Impeachment|Impeachment and removal]] of the President
* The right to petition for redress of grievances
* The right to demonstrate against the government
* The right to publish critiques of the government
* The right to petition a [[grand jury]] to indict officials
* Constitutional checks and balances between the various branches of government
* Limitation on [[Enumerated Powers]] to 19 (plus the power to remove the President)
* Courts of appeal and the Supreme Court
* The right to abolish the government and start over

Recent threats to our unalienable rights come mainly from the [[big government|federal government]]. Of late, they include:

* [[Hate crime|Hate Crime]] laws - Infringe on the right to think in a [[political correctness|politically incorrect]] manner; they also give special rights and status to privileged groups.
* [[McCain-Feingold]] law - Infringes on freedom of expression immediately before an [[election]].
* [[Fairness Doctrine]] - Infringes on the right of a person (or group) to express ''only'' what they believe.
* [[Executive Order]]s - Hundreds of directives issued by the [[President]] carrying the force of law, but not legislated by [[Congress]].
* The [[War on Terror]] - Military Tribunals / Denial of [[Habeas corpus]] / [[Rendition]] / [[Patriot Act|PATRIOT ACT]] / [[FISA]] Violations
* The [[War on Drugs]] - [[Asset forfeiture|Asset Forfeiture]] Laws (permit the government to deprive someone of their [[property]] without [[due process]].)
* U.S. [[Supreme Court]] ''Kelo'' decision - Distortion of the power of [[eminent domain]], allowing the government to take land which belongs to one private person or group, and give it to another. See [[income redistribution]].

== Human Rights==
"[[Human rights]]" is often used interchangeably with the term "unalienable rights." The difference between these two concepts, however, is that unalienable rights are those authored by God. They are thus both irrevocable and nearly unlimited in scope. Man’s role is simply to discover and protect them. The common idea stems from the belief that the rights are inherent in all mankind. People from across the spectrum of political thought can protect these rights whether they believe in God or moral philosophy.

The fundamental challenge is the difficulty to assert a right in a government or society that denies its existence. So, if a member of a society wants a new right recognized, a local political or legal process is involved. But if there were a universally recognized set of unalienable or human rights, then that person could argue that the universal right should apply in all societies.

In the 20th century, [[secular]] concepts of human rights proliferated: the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]; the American Convention on Human Rights; the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; the European Convention of Human Rights; various [[United Nations]] conferences' declarations on the [[environment]], economic development, [[AIDS]], and other topics; and the [[Geneva Convention]]s and their additional protocols.

The most well-known example of human rights is the United Nations 1948 '''[[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]''' or '''UDHR'''. This document contains thirty articles listing about fifty rights authored and approved by the UN under the leadership of [[Eleanor Roosevelt]], among others. At the time the UN Declaration was ratified by its members, it was hailed by Americans as a major advancement in the cause of [[liberty]].

The Universal Declaration provides:
:Article 29 (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The first International Conference on Human Rights was held in Tehran, Iran, in 1968. A powerful bloc of Asian, African, and Arab states successfully asserted their control over the UN Human Rights Program. Their aggressive conference diplomacy was the culmination of a major transition in UN politics, with supposedly Western notions of individual freedom rejected in favor of an agenda that privileged economic modernization and the collective rights of peoples in Third World nations over those of individuals in those nations. Twenty years after the iconic image of [[Eleanor Roosevelt]] holding the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], the residual elements of the program she presided over were repudiated in a storm of insistent demands from the new anti-colonial order.<ref>Burke (2008)</ref>

The UDHR implicitly asserted that human rights are superior to notions of state sovereignty and called for the imposing of moral standards across the globe. These notions of universal human rights derive in part from [[Wilsonianism]]--the efforts of President [[Woodrow Wilson]] after World War I. They were reiterated in 2002 by President [[George W. Bush]] in his refusal to recognize Iraqi sovereignty and his efforts to impose a new democratic system of governance upon Iraq, and are a component of the [[Neoconservative]] effort to spread democracy in the Middle East, even in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The UN has supported this program, but the high cost has troubled Americans.

===India===
Deeply influenced by the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the [[India]]n constitution provides for a host of rights, including the right of equality, cultural and religious freedoms, and the right to education. Discrimination based on race, caste, gender, birthplace, and religion was subsequently outlawed. Yet, political and social realities have intruded. Because of India's multiplicity of religious and ethnic groups, each with their own traditions and beliefs, and the complex interplay between these groups, the principles contained in the constitution have not always been followed in practice.

==References==
<references/>
==Further reading==
* Burke, Roland. "From Individual Rights to National Development: the First UN International Conference on Human Rights, Tehran, 1968," ''Journal of World History'' 2008 19(3): 275-296, in [[EBSCO]]
* Devine, Carol et al. ''Human Rights: The Essential Reference'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/human-rights-the-essential-reference-by-carol-devine-carol-rae-hansen.jsp online edition]
* Langley, Winston E. ''Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues since 1945'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/111443595?title=Encyclopedia%20of%20Human%20Rights%20Issues%20since%201945 online edition]

==Primary sources==
* UN. ''Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments - Vol. 1 pt. 1'' (2002) by Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva; [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Office%20of%20the%20United%20Nations%20High%20Commissioner%20for%20Human%20Rights%20Geneva&dcontributors=Office%20of%20the%20United%20Nations%20High%20Commissioner%20for%20Human%20Rights%20Geneva online edition]

[[Category : Republicanism]]
[[Category : Law]]
[[Category : Political Terms]]

Nutnfancy

2015-02-09T17:55:21Z

Wschact: just one of many criticism threads

'''Nutnfancy''' is a [[YouTube]] video channel. As of February 2015, recent videos were drawing 25,000 views and its most popular video posted in 2009 six years earlier had 2,888,725 views.

Its YouTube about page states:
<blockquote> Established in 2006, The Nutnfancy Project is ongoing work that serves adventurers, military members, contractors, law enforcement personnel, outdoorsman, and responsible, good civilians. Hundreds of videos exist already that cover system enhancing gear items like guns, knives, multi-tools, backpacks, clothing, dog gear, flashlights, tactical gear, and much more. Vids are organized into playlists. While the gear is core to TNP, the Project goes much deeper. Many Philosophy and Political videos abound here, encouraging service, kindness, service to community, and defense of freedom. Adventure videos and lifestyle show these values, a love of life, sense of humor, and an investment of one's time. The world of TNP is your new online home...welcome! [TNP, 10322 S. Redwood Rd, PMB 038, South Jordan, UT, 84095]</blockquote>
As of February 2015, it has 514,504 subscribers. There is also an associated online store that sells recommended merchandise.

There is a dispute about the identity of Nutnfancy and his background as a weapons expert. When he finds people including a portion of his videos in any critical review, he posts a copyright take-down notice request.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.knifeup.com/nutnfancy-identity-is-nutnfancys-real-name-richard-hewitt/|title=Nutnfancy Identity: Is Nutnfancy’s Real Name Richard Hewitt?|work=Knife Up|accessdate=February 9, 2015}}</ref> Nutnfancy has received mixed reviews.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/02/06/nutnfancy/|title=Everyday No Days Off|accessdate=February 9, 2015}}</ref>

{{Second Amendment topics}}

===Other Related Articles===
* [[Firearms]]
*[[:Category : Firearm components|Firearm components]]
*[[:Category : Firearm terminology|Firearm terminology]]

* [[Gun control]]:
** [[List of celebrities against Second Amendment]] - always [[Liberal]] [[Elitist]]s
** '''[[Big government | Big Government]]''': [[Liberal values|Liberal]] [[ObamaCare]]-[[Common Core]]-[[Social Security]] [[Welfare state]] leads to [[Nanny state]], leads to [[Gun control]], [[Militarization of police]], [[Asset forfeiture]] and Domestic [[mass surveillance]] of law-abiding [[citizen]]s via the '''[[Police state]]''': [[Globalist]]-[[United Nations]]-[[Statist]]-[[Socialist]]-[[National Socialist]]-[[Communist]]

* [[Second Amendment]] [[unalienable]] [[Gun rights]] versus [[Liberal]] [[Gun control]]
* [[Essay:Why do conservatives own firearms?]] -- According to [[Thomas Jefferson]] it is as the final deterrent against potential [[Tyranny]] of [[government]]

* [[Essay:Invest_in_tangibles#2._Defense_and_Security_.28.22Bullets.22.29|Invest in tangibles: Firearms]] - buy [[Precious metal]]s (that is [[Copper-jacketed lead]] and [[Firearms])
* [[Boston T. Party]]’s [[State Firearms Laws Ranking]]s from [[Boston's Gun Bible]] -- [[Vote with your Feet]]
* [[Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership]]
** [[Essay:Jews and Gun Control - Fear of Freedom or Freedom from Fear]], [[Essay:Why Jews Hate Guns - Are they right]]
* [[You & the Police!]] by [[Boston T. Party]] a.k.a.[[Kenneth W. Royce]]
* [[One Nation, Under Surveillance - Privacy From the Watchful Eye]] by [[Boston T. Party]]

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

==External Links==
* [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Nutnfancy search on [[Duck Duck Go]] [[Privacy]] search engine]
* [http://www.____.com Official website]
* [https://www.twitter.com/____ Official Twitter Account]
* [https://www.facebook.com/____ Official Facebook Account]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/____ Official YouTube Account]]
* [https://www.google.com/____ Official Google Plus Account]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nutnfancy}}

[[Category : YouTube]]
[[Category : People Associated with Firearms]]
[[Category : American Gun Rights Advocates]]
[[Category : Gun Writers]]
[[Category : Gun Bloggers]]
[[Category : Gun Blogs]]
[[Category : Gun Podcasts]]
[[Category : Survivalism]]
[[Category : Survivalists]]
[[Category : Preparedness Bloggers]]
[[Category : Preparedness Podcasts]]
[[Category : Conservatives]]
[[Category : Libertarians]]
[[Category : Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category : Anti-Communism]]
[[Category : American Redoubt]]
[[Category : Utah]]
[[Category : Bloggers]]
[[Category : Conservative Bloggers]]
[[Category : Firearms]]
[[Category : Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Conservative Blogs]]
[[Category : Conservative Podcasts]]
[[Category : Oath Keepers]]
[[Category : Veterans]]
[[Category : Patriots]]

Talk:Nutnfancy

2015-02-09T15:58:51Z

Wschact: explained my changes - need to limit items to those that can be shown to relate to Nutnfancy, not just copied over from SAF.

The "About" page of the Nutnfancy YouTube channel is probably the best source about the organization. So, I quoted that and replaced the paragraph that focused on the Second Amendment Foundation video, because there is no clear relationship between the two. Perhaps the SAF paragraph was accidentally copied over from another article, such as [[Oath Keepers]]. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:58, 9 February 2015 (EST)

Nutnfancy

2015-02-09T15:51:51Z

Wschact: use its own description of the subject matter covered not that of the SAF

'''Nutnfancy''' is a [[YouTube]] video channel. As of February 2015, recent videos were drawing 25,000 views and its most popular video posted in 2009 six years earlier had 2,888,725 views.

Its YouTube about page states:
<blockquote> Established in 2006, The Nutnfancy Project is ongoing work that serves adventurers, military members, contractors, law enforcement personnel, outdoorsman, and responsible, good civilians. Hundreds of videos exist already that cover system enhancing gear items like guns, knives, multi-tools, backpacks, clothing, dog gear, flashlights, tactical gear, and much more. Vids are organized into playlists. While the gear is core to TNP, the Project goes much deeper. Many Philosophy and Political videos abound here, encouraging service, kindness, service to community, and defense of freedom. Adventure videos and lifestyle show these values, a love of life, sense of humor, and an investment of one's time. The world of TNP is your new online home...welcome! [TNP, 10322 S. Redwood Rd, PMB 038, South Jordan, UT, 84095]</blockquote>
As of February 2015, it has 514,504 subscribers.

{{Second Amendment topics}}

===Other Related Articles===
* [[Firearms]]
*[[:Category : Firearm components|Firearm components]]
*[[:Category : Firearm terminology|Firearm terminology]]

* [[Gun control]]:
** [[List of celebrities against Second Amendment]] - always [[Liberal]] [[Elitist]]s
** '''[[Big government | Big Government]]''': [[Liberal values|Liberal]] [[ObamaCare]]-[[Common Core]]-[[Social Security]] [[Welfare state]] leads to [[Nanny state]], leads to [[Gun control]], [[Militarization of police]], [[Asset forfeiture]] and Domestic [[mass surveillance]] of law-abiding [[citizen]]s via the '''[[Police state]]''': [[Globalist]]-[[United Nations]]-[[Statist]]-[[Socialist]]-[[National Socialist]]-[[Communist]]

* [[Second Amendment]] [[unalienable]] [[Gun rights]] versus [[Liberal]] [[Gun control]]
* [[Essay:Why do conservatives own firearms?]] -- According to [[Thomas Jefferson]] it is as the final deterrent against potential [[Tyranny]] of [[government]]

* [[Essay:Invest_in_tangibles#2._Defense_and_Security_.28.22Bullets.22.29|Invest in tangibles: Firearms]] - buy [[Precious metal]]s (that is [[Copper-jacketed lead]] and [[Firearms])
* [[Boston T. Party]]’s [[State Firearms Laws Ranking]]s from [[Boston's Gun Bible]] -- [[Vote with your Feet]]
* [[Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership]]
** [[Essay:Jews and Gun Control - Fear of Freedom or Freedom from Fear]], [[Essay:Why Jews Hate Guns - Are they right]]
* [[You & the Police!]] by [[Boston T. Party]] a.k.a.[[Kenneth W. Royce]]
* [[One Nation, Under Surveillance - Privacy From the Watchful Eye]] by [[Boston T. Party]]

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

==External Links==
* [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Nutnfancy search on [[Duck Duck Go]] [[Privacy]] search engine]
* [http://www.____.com Official website]
* [https://www.twitter.com/____ Official Twitter Account]
* [https://www.facebook.com/____ Official Facebook Account]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/____ Official YouTube Account]]
* [https://www.google.com/____ Official Google Plus Account]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nutnfancy}}

[[Category : YouTube]]
[[Category : People Associated with Firearms]]
[[Category : American Gun Rights Advocates]]
[[Category : Gun Writers]]
[[Category : Gun Bloggers]]
[[Category : Gun Blogs]]
[[Category : Gun Podcasts]]
[[Category : Survivalism]]
[[Category : Survivalists]]
[[Category : Preparedness Bloggers]]
[[Category : Preparedness Podcasts]]
[[Category : Conservatives]]
[[Category : Libertarians]]
[[Category : Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category : Anti-Communism]]
[[Category : American Redoubt]]
[[Category : Utah]]
[[Category : Bloggers]]
[[Category : Conservative Bloggers]]
[[Category : Firearms]]
[[Category : Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Conservative Blogs]]
[[Category : Conservative Podcasts]]
[[Category : Oath Keepers]]
[[Category : Veterans]]
[[Category : Patriots]]

Nutnfancy

2015-02-09T15:40:02Z

Wschact: expand

'''Nutnfancy''' is a [[YouTube]] video channel. As of February 2015, recent videos were drawing 25,000 views and its most popular video posted in 2009 six years earlier had 2,888,725 views.

==Published Works==

==Books==

==Articles== and Blogs==

==Quotes==
*

==Incremental Gun-Grabbing of the Police State - Nanny State==
[[Liberals]] and [[socialist]]s support so-called "common sense" measures - a "good first step" of the [[Police state]] - [[Nanny state]]. To a [[citizen]]-[[prepper]]-[[patriot]] and to the [[Bill of Rights]], this is "[[incrementalism|death by a thousand paper cuts]]".

This [[Second Amendment Foundation]] video is the formal response to [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]]'s [[Demand a Plan]] [[gun control|gun-grabbing]] [[propaganda]] video. The video shows one of the main differences between [[liberal]] [[gun control]] [[Nanny state]]s ([[Blue states]]) and [[conservative]] and/or [[libertarian]] [[Second Amendment]]-supporting "[[free state]]s" ([[Red states]]). This video shows why [[conservative]]s and [[libertarian]]s "[[vote with our feet]]": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBelF4UddcY<ref>As of December 8, 2014, there are 60,819 views on [[YouTube]] of [[Second Amendment Foundation]]'s ''Equal [[Gun Rights]]'', Online. Published on Feb 24, 2013. http://equalgunrights.com and http://saf.org. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBelF4UddcY.</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Preparedness]]

===Related People===
* [[Kenneth Royce]] ([[Boston T. Party]])
* [[James Wesley Rawles]] of [[The Survival Blog]], author of [[How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It]]
* [[Mel Tappan]], "Grand-daddy" of the [[Preparedness]] movement, [[Oregon]]
* [[Jack Spirko]] of [[The Survival Podcast]]
* [[M.D. Creekmore]] of [[TheSurvivalistBlog.net]]
* [[John Jacob Schmidt]] - [[Radio Free Redoubt]] [[Idaho]]
* [[Alex Barron]] - [[Charles Carroll Society]] [[Idaho]]
* [[Ragnar Benson]] - Prolific [[:Category:Preparedness authors|Preparedness author]]
* [[Joel Skousen]] - ''[[Strategic Relocation - North American Guide to Safe Places]]'' and [[World Affairs Brief]] [[Utah]]
* [[Alex Jones]] - [[InfoWars Nightly News]] and [[Prison Planet]] [[Texas]]
* [[Chuck Baldwin]] - [[Liberty Fellowship]] [[Montana]]
* [[Dave Duffy]] and [[Claire Wolfe]] of [[Backwoods Home Magazine]]
* [[Paul Wheaton]] - [[Permies.com]] [[Permaculture]] [[Montana]]
* [[Nutnfancy]] - Nutnfancy YouTube Firearms Channel [[Utah]]
* [[List of celebrities who support the Second Amendment]] - usually [[Conservatives]] or [[Libertarians]]

----
===Related Movements and Organizations===
* [[Free State Wyoming]]
* [[Essay:Free States Movement|Free States Movement]]
* [[Vote with your feet]]
* [[Free State Project]]
{{Second Amendment groups}}

----
===Other Related Articles===
* [[Firearms]]
*[[:Category : Firearm components|Firearm components]]
*[[:Category : Firearm terminology|Firearm terminology]]

* [[Gun control]]:
** [[List of celebrities against Second Amendment]] - always [[Liberal]] [[Elitist]]s
** '''[[Big government | Big Government]]''': [[Liberal values|Liberal]] [[ObamaCare]]-[[Common Core]]-[[Social Security]] [[Welfare state]] leads to [[Nanny state]], leads to [[Gun control]], [[Militarization of police]], [[Asset forfeiture]] and Domestic [[mass surveillance]] of law-abiding [[citizen]]s via the '''[[Police state]]''': [[Globalist]]-[[United Nations]]-[[Statist]]-[[Socialist]]-[[National Socialist]]-[[Communist]]

* [[Second Amendment]] [[unalienable]] [[Gun rights]] versus [[Liberal]] [[Gun control]]
* [[Essay:Why do conservatives own firearms?]] -- According to [[Thomas Jefferson]] it is as the final deterrent against potential [[Tyranny]] of [[government]]

* [[Essay:Invest_in_tangibles#2._Defense_and_Security_.28.22Bullets.22.29|Invest in tangibles: Firearms]] - buy [[Precious metal]]s (that is [[Copper-jacketed lead]] and [[Firearms])
* [[Boston T. Party]]’s [[State Firearms Laws Ranking]]s from [[Boston's Gun Bible]] -- [[Vote with your Feet]]
* [[Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership]]
** [[Essay:Jews and Gun Control - Fear of Freedom or Freedom from Fear]], [[Essay:Why Jews Hate Guns - Are they right]]
* [[You & the Police!]] by [[Boston T. Party]] a.k.a.[[Kenneth W. Royce]]
* [[One Nation, Under Surveillance - Privacy From the Watchful Eye]] by [[Boston T. Party]]

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

==External Links==
* [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Nutnfancy search on [[Duck Duck Go]] [[Privacy]] search engine]
* [http://www.____.com Official website]
* [https://www.twitter.com/____ Official Twitter Account]
* [https://www.facebook.com/____ Official Facebook Account]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/____ Official YouTube Account]]
* [https://www.google.com/____ Official Google Plus Account]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nutnfancy}}

[[Category : YouTube]]
[[Category : People Associated with Firearms]]
[[Category : American Gun Rights Advocates]]
[[Category : Gun Writers]]
[[Category : Gun Bloggers]]
[[Category : Gun Blogs]]
[[Category : Gun Podcasts]]
[[Category : Survivalism]]
[[Category : Survivalists]]
[[Category : Preparedness Bloggers]]
[[Category : Preparedness Podcasts]]
[[Category : Conservatives]]
[[Category : Libertarians]]
[[Category : Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category : Anti-Communism]]
[[Category : American Redoubt]]
[[Category : Utah]]
[[Category : Bloggers]]
[[Category : Conservative Bloggers]]
[[Category : Firearms]]
[[Category : Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Conservative Blogs]]
[[Category : Conservative Podcasts]]
[[Category : Oath Keepers]]
[[Category : Veterans]]
[[Category : Patriots]]

User talk:Boehept

2015-02-09T14:38:57Z

Wschact: welcome

{{welcome}} [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:38, 9 February 2015 (EST)

Darren White

2015-02-09T11:58:22Z

Wschact: sp

{{outdated|2007}}
'''Darren P. White''' is the incumbent [[Bernalillo County]], [[New Mexico]] [[Sheriff]] and is serving his second term in the elected position. White is currently seeking the position of [[U.S. House of Representatives]] 1st District of New Mexico being vacated by [[Heather Wilson]] who is running for [[U.S. Senate]]. White is a former Cabinet Secretary for the New Mexico Department of Public Safety and is a nationally known public safety advocate. He has a diverse [[law]] enforcement background, having served with both the [[Albuquerque]] and [[Houston]] [[police]] departments, where he was named honor graduate from both academies.

White's honors include the Jefferson Award from the [[American Institute for Public Service]] in 1983. In 2006the [[Aspen Institute]] recognized White as one of the nation's top 24 young elected officials and selected him for a new fellowship program honoring public leaders.

White served in the [[United States Army]] as a member of the [[82nd Airborne Division]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:White, Darren}}
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Darren White

2015-02-09T11:57:46Z

Wschact: outdated

{{outdated|2007}}'''Darren P. White''' is the incumbent [[Bernalillo County]], [[New Mexico]] [[Sheriff]] and is serving his second term in the elected position. White is currently seeking the position of [[U.S. House of Representatives]] 1st District of New Mexico being vacated by [[Heather Wilson]] who is running for [[U.S. Senate]]. White is a former Cabinet Secretary for the New Mexico Department of Public Safety and is a nationally known public safety advocate. He has a diverse [[law]] enforcement background, having served with both the [[Albuquerque]] and [[Houston]] [[police]] departments, where he was named honor graduate from both academies.

White's honors include the Jefferson Award from the [[American Institute for Public Service]] in 1983. In 2006the [[Aspen Institute]] recognized White as one of the nation's top 24 young elected officials and selected him for a new fellowship program honoring public leaders.

White served in the [[United States Army]] as a member of the [[82nd Airborne Division]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:White, Darren}}
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Tim Berners-Lee

2015-02-09T11:37:50Z

Wschact: ref

[[Image:Tim Berners-Lee.jpg|right|280px]]
'''Sir Timothy (Tim) Berners-Lee''', KBE, is a [[United Kingdom|British]] software developer who was the primary inventor of the [[World Wide Web]]. In 2004 he was knighted for his services to the global development of the Internet.

Whilst working at [[CERN]] (a [[particle physics]] laboratory in [[Switzerland]]) in 1990, Berners-Lee came up with the idea of using the [[Internet]] to link [[hypertext]] documents. He designed the first web browser and web server, and in 1991 CERN created the world's first website. Berners-Lee has remained an active participant in World Wide Web development ever since. He now lives in the [[United States]] and is the Director of the World Wide Web Consortium.

Berners-Lee is the author of "Weaving the Web".

<blockquote>
''And if there ever was a thing that was made by committee, the Internet — with its protocols and packet switching — is it. But the World Wide Web is Berners-Lee's alone. He designed it. He loosed it on the world. And he more than anyone else has fought to keep it open, nonproprietary and free.''<ref>http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/bernerslee.html</ref>
</blockquote>
==Honors==
On March 18 2013, Berners-Lee, along with Vinton Cerf, Robert Kahn, Louis Pouzin and Marc Andreesen, was awarded the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering for "ground-breaking innovation in engineering that has been of global benefit to humanity."

In 2014, Berners-Lee received a $500,000 prize for being honored with the Mohammed Bin Rashid Foundation Knowledge Award.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/nationgeneral/2014/December/nationgeneral_December56.xml&section=nationgeneral|title=Web inventor, Wiki co-founder share $1m Knowledge Award|work=Khaleej Times|first=Muaz |last=Shabandri|date=8 December 2014
|accessdate=February 9, 2015}}</ref>
==References==
<references/>
== External links ==

*[http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ Official site at W3C]
*[http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/berners-lee.htm Facts about Tim Berners-Lee inventor of the World Wide Web in 1991.]
*[http://foundationbios.com/tim-berners-lee/ Tim Berners-Lee bio]

[[Category:Inventors|Berners-Lee, Tim]]

Tim Berners-Lee

2015-02-09T11:36:23Z

Wschact: ref

[[Image:Tim Berners-Lee.jpg|right|280px]]
'''Sir Timothy (Tim) Berners-Lee''', KBE, is a [[United Kingdom|British]] software developer who was the primary inventor of the [[World Wide Web]]. In 2004 he was knighted for his services to the global development of the Internet.

Whilst working at [[CERN]] (a [[particle physics]] laboratory in [[Switzerland]]) in 1990, Berners-Lee came up with the idea of using the [[Internet]] to link [[hypertext]] documents. He designed the first web browser and web server, and in 1991 CERN created the world's first website. Berners-Lee has remained an active participant in World Wide Web development ever since. He now lives in the [[United States]] and is the Director of the World Wide Web Consortium.

Berners-Lee is the author of "Weaving the Web".

<blockquote>
''And if there ever was a thing that was made by committee, the Internet — with its protocols and packet switching — is it. But the World Wide Web is Berners-Lee's alone. He designed it. He loosed it on the world. And he more than anyone else has fought to keep it open, nonproprietary and free.'' [http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/bernerslee.html]
</blockquote>
==Honors==
On March 18 2013, Berners-Lee, along with Vinton Cerf, Robert Kahn, Louis Pouzin and Marc Andreesen, was awarded the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering for "ground-breaking innovation in engineering that has been of global benefit to humanity."

In 2014, Berners-Lee received a $500,000 prize for being honored with the Mohammed Bin Rashid Foundation Knowledge Award.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/nationgeneral/2014/December/nationgeneral_December56.xml&section=nationgeneral|title=Web inventor, Wiki co-founder share $1m Knowledge Award|work=Khaleej Times|first=Muaz |last=Shabandri|date=8 December 2014
|accessdate=February 9, 2015}}</ref>
==References==
<references/>
== External links ==

*[http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ Official site at W3C]
*[http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/berners-lee.htm Facts about Tim Berners-Lee inventor of the World Wide Web in 1991.]
*[http://foundationbios.com/tim-berners-lee/ Tim Berners-Lee bio]

[[Category:Inventors|Berners-Lee, Tim]]

Tim Berners-Lee

2015-02-09T11:34:45Z

Wschact: honors

[[Image:Tim Berners-Lee.jpg|right|280px]]
'''Sir Timothy (Tim) Berners-Lee''', KBE, is a [[United Kingdom|British]] software developer who was the primary inventor of the [[World Wide Web]]. In 2004 he was knighted for his services to the global development of the Internet.

Whilst working at [[CERN]] (a [[particle physics]] laboratory in [[Switzerland]]) in 1990, Berners-Lee came up with the idea of using the [[Internet]] to link [[hypertext]] documents. He designed the first web browser and web server, and in 1991 CERN created the world's first website. Berners-Lee has remained an active participant in World Wide Web development ever since. He now lives in the [[United States]] and is the Director of the World Wide Web Consortium.

Berners-Lee is the author of "Weaving the Web".

<blockquote>
''And if there ever was a thing that was made by committee, the Internet — with its protocols and packet switching — is it. But the World Wide Web is Berners-Lee's alone. He designed it. He loosed it on the world. And he more than anyone else has fought to keep it open, nonproprietary and free.'' [http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/bernerslee.html]
</blockquote>
==Honors==
On March 18 2013, Berners-Lee, along with Vinton Cerf, Robert Kahn, Louis Pouzin and Marc Andreesen, was awarded the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering for "ground-breaking innovation in engineering that has been of global benefit to humanity."

In 2014, Berners-Lee received a $500,000 prize for being honored with the Mohammed Bin Rashid Foundation Knowledge Award.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/nationgeneral/2014/December/nationgeneral_December56.xml&section=nationgeneral|title=Web inventor, Wiki co-founder share $1m Knowledge Award|work=Khaleej Times|first=Muaz |last=Shabandri|date=8 December 2014
|accessdate=February 9, 2015}}</ref>
== External links ==

*[http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ Official site at W3C]
*[http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/berners-lee.htm Facts about Tim Berners-Lee inventor of the World Wide Web in 1991.]
*[http://foundationbios.com/tim-berners-lee/ Tim Berners-Lee bio]

[[Category:Inventors|Berners-Lee, Tim]]

Chuck Baldwin

2015-02-09T11:04:14Z

Wschact: expand

'''Charles Obadiah "Chuck" Baldwin''' (born in La Porte, Indiana; May 3, 1952) is an American politician, Baptist minister and radio talk-show host.

Baldwin, was born in [[La Porte, Indiana]] on May 3, 1952. Baldwin graduated from La Porte High School in 1971 and for two years attended [[Midwestern Baptist College]] in [[Pontiac, Michigan]]. He met and married Connie Kay Cole there.<ref name=cpt>{{cite news|url=http://www.cptexas.org/sketch.html|title=Dr. Chuck Baldwin: A Biographical Sketch|publisher=[[Taxpayers Party|Constitution Party]] of [[Texas]]|accessdate=February 9, 2015 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080725040444/http://www.cptexas.org/sketch.html |archivedate=July 25, 2008}}</ref> Baldwin changed his career plan from law enforcement to an evangelistic ministry;<ref name=bt>{{cite news|url=http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/080229|publisher=[[Renew America]]|author=Baldwin, Chuck|date=2008-02-29|accessdate=February 9, 2015|title=A tribute to my dad}}</ref> he moved to the south,<ref name=me>{{cite news|url=http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin297.htm|title=Me in a Nutshell|author=Baldwin, Chuck|date=2006-05-02|accessdate=February 9, 2015|publisher=NewsWithViews.com|work=Food for Thought}}</ref> and enrolled in, and graduated with a [[Bible]] diploma from, the Thomas Road Bible Institute (now the Liberty Bible Institute at [[Liberty University]]). He then received his [[bachelor's]] and [[master's]] in [[theology]] through external programs from [[Christian Bible College]] of [[Rocky Mount, North Carolina]]. Baldwin has received two honorary [[doctor of divinity]] degrees, from Christian Bible College and from [[Trinity Baptist College]] in [[Jacksonville, Florida]].<ref name=cpt/>

On June 22, 1975, Chuck and Connie Baldwin and four other individuals held the first meeting of what would become the Crossroad [[Independent Baptist|Baptist]] Church in [[Pensacola]], [[Florida]].<ref name=cpt/> He retired from Crossroad in 2010 and became pastor of Liberty Fellowship in Kalispel, Montana.

Baldwin He hosts a daily one-hour radio program, ''Chuck Baldwin Live'', and writes a daily editorial column carried on its website, on News with Views, and on [[VDare]].
==Political activity==
From 1980 to 1984, Baldwin served as Pensacola chairman and then state executive director of the [[Florida]] [[Moral Majority]], organized by the Rev. [[Jerry Falwell]] of [[Lynchburg, Virginia]].<ref name=cpt/> Baldwin helped carry the state twice for [[Ronald Reagan|Reagan]] electors. Baldwin helped Falwell register some 50,000 Christian conservative voters.<ref name=b1207>{{cite news|author=Baldwin, Chuck|url=http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071207.html|title=Christian Right Just Doesn't Get It|publisher=Chuck Baldwin Live|date=2007-12-07|accessdate=Februay 9, 2015}}</ref>

In 2008, [[Constitution Party]] nominated Baldwin as its candidate for President of the United States. He was the 2004 Constitution Party Vice Presidential nominee, running with the 2004 Constitution Party Presidential nominee, [[Michael Peroutka]]. He has been an outspoken critic of President [[George W. Bush]] as well as other leaders in both the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] and [[Republican Party|Republican]] Parties. He supported Congressman [[Ron Paul]] in Paul's unsuccessful bid for the 2008 Republican Party Presidential nomination. His running mate in 2008 was Darrell Castle, a lawyer from Tennessee. The Constitution Party Presidential ticket was on the ballot in 2008 in 37 states, and was a qualified write-in ticket in 11 states. Baldwin received 199,314 popular votes in the 2008 Presidential election which was about 0.15 percent of the total<ref>http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf</ref>.

In November, 2011, Republican Montana gubernatorial candidate Bob Fanning selected Chuck Baldwin as his running mate.<ref>http://www.timesexaminer.com/chuck-baldwin/934-i-am-now-a-candidate-for-montana-lieutenant-governor-</ref> Baldwin withdrew his candidacy for lieutenant governor on February 12, 2012, several months before the June primary.<ref>http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/4482</ref> He was replaced on the ticket by Joel Boniek, former State Representative.<ref name=krtv>{{cite web|url=http://www.krtv.com/news/long-list-of-candidates-running-for-u-s-house-and-mt-governor/|title=Long list of candidates running for U.S. House & MT Governor|date=March 12, 2012|accessdate=February 9, 2015|publisher=KRTV|first=Marnee|last=Banks}}</ref> Fanning went on to receive 2.3% of the vote in the Republican primary.<ref name=MTSOS>{{cite web|url=http://sos.mt.gov/Elections/2012/Primary/2012_PRIMARY_STATEWIDE_CANVASS.PDF|title=2012 STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION CANVASS|accessdate=February 9, 2015|work=Secretary of State of Montana}}</ref>

==Books==
*{{cite book|title=The Freedom Documents|author=Baldwin, Chuck, ed.|others=[[Abigail Adams]], [[John Adams]], [[Samuel Adams]], [[Patrick Henry]], [[Robert E. Lee]], [[Abraham Lincoln]], [[Thomas Paine]], [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Theodore Roosevelt]], [[Mark Twain]]|location=[[Pensacola]], [[Florida]]|publisher=Chuck Baldwin Live Radio Talk Show|year=2001|oclc=212793142}}
*''Let's Look at Legalism''.
*''Subjects Seldom Spoken On: 11 Messages That Will Stimulate Your Mind and Stir Your Heart'', 1990.
*''This Is the Life'' (a verse-by-verse [[Exposition (literary technique)|exposition]] of the [[Epistles of John]]).
==References==
<references/>

== External links ==
* [http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/sketch.html Chuck Baldwin's Bio]
* [http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/ Chuck Baldwin Live]

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Baldwin, Chuck}}

[[Category:Constitution Party Politicians]]
[[Category:Clergy]]

18 USC § 1030

2015-02-09T10:00:44Z

Wschact: add cite

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 '''18 U.S.C. § 1030''']: [[Fraud]] and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever--
:(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y.[(y)] of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [42 USCS § 2014(y)], with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
:(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
::(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
::(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
::(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
:(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
:(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $ 5,000 in any 1-year period;
:(5) (A) (i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
:::(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
:::(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and
::(B) by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)--
:::(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $ 5,000 in value;
:::(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
:::(iii) physical injury to any person;
:::(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or
:::(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security;
:(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029 [18 USCS § 1029]) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if--
::(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or
::(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; [or]
:(7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

(b) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

(c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is--
:(1) (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under sub-section (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
::(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
:(2) (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5)(A)(iii), or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
::(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph, if--
:::(i) the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
:::(ii) the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State; or
:::(iii) the value of the information obtained exceeds $ 5,000; and
::(C) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under sub-section (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(6) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
:(3) (A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4) or (a)(7) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
::(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under sub-section (a)(4), (a)(5)(A)(iii), or (a)(7) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this section;
:(4) (A) except as provided in paragraph (5), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under that subsection;
::(B) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(ii), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under that subsection;
::(C) except as provided in paragraph (5), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A)(i) or (a)(5)(A)(ii), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under either subsection, that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; and
:(5) (A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and
::(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.

(d)
:(1) The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to any other agency having such authority, have the authority to investigate offenses under this section.
:(2) The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall have primary authority to investigate offenses under subsection (a)(1) for any cases involving espionage, foreign counterintelligence, information protected against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or Restricted Data (as that term is defined in section 11y of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)), except for offenses affecting the duties of the United States Secret Service pursuant to section 3056(a) of this title [18 USCS § 3056(a)].
: (3) Such authority shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General.

(e) As used in this section--
: (1) the term "computer" means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;
: (2) the term "protected computer" means a computer--
:: (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
:: (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
: (3) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other common-wealth, possession or territory of the United States;
: (4) the term "financial institution" means--
:: (A) an institution, with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;
:: (B) the Federal Reserve or a member of the Federal Reserve including any Federal Reserve Bank;
:: (C) a credit union with accounts insured by the National Credit Union Administration;
:: (D) a member of the Federal home loan bank system and any home loan bank;
:: (E) any institution of the Farm Credit System under the Farm Credit Act of 1971;
:: (F) a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 USCS § 78o];
:: (G) the Securities Investor Protection Corporation;
:: (H) a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as such terms are defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978 [12 USCS § 3101(1) and (3)]); and
:: (I) an organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) of the Federal Reserve Act;
: (5) the term "financial record" means information derived from any record held by a financial institution pertaining to a customer's relationship with the financial institution;
: (6) the term "exceeds authorized access" means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter;
: (7) the term "department of the United States" means the legislative or judicial branch of the Government or one of the executive department enumerated in section 101 of title 5;
: (8) the term "damage" means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;
: (9) the term "government entity" includes the Government of the United States, any State or political subdivision of the United States, any foreign country, and any state, province, municipality, or other political subdivision of a foreign country;
: (10) the term "conviction" shall include a conviction under the law of any State for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, an element of which is unauthorized access, or exceeding authorized access, to a computer;
: (11) the term "loss" means any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service; and
: (12) the term "person" means any individual, firm, corporation, educational institution, financial institution, govern-mental entity, or legal or other entity.

(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.

(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. A civil action for a violation of this section may be brought only if the conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of subsection (a)(5)(B). Damages for a violation involving only conduct described in subsection (a)(5)(B)(i) are limited to economic damages. No action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage. No action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware.

(h) The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Congress annually, during the first 3 years following the date of the enactment of this subsection [enacted Sept. 13, 1994], concerning investigations and prosecutions under subsection (a)(5).

(i)
:(1) The court, in imposing sentence on any person convicted of a violation of this section, or convicted of conspiracy to violate this section, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of any provision of State law, that such person forfeit to the United States—
::(A) such person’s interest in any personal property that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of such violation; and
::(B) any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from, any proceeds that such person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation.
(2) The criminal forfeiture of property under this subsection, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any judicial proceeding in relation thereto, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsection (d) of that section.

(j) For purposes of subsection (i), the following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them:
:(1) Any personal property used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of any violation of this section, or a conspiracy to violate this section.
:(2) Any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to any violation of this section, or a conspiracy to violate this section

[[Category:Law]]

18 U.S.C. § 1001

2015-02-09T09:53:44Z

Wschact: better cat

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 '''18 U.S. Code § 1001'''] is a part of the federal criminal law that prohibits false statements to the government. In effect, every statement made to the federal government is made under [[oath]].
{{cquote|(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; 
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or 
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; 
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years. 
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. 
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to— 
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or 
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.}}

Many states have similar criminal laws covering false statements made to state governments.
[[Category:Law]]

18 U.S.C. § 1001

2015-02-09T09:52:01Z

Wschact: start article

Voting Rights Act of 1965

2015-02-09T03:15:27Z

Wschact: /* Private cause of action */ fix cite

The '''National Voting Rights Act of 1965'''<ref>42 U.S.C. § 1973-1973aa-6</ref> authorized, and in some areas required, federal oversight of elections and election laws. Many (but not all) of these areas were in the South, which was at that time controlled by the [[Democratic Party]]. The Act gave the Department of Justice the power to approve or reject any change in a voting law in certain districts where less than 50% of the population were registered to vote in 1964.

Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial. But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures. This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.

Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5. The formula was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 in the case ''Shelby County v. Holder''.

The Act also outlawed literacy tests.

==History==
The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress over strong opposition within the [[Democratic Party]]. President [[Lyndon Johnson]] asked Republican Minority Leader [[Everett Dirksen]] for help <ref>[http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64_cloturespeech.htm Everett McKinley Dirksen's Finest Hour: June 10, 1964], ''The Peoria Journal Star'', June 10, 2004, retrieved from The Dirksen Congressional center 05/20/07.</ref> in breaking the Democratic [[filibuster]]. Dirksen spoke on the Senate floor,
{{Cquote|The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!}}
Under Johnson, the Senate had not been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a Civil Rights Bill. With Republican support, the final count showed 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voting to end the filibuster, with 23 Democrats and only 6 Republicans opposed. The formal Senate vote on the bill took place on June 19, 1964. It passed overwhelmingly, 73-27.

The final Senate vote on August 4 was 49 Democrats and 30 Republicans in favor, one Republican and 17 Democrats opposed. [[Segregation]]ists who voted against the Voting Rights Act were [[J. William Fulbright]] <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871879,00.html?iid=chix-sphere Picking the Team], ''TIME Magazine'', December 12, 1960.</ref>, awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by [[Bill Clinton]], and Al Gore, Sr., father of Democratic Presidential Nominee [[Al Gore]].

==Clinton era violations of the Voting Rights Act==

In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court found that [[Bill Clinton]] had violated the Voting Rights Act. The [[Supreme Court]] upheld the findings of fact in ''Clinton vs Jeffers'' <ref>Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900402.txt Clinton vs Jeffers] No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).</ref> that the Arkansas governor and future [[Democratic]] president violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court Justices wrote,
{{Cquote|Bill Clinton does not dispute here -- that violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying [[equitable relief]] have occurred in Arkansas. In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of [[constitution]]al violations of the voting rights of [[African American|black citizens]]." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.}}
The court concluded these series of laws passed under Clinton
{{Cquote|represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly [[unconstitutional]]. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. }}
And most pointedly the
{{Cquote|inference of [[racial]] motivation is inescapable.}}

==Renewal==
Although the Act is over 40 years old and addresses issues from the early 1960s and before, in 2006 Congress passed a 25-year extension after holding many hearings and collecting over 12000 pages of evidence.<ref>http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol43_2/385-434_clarke.pdf</ref> 33 House members opposed the 25-year extension, primarily because of the imposition of multilingual balloting. Not a single senator, however, voted against it, and President [[George W. Bush]] signed it into law.

The law now imposes a complex system of regulations that include forcing local governments to print multilingual ballots at their own expense, in many different foreign languages.

In recent years it has enabled liberals in [[Washington, D.C.]] to block reforms such as voter ID sought by local jurisdictions in 16 states. However, it should be noted that Georgia's voter ID law was precleared and that a three-judge panel allowed South Carolina's voter ID law to take effect (albeit modified by a state interpretation during the trial).<ref>''South Carolina v. United States'' (D.D.C. 2012)</ref> The entire State of Texas was subjected to ongoing federal control of its elections until it successfully bails out of being a covered jurisdiction in part because Texas once printed its ballots in English rather than Spanish. Texas has also had more objections to changes in its voting procedures from 1966 to 2004 than any other covered state.<ref>''Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. One v. Mukasey'' 573 F.Supp.2d. 221, 281 (D.D.C. 2008)</ref>
==Private cause of action==
Citizens can file civil suits under the Voting Rights Act. On February 6, 2015, three African-American citizens filed a suit against the Democratic Party of Virginia because the party used a "fire house" primary/unassembled caucus to select its nominee for a special election to fill a vacancy in the House of Delegates created by the resignation of Joseph D. “Joe” Morrissey. Morrissey resigned after he was convicted of taking liberties with a female staff member. The party decided to allow only the 50 voting committee members living in that district to pick a candidate instead of a process that would allow all registered voters to participate. A majority of voters in the district are African- Americans. As a result, the party selected a candidate other than Morrissey, who ran as an independent. Morrissey won the election, and is now serving on a daily release from his prison cell. The suit alleges a Voting Rights Act violation.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://richmondfreepress.com/news/2015/feb/06/state-dems-hit-voting-rights-suit/?page=1|title=State Dems hit with voting rights suit|first=Jeremy |last=Lazarus |date=February 6, 2015|work=Richmond Free Press|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[Southern Manifesto]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Law]]
[[category:Civil Rights]]
[[Category:United States election law]]

Voting Rights Act of 1965

2015-02-09T03:14:34Z

Wschact: Private cause of action

The '''National Voting Rights Act of 1965'''<ref>42 U.S.C. § 1973-1973aa-6</ref> authorized, and in some areas required, federal oversight of elections and election laws. Many (but not all) of these areas were in the South, which was at that time controlled by the [[Democratic Party]]. The Act gave the Department of Justice the power to approve or reject any change in a voting law in certain districts where less than 50% of the population were registered to vote in 1964.

Sections 2 and 5 are the most important parts of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 prohibits racial discrimination in elections nationwide, and is relatively non-controversial. But Section 5 imposes "temporary" restrictions on certain "covered" regions that require those regions (9 states, mostly in the South, are covered in whole, and another 7 states are covered in part) to obtain pre-clearance by the federal government for any changes in election procedures. This "temporary" restriction was intended to last only five years, but has been repeatedly been extended, most recently in 2006 for another 25 years.

Section 4 provides the formula for which jurisdictions are covered by Section 5. The formula was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 in the case ''Shelby County v. Holder''.

The Act also outlawed literacy tests.

==History==
The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress over strong opposition within the [[Democratic Party]]. President [[Lyndon Johnson]] asked Republican Minority Leader [[Everett Dirksen]] for help <ref>[http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64_cloturespeech.htm Everett McKinley Dirksen's Finest Hour: June 10, 1964], ''The Peoria Journal Star'', June 10, 2004, retrieved from The Dirksen Congressional center 05/20/07.</ref> in breaking the Democratic [[filibuster]]. Dirksen spoke on the Senate floor,
{{Cquote|The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!}}
Under Johnson, the Senate had not been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a Civil Rights Bill. With Republican support, the final count showed 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voting to end the filibuster, with 23 Democrats and only 6 Republicans opposed. The formal Senate vote on the bill took place on June 19, 1964. It passed overwhelmingly, 73-27.

The final Senate vote on August 4 was 49 Democrats and 30 Republicans in favor, one Republican and 17 Democrats opposed. [[Segregation]]ists who voted against the Voting Rights Act were [[J. William Fulbright]] <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871879,00.html?iid=chix-sphere Picking the Team], ''TIME Magazine'', December 12, 1960.</ref>, awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by [[Bill Clinton]], and Al Gore, Sr., father of Democratic Presidential Nominee [[Al Gore]].

==Clinton era violations of the Voting Rights Act==

In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court found that [[Bill Clinton]] had violated the Voting Rights Act. The [[Supreme Court]] upheld the findings of fact in ''Clinton vs Jeffers'' <ref>Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900402.txt Clinton vs Jeffers] No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).</ref> that the Arkansas governor and future [[Democratic]] president violated the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court Justices wrote,
{{Cquote|Bill Clinton does not dispute here -- that violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying [[equitable relief]] have occurred in Arkansas. In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of [[constitution]]al violations of the voting rights of [[African American|black citizens]]." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.}}
The court concluded these series of laws passed under Clinton
{{Cquote|represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly [[unconstitutional]]. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. }}
And most pointedly the
{{Cquote|inference of [[racial]] motivation is inescapable.}}

==Renewal==
Although the Act is over 40 years old and addresses issues from the early 1960s and before, in 2006 Congress passed a 25-year extension after holding many hearings and collecting over 12000 pages of evidence.<ref>http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol43_2/385-434_clarke.pdf</ref> 33 House members opposed the 25-year extension, primarily because of the imposition of multilingual balloting. Not a single senator, however, voted against it, and President [[George W. Bush]] signed it into law.

The law now imposes a complex system of regulations that include forcing local governments to print multilingual ballots at their own expense, in many different foreign languages.

In recent years it has enabled liberals in [[Washington, D.C.]] to block reforms such as voter ID sought by local jurisdictions in 16 states. However, it should be noted that Georgia's voter ID law was precleared and that a three-judge panel allowed South Carolina's voter ID law to take effect (albeit modified by a state interpretation during the trial).<ref>''South Carolina v. United States'' (D.D.C. 2012)</ref> The entire State of Texas was subjected to ongoing federal control of its elections until it successfully bails out of being a covered jurisdiction in part because Texas once printed its ballots in English rather than Spanish. Texas has also had more objections to changes in its voting procedures from 1966 to 2004 than any other covered state.<ref>''Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. One v. Mukasey'' 573 F.Supp.2d. 221, 281 (D.D.C. 2008)</ref>
==Private cause of action==
Citizens can file civil suits under the Voting Rights Act. On February 6, 2015, three African-American citizens filed a suit against the Democratic Party of Virginia because the party used a "fire house" primary/unassembled caucus to select its nominee for a special election to fill a vacancy in the House of Delegates created by the resignation of Joseph D. “Joe” Morrissey. Morrissey resigned after he was convicted of taking liberties with a female staff member. The party decided to allow only the 50 voting committee members living in that district to pick a candidate instead of a process that would allow all registered voters to participate. A majority of voters in the district are African- Americans. As a result, the party selected a candidate other than Morrissey, who ran as an independent. Morrissey won the election, and is now serving on a daily release from his prison cell. The suit alleges a Voting Rights Act violation.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://richmondfreepress.com/news/2015/feb/06/state-dems-hit-voting-rights-suit/?page=1|title=State Dems hit with voting rights suit|first=Jeremy |last=Lazarus |date=February 6, 2015|work=Richmond Times Dispatch|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[Southern Manifesto]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:United States Law]]
[[category:Civil Rights]]
[[Category:United States election law]]

Paul Copan

2015-02-09T02:51:12Z

Wschact: add cat

'''Paul Copan'''(born September 26, 1962) is a [[Christian|Christianity]] [[theology|theologian]], philosopher, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]], and author.

Copan is a professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and [[Ethics]]. He has written and/or edited over 25 books in the areas of: the philosophy of religion, Christian apologetics, theology and the area of the philosophy of science & religion.

Within the area of Christian apologetics one of his focuses is on the [[Historicity of Jesus|historicity of Jesus Christ]].

He has written many journal articles and essays for books. For six years he served as the president of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pba.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=faculty.detail&contactID=795 |title= Paul Copan |date= |website=Faculty Page |publisher=Palm Beach Atlantic University |accessdate=28 January 2014}}</ref>
== External links ==

*[http://www.paulcopan.com/ Paul Copan's website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Philosophers]]

PLATO

2015-02-09T01:01:37Z

Wschact: fix red link

'''PLATO''' (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations) was the first generalized computer assisted instruction or distance system. It began in 1960, running ran on the University of Illinois' ILLIAC I computer. By the late 1970s, it supported several thousand graphics terminals distributed worldwide, running on nearly a dozen different networked mainframe computers.

Because the system needed a low cost graphic display, the PLATO project engineers developed the [[plasma display]], which was very useful for its inherent memory. PLATO's plasma displays produced orange colored graphics and the background color was either black or a color slide that was displayed using the projector built into every terminal.

PLATO IV terminals also featured an early [[touch screen]] that was implemented by a user's finger breaking the infrared light beams that traversed the display panel.
==External links==
* [http://platohistory.org/ PLATO History Foundation]
[[Category:Internet culture]]

Oath Keepers

2015-02-09T00:58:12Z

Wschact: /* Related People */ Tappan died before organization was founded

'''Oath Keepers''' "[[American Patriots|Guardians]] of the [[Republic]]" is a non-partisan organization of [[civil servant]]s and [[veteran]]s, any [[American]] who has taken an [[oath]]. Open membership to all, [[Citizen]] Associate Member, as long as you take an oath to defend the [[Constitution]]. The group is founded by and run by [[Stewart Rhodes]], formerly a U.S. Army [[paratrooper]] from [[Montana]] in the [[American Redoubt]].

Their motto, "Not on our Watch."

{{cquote|To support and defend the [[Constitution]] against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us [[God]]." }}

"This site is dedicated to the memory of John William Adams (1925-2006), Marine and Oath Keeper extraordinaire."

==Advocated positions==
According to [[Oath Keepers]], [[liberals]] and [[socialist]]s support so-called "common sense" measures - a "good first step" of the [[Police state]] - [[Nanny state]]. To a [[conservative]] [[citizen]]-[[prepper]]-[[patriot]] [[Oath Keeper]] and to the [[Bill of Rights]], this is "[[incrementalism|death by a thousand paper cuts]]". (See [[List of celebrities against Second Amendment]])

[[Stewart Rhodes]] supports the [[Second Amendment Foundation]] and this video, which is the formal response to [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]]'s [[Demand a Plan]] [[gun control|gun-grabbing]] [[propaganda]] video. The video shows one of the main differences between [[liberal]] [[gun control]] [[Nanny state]]s ([[Blue states]]) and [[conservative]] and/or [[libertarian]] [[Second Amendment]]-supporting "[[free state]]s" ([[Red states]]). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBelF4UddcY This video] shows why Oath Keepers "[[vote with our feet]]":<ref>As of December 8, 2014, there are 60,819 views on [[YouTube]] of [[Second Amendment Foundation]]'s ''Equal [[Gun Rights]]'', Online. Published on Feb 24, 2013. http://equalgunrights.com and http://saf.org.</ref>

== See Also ==
* [[5 U.S.C. § 3331|Oath for federal officials]]
* [[28 U.S.C. § 453|Oath for federal judges]]
* [[Marriage]]
* [[Vow]]
* [[Hippocratic Oath]] and [[Oath of the Hindu Physician]]
* [[Oath Keepers]] - Support and defend the [[unalienable rights]] of [[America]]
* [[Fourth Amendment]]
* [[Police state]]s-[[Nanny state]]s violate the [[United States Constitution]]-[[Bill of Rights]] (especially [[Second Amendment]] and [[Fourth Amendment]]) and [[Citizen]]'s [[Unalienable rights]] by not upholding their oath to support and defend the [[Constitution]].

===Related People===
* [[Stewart Rhodes]] founder of [[Oath Keepers]], [[Montana]]
* [[Kenneth Royce]] ([[Boston T. Party]]) of [[Free State Wyoming]] and author of ''[[Boston's Gun Bible]]''
* [[James Wesley Rawles]] of [[The Survival Blog]], [[New York Times]] best-selling author of [[How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It]], [[American Redoubt]] [[Idaho]]
* [[Jack Spirko]] of [[The Survival Podcast]], [[Texas]]
* [[M.D. Creekmore]] of [[TheSurvivalistBlog.net]], [[Kentucky]]
* [[John Jacob Schmidt]] - [[Radio Free Redoubt]], [[Idaho]]
* [[Alex Barron]] - [[Charles Carroll Society]], [[Idaho]]
* [[Ragnar Benson]] - Prolific [[:Category:Preparedness authors|Preparedness author]]
* [[Joel Skousen]] - author ''[[Strategic Relocation - North American Guide to Safe Places]]'' and [[World Affairs Brief]], [[Utah]]
* [[Alex Jones]] - [[InfoWars Nightly News]] and [[Prison Planet]], [[Texas]]
* [[Chuck Baldwin]] - [[Liberty Fellowship]], [[Montana]]
* [[Dave Duffy]] and [[Claire Wolfe]] of [[Backwoods Home Magazine]], [[Oregon]]
* [[Paul Wheaton]] - [[Permies.com]] [[Permaculture]], [[Montana]]
* [[Nutnfancy]] - Nutnfancy YouTube Firearms Channel, [[Utah]]
* [[List of celebrities who support the Second Amendment]] - usually [[Conservatives]] or [[Libertarians]]

===Related Movements and Organizations===
* [[Free State Wyoming]]
* [[Free States Movement]]
* [[Vote with your feet]]
* [[Free State Project]]
{{Second Amendment topics}}

===Other Related Articles===
* [[Firearms]]
* [[Gun control]]:
** [[List of celebrities against Second Amendment]] - always [[Liberal]] [[Elitist]]s
** '''[[Big government | Big Government]]''': [[Liberal values|Liberal]] [[ObamaCare]]-[[Common Core]]-[[Social Security]] [[Welfare state]] leads to [[Nanny state]], leads to [[Gun control]], [[Militarization of police]], [[Asset forfeiture]] and Domestic [[mass surveillance]] of law-abiding [[citizen]]s via the '''[[Police state]]''': [[Globalist]]-[[United Nations]]-[[Statist]]-[[Socialist]]-[[National Socialist]]-[[Communist]]

* [[Second Amendment]] [[unalienable]] [[Gun rights]] versus [[Liberal]] [[Gun control]]
* [[Essay:Why do conservatives own firearms?]] -- According to [[Thomas Jefferson]] it is as the final deterrent against potential [[Tyranny]] of [[government]]

* [[Essay:Invest_in_tangibles#2._Defense_and_Security_.28.22Bullets.22.29|Invest in tangibles: Firearms]] - buy [[Precious metal]]s (that is [[Copper-jacketed lead]] and [[Firearms]])
* [[Boston T. Party]]’s [[State Firearms Laws Ranking]]s from ''[[Boston's Gun Bible]]'' -- [[Vote with your Feet]]
* [[Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership]]
** [[Essay:Jews and Gun Control - Fear of Freedom or Freedom from Fear]], [[Essay:Why Jews Hate Guns - Are they right]]
* ''[[You & the Police!]]'' by [[Boston T. Party]] a.k.a.[[Kenneth W. Royce]]
* ''[[One Nation, Under Surveillance - Privacy From the Watchful Eye]]'' by [[Boston T. Party]]

==External Links==
* [http://oathkeepers.org Official website]
* [https://plus.google.com/u/0/105704077843332512159/ Google+ page]
* [http://www.youtube.com/user/OathKeepersOK YouTube channel page]
* [http://www.facebook.com/groups/163945586998396 Facebook page]
* [https://twitter.com/#!/Oathkeepers Twitter page]
* [http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-founder Stewart Rhodes interviewed by [[Jack Spirko]] on [[The Survival Podcast]] Episode 602]

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

[[Category : Oath Keepers]]
[[Category : Oaths]]
[[Category : Veterans]]
[[Category : Military]]
[[Category : United States Constitution]]
[[Category : Bill of Rights]]
[[Category : Conservative Organizations]]
[[Category : Conservative Blogs]]
[[Category : Conservative Websites]]
[[Category : Organizations]]
[[Category : Ethics]]
[[Category : Morality]]
[[Category : Virtues]]
[[Category : Patriots]]
[[Category : Firearms]]
[[Category : Politics]]
[[Category : Conservatives]]
[[Category : Libertarians]]
[[Category : United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category : Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Anti-Communism]]
[[Category : People Associated with Firearms]]
[[Category : American Gun Rights Advocates]]
[[Category : Gun Writers]]
[[Category : Gun Bloggers]]
[[Category : Gun Blogs]]
[[Category : Gun Podcasts]]
[[Category : Patriots]]
[[Category : Military Strategies and Concepts]]
[[Category : Military Glossary]]
[[Category : Preparedness Glossary]]
[[Category : Law Enforcement]]
[[Category : Systems of Support]]
[[Category : Alternative Systems of Support]]

Mel Tappan

2015-02-09T00:56:18Z

Wschact: fix cite

'''Mel Tappan''' ('''Melrose H. Tappan III''')(1933 - 1980), is considered to be the "grand daddy" of the [[Preparedness]] movement<ref>http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19810331&id=ixsMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=61kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6691,4779572 Accessed December 27, 2014</ref> as the editor of the newsletter ''Personal Survival ("P.S.") Letter''. Tappan wrote ''[[Survival Guns]]'' and ''[[Tappan on Survival]]''.

A graduate of [[Stanford University]], Mr. Tappan was one of the earliest [[survivalist]]s to promote the idea of [[strategic relocation]] to a "[[free state]]" from a more [[liberal]] state. Like [[James Wesley Rawles]] and [[Joel Skousen]], Mr. Tappan advocated creating [[survivalist retreat]]s in [[population density|lightly populated]] [[rural]] regions of the United States.<ref>[http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/532445.html Mitchell, Dancing at Armageddon,] excerpt Accessed December 27, 2014</ref>

==Books==
* ''Survival Guns'' Paperback: 480 pages, Paladin Press (November 1, 2009) ISBN 978-1581607192
* ''Tappan on Survival'' Paperback: 218 pages, Paladin Press (July 1, 2006) ISBN 978-1581605099

==Continuing Influence on Modern Survivalism==
Mr. Tappan's continue to be influential with [[prepper|preparation advocates]] more than three decades after his untimely passing. In 2009, ''Tappan on Survival'' was re-published as a new edition with a foreword written by [[Bruce D. Clayton]]. As of December 2014 it ranks in Amazon's top 90,000 books (out of more than 5 million titles.) The seminal work ''[[Survival Guns]]'' is also back in print.

According to Mel Tappan, [[liberals]] and [[socialist]]s support so-called "common sense" measures - a "good first step" of the [[Police state]] - [[Nanny state]]. To a [[conservative]] [[citizen]]-[[prepper]]-[[patriot]] [[Oath Keepers|Oath Keeper]] and to the [[Bill of Rights]], this is "[[incrementalism|death by a thousand paper cuts]]".

==External Links==
* [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Mel+Tappan Mel Tappan search on [[Duck Duck Go]] [[Privacy]] search engine]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tappan, Mel}}

[[Category : Survivalism]]

Mel Tappan

2015-02-09T00:55:00Z

Wschact: /* Continuing Influence on Modern Survivalism */ avoid repetition

'''Mel Tappan''' ('''Melrose H. Tappan III''')(1933 - 1980), is considered to be the "grand daddy" of the [[Preparedness]] movement<ref>http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19810331&id=ixsMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=61kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6691,4779572 Accessed December 27, 2014</ref> as the editor of the newsletter ''Personal Survival ("P.S.") Letter''. Tappan wrote ''[[Survival Guns]]'' and ''[[Tappan on Survival]]''.

A graduate of [[Stanford University]], Mr. Tappan was one of the earliest [[survivalist]]s to promote the idea of [[strategic relocation]] to a "[[free state]]" from a more [[liberal]] state. Like [[James Wesley Rawles]] and [[Joel Skousen]], Mr. Tappan advocated creating [[survivalist retreat]]s in [[population density|lightly populated]] [[rural]] regions of the United States.<ref>[http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/532445.html Mitchell, Dancing at Armageddon, excerpt Accessed December 27, 2014</ref>

==Books==
* ''Survival Guns'' Paperback: 480 pages, Paladin Press (November 1, 2009) ISBN 978-1581607192
* ''Tappan on Survival'' Paperback: 218 pages, Paladin Press (July 1, 2006) ISBN 978-1581605099

==Continuing Influence on Modern Survivalism==
Mr. Tappan's continue to be influential with [[prepper|preparation advocates]] more than three decades after his untimely passing. In 2009, ''Tappan on Survival'' was re-published as a new edition with a foreword written by [[Bruce D. Clayton]]. As of December 2014 it ranks in Amazon's top 90,000 books (out of more than 5 million titles.) The seminal work ''[[Survival Guns]]'' is also back in print.

According to Mel Tappan, [[liberals]] and [[socialist]]s support so-called "common sense" measures - a "good first step" of the [[Police state]] - [[Nanny state]]. To a [[conservative]] [[citizen]]-[[prepper]]-[[patriot]] [[Oath Keepers|Oath Keeper]] and to the [[Bill of Rights]], this is "[[incrementalism|death by a thousand paper cuts]]".

==External Links==
* [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Mel+Tappan Mel Tappan search on [[Duck Duck Go]] [[Privacy]] search engine]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tappan, Mel}}

[[Category : Survivalism]]

Mel Tappan

2015-02-09T00:53:44Z

Wschact: /* Books */ format

'''Mel Tappan''' ('''Melrose H. Tappan III''')(1933 - 1980), is considered to be the "grand daddy" of the [[Preparedness]] movement<ref>http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19810331&id=ixsMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=61kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6691,4779572 Accessed December 27, 2014</ref> as the editor of the newsletter ''Personal Survival ("P.S.") Letter''. Tappan wrote ''[[Survival Guns]]'' and ''[[Tappan on Survival]]''.

A graduate of [[Stanford University]], Mr. Tappan was one of the earliest [[survivalist]]s to promote the idea of [[strategic relocation]] to a "[[free state]]" from a more [[liberal]] state. Like [[James Wesley Rawles]] and [[Joel Skousen]], Mr. Tappan advocated creating [[survivalist retreat]]s in [[population density|lightly populated]] [[rural]] regions of the United States.<ref>[http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/532445.html Mitchell, Dancing at Armageddon, excerpt Accessed December 27, 2014</ref>

==Books==
* ''Survival Guns'' Paperback: 480 pages, Paladin Press (November 1, 2009) ISBN 978-1581607192
* ''Tappan on Survival'' Paperback: 218 pages, Paladin Press (July 1, 2006) ISBN 978-1581605099

==Continuing Influence on Modern Survivalism==
Mr. Tappan's continue to be influential with [[prepper|preparation advocates]] more than three decades after his untimely passing. In 2009, ''Tappan on Survival'' was re-published as a new edition with a foreword written by [[Bruce D. Clayton]]. As of December 2014 it ranks in Amazon's top 90,000 books (out of more than 5 million titles.) The seminal work ''[[Survival Guns]]'' is also back in print. Mr. Tappan's books are published by [[Paladin Press]].

According to Mel Tappan, [[liberals]] and [[socialist]]s support so-called "common sense" measures - a "good first step" of the [[Police state]] - [[Nanny state]]. To a [[conservative]] [[citizen]]-[[prepper]]-[[patriot]] [[Oath Keepers|Oath Keeper]] and to the [[Bill of Rights]], this is "[[incrementalism|death by a thousand paper cuts]]".

==External Links==
* [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Mel+Tappan Mel Tappan search on [[Duck Duck Go]] [[Privacy]] search engine]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tappan, Mel}}

[[Category : Survivalism]]

Mel Tappan

2015-02-09T00:53:04Z

Wschact: reformat book citations

'''Mel Tappan''' ('''Melrose H. Tappan III''')(1933 - 1980), is considered to be the "grand daddy" of the [[Preparedness]] movement<ref>http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19810331&id=ixsMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=61kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6691,4779572 Accessed December 27, 2014</ref> as the editor of the newsletter ''Personal Survival ("P.S.") Letter''. Tappan wrote ''[[Survival Guns]]'' and ''[[Tappan on Survival]]''.

A graduate of [[Stanford University]], Mr. Tappan was one of the earliest [[survivalist]]s to promote the idea of [[strategic relocation]] to a "[[free state]]" from a more [[liberal]] state. Like [[James Wesley Rawles]] and [[Joel Skousen]], Mr. Tappan advocated creating [[survivalist retreat]]s in [[population density|lightly populated]] [[rural]] regions of the United States.<ref>[http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/532445.html Mitchell, Dancing at Armageddon, excerpt Accessed December 27, 2014</ref>

==Books==
* ''Survival Guns''Paperback: 480 pages, Paladin Press (November 1, 2009) ISBN 978-1581607192
* ''[[Tappan on Survival]]'' - Paperback: 218 pages, Paladin Press (July 1, 2006) ISBN 978-1581605099

==Continuing Influence on Modern Survivalism==
Mr. Tappan's continue to be influential with [[prepper|preparation advocates]] more than three decades after his untimely passing. In 2009, ''Tappan on Survival'' was re-published as a new edition with a foreword written by [[Bruce D. Clayton]]. As of December 2014 it ranks in Amazon's top 90,000 books (out of more than 5 million titles.) The seminal work ''[[Survival Guns]]'' is also back in print. Mr. Tappan's books are published by [[Paladin Press]].

According to Mel Tappan, [[liberals]] and [[socialist]]s support so-called "common sense" measures - a "good first step" of the [[Police state]] - [[Nanny state]]. To a [[conservative]] [[citizen]]-[[prepper]]-[[patriot]] [[Oath Keepers|Oath Keeper]] and to the [[Bill of Rights]], this is "[[incrementalism|death by a thousand paper cuts]]".

==External Links==
* [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Mel+Tappan Mel Tappan search on [[Duck Duck Go]] [[Privacy]] search engine]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tappan, Mel}}

[[Category : Survivalism]]

Talk:Mel Tappan

2015-02-09T00:49:04Z

Wschact: explanation left on talk page

Mr. Tappan died before Oath Keepers was founded so it is unfair to claim him as a member or supporter.

Conservapedia is here to write our own materials in our own words, so I rewrote the article to avoid it being just a 160 quote from another website.

The last part of the article was a cut and paste from the Oath Keepers article. Again, this was not directly related to Mr. Tappan, so while it can be said on Conservapedia, it should not be mechanically repeated in every article.

I also cleaned up the categories. Since Mr. Tappan died before Oath Keepers was founded, he can't be put into those categories. We need to avoid such anachronisms. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 19:49, 8 February 2015 (EST)

Mel Tappan

2015-02-09T00:45:28Z

Wschact: rewrote without need to quote 160 words of a different website. We want our own material on CP; remove cut and paste from Oath Keepers article

'''Mel Tappan''' ('''Melrose H. Tappan III''')(1933 - 1980), is considered to be the "grand daddy" of the [[Preparedness]] movement<ref>http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19810331&id=ixsMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=61kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6691,4779572 Accessed December 27, 2014</ref> as the editor of the newsletter ''Personal Survival ("P.S.") Letter''. Tappan wrote ''[[Survival Guns]]'' and ''[[Tappan on Survival]]''.

A graduate of [[Stanford University]], Mr. Tappan was one of the earliest [[survivalist]]s to promote the idea of [[strategic relocation]] to a "free state]]" from a more [[liberal]] state. Like [[James Wesley Rawles]] and [[Joel Skousen]], Mr. Tappan advocated creating [[survivalist retreat]]s in [[population density|lightly populated]] [[rural]] regions of the United States.<ref>[http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/532445.html Mitchell, Dancing at Armageddon, excerpt Accessed December 27, 2014</ref>

==Books==
* ''[[Survival Guns]]'' - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581607199
* ''[[Tappan on Survival]]'' - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581605099

==Continuing Influence on Modern Survivalism==
Mr. Tappan's continue to be influential with [[prepper|preparation advocates]] more than three decades after his untimely passing. In 2009, ''Tappan on Survival'' was re-published as a new edition with a foreword written by [[Bruce D. Clayton]]. As of December 2014 it ranks in Amazon's top 90,000 books (out of more than 5 million titles.) The seminal work ''[[Survival Guns]]'' is also back in print. Mr. Tappan's books are published by [[Paladin Press]].

According to Mel Tappan, [[liberals]] and [[socialist]]s support so-called "common sense" measures - a "good first step" of the [[Police state]] - [[Nanny state]]. To a [[conservative]] [[citizen]]-[[prepper]]-[[patriot]] [[Oath Keepers|Oath Keeper]] and to the [[Bill of Rights]], this is "[[incrementalism|death by a thousand paper cuts]]".

==External Links==
* [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Mel+Tappan Mel Tappan search on [[Duck Duck Go]] [[Privacy]] search engine]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tappan, Mel}}

[[Category : Survivalism]]

Oath Keepers

2015-02-09T00:33:56Z

Wschact: new section heading and clean up citation to video

'''Oath Keepers''' "[[American Patriots|Guardians]] of the [[Republic]]" is a non-partisan organization of [[civil servant]]s and [[veteran]]s, any [[American]] who has taken an [[oath]]. Open membership to all, [[Citizen]] Associate Member, as long as you take an oath to defend the [[Constitution]]. The group is founded by and run by [[Stewart Rhodes]], formerly a U.S. Army [[paratrooper]] from [[Montana]] in the [[American Redoubt]].

Their motto, "Not on our Watch."

{{cquote|To support and defend the [[Constitution]] against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us [[God]]." }}

"This site is dedicated to the memory of John William Adams (1925-2006), Marine and Oath Keeper extraordinaire."

==Advocated positions==
According to [[Oath Keepers]], [[liberals]] and [[socialist]]s support so-called "common sense" measures - a "good first step" of the [[Police state]] - [[Nanny state]]. To a [[conservative]] [[citizen]]-[[prepper]]-[[patriot]] [[Oath Keeper]] and to the [[Bill of Rights]], this is "[[incrementalism|death by a thousand paper cuts]]". (See [[List of celebrities against Second Amendment]])

[[Stewart Rhodes]] supports the [[Second Amendment Foundation]] and this video, which is the formal response to [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]]'s [[Demand a Plan]] [[gun control|gun-grabbing]] [[propaganda]] video. The video shows one of the main differences between [[liberal]] [[gun control]] [[Nanny state]]s ([[Blue states]]) and [[conservative]] and/or [[libertarian]] [[Second Amendment]]-supporting "[[free state]]s" ([[Red states]]). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBelF4UddcY This video] shows why Oath Keepers "[[vote with our feet]]":<ref>As of December 8, 2014, there are 60,819 views on [[YouTube]] of [[Second Amendment Foundation]]'s ''Equal [[Gun Rights]]'', Online. Published on Feb 24, 2013. http://equalgunrights.com and http://saf.org.</ref>

== See Also ==
* [[5 U.S.C. § 3331|Oath for federal officials]]
* [[28 U.S.C. § 453|Oath for federal judges]]
* [[Marriage]]
* [[Vow]]
* [[Hippocratic Oath]] and [[Oath of the Hindu Physician]]
* [[Oath Keepers]] - Support and defend the [[unalienable rights]] of [[America]]
* [[Fourth Amendment]]
* [[Police state]]s-[[Nanny state]]s violate the [[United States Constitution]]-[[Bill of Rights]] (especially [[Second Amendment]] and [[Fourth Amendment]]) and [[Citizen]]'s [[Unalienable rights]] by not upholding their oath to support and defend the [[Constitution]].

===Related People===
* [[Stewart Rhodes]] founder of [[Oath Keepers]], [[Montana]]
* [[Kenneth Royce]] ([[Boston T. Party]]) of [[Free State Wyoming]] and author of ''[[Boston's Gun Bible]]''
* [[James Wesley Rawles]] of [[The Survival Blog]], [[New York Times]] best-selling author of [[How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It]], [[American Redoubt]] [[Idaho]]
* [[Mel Tappan]], "Grand-daddy" of the [[Preparedness]] movement, [[Oregon]]
* [[Jack Spirko]] of [[The Survival Podcast]], [[Texas]]
* [[M.D. Creekmore]] of [[TheSurvivalistBlog.net]], [[Kentucky]]
* [[John Jacob Schmidt]] - [[Radio Free Redoubt]], [[Idaho]]
* [[Alex Barron]] - [[Charles Carroll Society]], [[Idaho]]
* [[Ragnar Benson]] - Prolific [[:Category:Preparedness authors|Preparedness author]]
* [[Joel Skousen]] - author ''[[Strategic Relocation - North American Guide to Safe Places]]'' and [[World Affairs Brief]], [[Utah]]
* [[Alex Jones]] - [[InfoWars Nightly News]] and [[Prison Planet]], [[Texas]]
* [[Chuck Baldwin]] - [[Liberty Fellowship]], [[Montana]]
* [[Dave Duffy]] and [[Claire Wolfe]] of [[Backwoods Home Magazine]], [[Oregon]]
* [[Paul Wheaton]] - [[Permies.com]] [[Permaculture]], [[Montana]]
* [[Nutnfancy]] - Nutnfancy YouTube Firearms Channel, [[Utah]]
* [[List of celebrities who support the Second Amendment]] - usually [[Conservatives]] or [[Libertarians]]

----

===Related Movements and Organizations===
* [[Free State Wyoming]]
* [[Free States Movement]]
* [[Vote with your feet]]
* [[Free State Project]]
{{Second Amendment topics}}

===Other Related Articles===
* [[Firearms]]
* [[Gun control]]:
** [[List of celebrities against Second Amendment]] - always [[Liberal]] [[Elitist]]s
** '''[[Big government | Big Government]]''': [[Liberal values|Liberal]] [[ObamaCare]]-[[Common Core]]-[[Social Security]] [[Welfare state]] leads to [[Nanny state]], leads to [[Gun control]], [[Militarization of police]], [[Asset forfeiture]] and Domestic [[mass surveillance]] of law-abiding [[citizen]]s via the '''[[Police state]]''': [[Globalist]]-[[United Nations]]-[[Statist]]-[[Socialist]]-[[National Socialist]]-[[Communist]]

* [[Second Amendment]] [[unalienable]] [[Gun rights]] versus [[Liberal]] [[Gun control]]
* [[Essay:Why do conservatives own firearms?]] -- According to [[Thomas Jefferson]] it is as the final deterrent against potential [[Tyranny]] of [[government]]

* [[Essay:Invest_in_tangibles#2._Defense_and_Security_.28.22Bullets.22.29|Invest in tangibles: Firearms]] - buy [[Precious metal]]s (that is [[Copper-jacketed lead]] and [[Firearms]])
* [[Boston T. Party]]’s [[State Firearms Laws Ranking]]s from ''[[Boston's Gun Bible]]'' -- [[Vote with your Feet]]
* [[Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership]]
** [[Essay:Jews and Gun Control - Fear of Freedom or Freedom from Fear]], [[Essay:Why Jews Hate Guns - Are they right]]
* ''[[You & the Police!]]'' by [[Boston T. Party]] a.k.a.[[Kenneth W. Royce]]
* ''[[One Nation, Under Surveillance - Privacy From the Watchful Eye]]'' by [[Boston T. Party]]

==External Links==
* [http://oathkeepers.org Official website]
* [https://plus.google.com/u/0/105704077843332512159/ Google+ page]
* [http://www.youtube.com/user/OathKeepersOK YouTube channel page]
* [http://www.facebook.com/groups/163945586998396 Facebook page]
* [https://twitter.com/#!/Oathkeepers Twitter page]
* [http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-founder Stewart Rhodes interviewed by [[Jack Spirko]] on [[The Survival Podcast]] Episode 602]

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

[[Category : Oath Keepers]]
[[Category : Oaths]]
[[Category : Veterans]]
[[Category : Military]]
[[Category : United States Constitution]]
[[Category : Bill of Rights]]
[[Category : Conservative Organizations]]
[[Category : Conservative Blogs]]
[[Category : Conservative Websites]]
[[Category : Organizations]]
[[Category : Ethics]]
[[Category : Morality]]
[[Category : Virtues]]
[[Category : Patriots]]
[[Category : Firearms]]
[[Category : Politics]]
[[Category : Conservatives]]
[[Category : Libertarians]]
[[Category : United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category : Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Anti-Communism]]
[[Category : People Associated with Firearms]]
[[Category : American Gun Rights Advocates]]
[[Category : Gun Writers]]
[[Category : Gun Bloggers]]
[[Category : Gun Blogs]]
[[Category : Gun Podcasts]]
[[Category : Patriots]]
[[Category : Military Strategies and Concepts]]
[[Category : Military Glossary]]
[[Category : Preparedness Glossary]]
[[Category : Law Enforcement]]
[[Category : Systems of Support]]
[[Category : Alternative Systems of Support]]

Oath Keepers

2015-02-09T00:29:25Z

Wschact: /* Related Movements and Organizations */ more on point

'''Oath Keepers''' "[[American Patriots|Guardians]] of the [[Republic]]" is a non-partisan organization of [[civil servant]]s and [[veteran]]s, any [[American]] who has taken an [[oath]]. Open membership to all, [[Citizen]] Associate Member, as long as you take an oath to defend the [[Constitution]]. The group is founded by and run by [[Stewart Rhodes]], formerly a U.S. Army [[paratrooper]] from [[Montana]] in the [[American Redoubt]].

Their motto, "Not on our Watch."

{{cquote|To support and defend the [[Constitution]] against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us [[God]]." }}

"This site is dedicated to the memory of John William Adams (1925-2006), Marine and Oath Keeper extraordinaire."

==Incremental Gun-Grabbing of the Police State - Nanny State==
According to [[Oath Keepers]], [[liberals]] and [[socialist]]s support so-called "common sense" measures - a "good first step" of the [[Police state]] - [[Nanny state]]. To a [[conservative]] [[citizen]]-[[prepper]]-[[patriot]] [[Oath Keeper]] and to the [[Bill of Rights]], this is "[[incrementalism|death by a thousand paper cuts]]". (See [[List of celebrities against Second Amendment]])

[[Stewart Rhodes]] supports the [[Second Amendment Foundation]] and this video, which is the formal response to [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]]'s [[Demand a Plan]] [[gun control|gun-grabbing]] [[propaganda]] video. The video shows one of the main differences between [[liberal]] [[gun control]] [[Nanny state]]s ([[Blue states]]) and [[conservative]] and/or [[libertarian]] [[Second Amendment]]-supporting "[[free state]]s" ([[Red states]]). This video shows why [[conservative]]s and [[libertarian]]s "[[vote with our feet]]": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBelF4UddcY<ref>As of December 8, 2014, there are 60,819 views on [[YouTube]] of [[Second Amendment Foundation]]'s ''Equal [[Gun Rights]]'', Online. Published on Feb 24, 2013. http://equalgunrights.com and http://saf.org. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBelF4UddcY.</ref>

== See Also ==
* [[5 U.S.C. § 3331|Oath for federal officials]]
* [[28 U.S.C. § 453|Oath for federal judges]]
* [[Marriage]]
* [[Vow]]
* [[Hippocratic Oath]] and [[Oath of the Hindu Physician]]
* [[Oath Keepers]] - Support and defend the [[unalienable rights]] of [[America]]
* [[Fourth Amendment]]
* [[Police state]]s-[[Nanny state]]s violate the [[United States Constitution]]-[[Bill of Rights]] (especially [[Second Amendment]] and [[Fourth Amendment]]) and [[Citizen]]'s [[Unalienable rights]] by not upholding their oath to support and defend the [[Constitution]].

===Related People===
* [[Stewart Rhodes]] founder of [[Oath Keepers]], [[Montana]]
* [[Kenneth Royce]] ([[Boston T. Party]]) of [[Free State Wyoming]] and author of ''[[Boston's Gun Bible]]''
* [[James Wesley Rawles]] of [[The Survival Blog]], [[New York Times]] best-selling author of [[How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It]], [[American Redoubt]] [[Idaho]]
* [[Mel Tappan]], "Grand-daddy" of the [[Preparedness]] movement, [[Oregon]]
* [[Jack Spirko]] of [[The Survival Podcast]], [[Texas]]
* [[M.D. Creekmore]] of [[TheSurvivalistBlog.net]], [[Kentucky]]
* [[John Jacob Schmidt]] - [[Radio Free Redoubt]], [[Idaho]]
* [[Alex Barron]] - [[Charles Carroll Society]], [[Idaho]]
* [[Ragnar Benson]] - Prolific [[:Category:Preparedness authors|Preparedness author]]
* [[Joel Skousen]] - author ''[[Strategic Relocation - North American Guide to Safe Places]]'' and [[World Affairs Brief]], [[Utah]]
* [[Alex Jones]] - [[InfoWars Nightly News]] and [[Prison Planet]], [[Texas]]
* [[Chuck Baldwin]] - [[Liberty Fellowship]], [[Montana]]
* [[Dave Duffy]] and [[Claire Wolfe]] of [[Backwoods Home Magazine]], [[Oregon]]
* [[Paul Wheaton]] - [[Permies.com]] [[Permaculture]], [[Montana]]
* [[Nutnfancy]] - Nutnfancy YouTube Firearms Channel, [[Utah]]
* [[List of celebrities who support the Second Amendment]] - usually [[Conservatives]] or [[Libertarians]]

----

===Related Movements and Organizations===
* [[Free State Wyoming]]
* [[Free States Movement]]
* [[Vote with your feet]]
* [[Free State Project]]
{{Second Amendment topics}}

===Other Related Articles===
* [[Firearms]]
* [[Gun control]]:
** [[List of celebrities against Second Amendment]] - always [[Liberal]] [[Elitist]]s
** '''[[Big government | Big Government]]''': [[Liberal values|Liberal]] [[ObamaCare]]-[[Common Core]]-[[Social Security]] [[Welfare state]] leads to [[Nanny state]], leads to [[Gun control]], [[Militarization of police]], [[Asset forfeiture]] and Domestic [[mass surveillance]] of law-abiding [[citizen]]s via the '''[[Police state]]''': [[Globalist]]-[[United Nations]]-[[Statist]]-[[Socialist]]-[[National Socialist]]-[[Communist]]

* [[Second Amendment]] [[unalienable]] [[Gun rights]] versus [[Liberal]] [[Gun control]]
* [[Essay:Why do conservatives own firearms?]] -- According to [[Thomas Jefferson]] it is as the final deterrent against potential [[Tyranny]] of [[government]]

* [[Essay:Invest_in_tangibles#2._Defense_and_Security_.28.22Bullets.22.29|Invest in tangibles: Firearms]] - buy [[Precious metal]]s (that is [[Copper-jacketed lead]] and [[Firearms]])
* [[Boston T. Party]]’s [[State Firearms Laws Ranking]]s from ''[[Boston's Gun Bible]]'' -- [[Vote with your Feet]]
* [[Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership]]
** [[Essay:Jews and Gun Control - Fear of Freedom or Freedom from Fear]], [[Essay:Why Jews Hate Guns - Are they right]]
* ''[[You & the Police!]]'' by [[Boston T. Party]] a.k.a.[[Kenneth W. Royce]]
* ''[[One Nation, Under Surveillance - Privacy From the Watchful Eye]]'' by [[Boston T. Party]]

==External Links==
* [http://oathkeepers.org Official website]
* [https://plus.google.com/u/0/105704077843332512159/ Google+ page]
* [http://www.youtube.com/user/OathKeepersOK YouTube channel page]
* [http://www.facebook.com/groups/163945586998396 Facebook page]
* [https://twitter.com/#!/Oathkeepers Twitter page]
* [http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/stewart-rhodes-oath-keepers-founder Stewart Rhodes interviewed by [[Jack Spirko]] on [[The Survival Podcast]] Episode 602]

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

[[Category : Oath Keepers]]
[[Category : Oaths]]
[[Category : Veterans]]
[[Category : Military]]
[[Category : United States Constitution]]
[[Category : Bill of Rights]]
[[Category : Conservative Organizations]]
[[Category : Conservative Blogs]]
[[Category : Conservative Websites]]
[[Category : Organizations]]
[[Category : Ethics]]
[[Category : Morality]]
[[Category : Virtues]]
[[Category : Patriots]]
[[Category : Firearms]]
[[Category : Politics]]
[[Category : Conservatives]]
[[Category : Libertarians]]
[[Category : United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category : Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category : Anti-Communism]]
[[Category : People Associated with Firearms]]
[[Category : American Gun Rights Advocates]]
[[Category : Gun Writers]]
[[Category : Gun Bloggers]]
[[Category : Gun Blogs]]
[[Category : Gun Podcasts]]
[[Category : Patriots]]
[[Category : Military Strategies and Concepts]]
[[Category : Military Glossary]]
[[Category : Preparedness Glossary]]
[[Category : Law Enforcement]]
[[Category : Systems of Support]]
[[Category : Alternative Systems of Support]]

5 U.S.C. § 3331

2015-02-08T23:45:32Z

Wschact: add Cornell Law citation, remove less relevant stuff

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331 '''5 U.S.C. § 3331'''] or the '''Oath for federal officials''' sets forth the oath required of members of Congress and other federal officials (including Cabinet officials) other than the [[President]] and [[judge]]s:

:"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the [[Constitution of the United States]] against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me [[God]]."

[[Category:Law]]

28 U.S.C. § 453

2015-02-08T23:40:31Z

Wschact: add Cornell cite, correct oath text, removed extra stuff

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453 '''28 U.S.C. § 453'''] sets forth the oath required of [[federal]] judges in the [[United States]]:

:"I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

This oath is applicable to both justices and federal judges.
[[Category:Law]]

Talk:Atheism and emotional/intrapersonal intelligence

2015-02-08T23:02:21Z

Wschact: please consider a move

The slash character (/) has a special meaning in wiki titles. Could you please consider moving this article to: Atheism and emotional-intrapersonal intelligence ?
Many thanks! [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:02, 8 February 2015 (EST)

Talk:Mathematics

2015-02-08T16:16:20Z

Wschact: rm comment of blocked user

This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testament to the intelligence of this fine, fine website. {{unsigned|GroupsAndFields}}

: Dude, you misspelled "testament". Try improving yourself first and then you might be in a position to criticize others.

: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:: [Note: GroupsAndFields corrected his original spelling of "testiment" after this [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:55, 31 May 2008 (EDT)]

: Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ MathWorld], we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

== Let's do this. ==

And by "this" I mean "make major strides in the quality and quantity of mathematics articles on Conservapedia". I'm new here and don't know whether to just jump in or to cool my heels and appeal to authority. [[User:RandRover1982|RandRover1982]] 22:13, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I think there should be some sort of comment from the higher-ups at Conservapedia on the quality of the articles and the improvements that need to be made in order for the article to be up to standards. Here, for instance, the article needs to be expanded, referenced, linked and corrected. The subject of mathematics is too important to have such a brief sketch as the main entry. Mathematics is perhaps the only area of "science" that has no conflict with scripture. [[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)
:We are only a two year old encyclopedia. We need editors to improve the site and that doesn't begin nor end with mathematics. Please contribute to a worthy cause. Is math science? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::Whether it's science or not, it would be helpful if some admin would take charge of the math here and give us a real vision of what CP math should be. Articles on basic topics like the derivative and Riemann integral have been deleted in the past, while the article on multiplier ideal sheaves is still here (a perfectly reasonable exposition, but obviously far beyond CP's math coverage). There's no real organization to the articles, and the "mathematics" main page links to a lot of stubs giving very short explanations of various topics in mathematics that won't be useful to anyone not already familiar with them ("number theory", etc.). I tried to expand "differential geometry" and a couple similar articles to actually give some idea what these subjects are about, but there's a lot left to do and I'm reluctant to start more serious work until there are real guidelines for what should be in such articles. On the other hand, there are a fairly large number of good articles sitting out there, which just need to be organized somehow.

::I'm inclined to think that definitions of (relatively) basic notions in differential geometry like the curvature tensor (and similar topics in other fields) will probably never belong here. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to give a fluffy take on what differential geometry is all about, and provide easy references for interested students. Is this the level for which we are aiming? The articles on basic algebraic structures are at a similar level -- a definition, some examples and motivation, but no difficult theorems.

::There's also some question about how to integrate the very basic articles (on high school algebra and geometry) into the larger structure of the math articles here. I hope that expository articles about interesting topics not covered in high school do have a place here alongside the high school math. How to integrate these two sorts of articles into a coherent whole is another task.

::As you've probably guessed, I have some thoughts about how everything could be laid out, and I'd be happy to discuss these with anyone who's interested. On the other hand, I'd be equally happy jump in and get writing once someone else articulates clear goals for what articles need to be written and at what level. Until that happens, I'm not sure where to start, and I don't want all my work to end up getting deleted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:39, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::What Conservapedia has done in the past in order to adopt standards and guidelines is to create Wikiprojects; example wikiproject news, wikiproject religion. You can start a wikiproject group, add math users and develop a strategy. I am sure [[user:Aschlafly]] would need to approve but I don't think it will be an issue he would frown upon.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

MarkGall, if you please submit your proposal here as to how you would like to see this article laid out and presented. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:I don't really have a complete proposal for what should be done, just a few thoughts here and there about what's appropriate that I'd be interested in hearing feedback on. The organization of this front article is probably the most difficult of all to envision, since it depends on everything else! I'll try to write up some of my thoughts in the next couple days and post here -- I might also check into the wikiproject idea (thanks, Jpatt). --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:32, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
::I can help in the fields of differential equations (probably more university-oriented), Linear algebra (high school to early university), z-transforms (definitely late university), and linear regressions (high school to early university), if anyone wants to open a wikiproject. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 15:29, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::I can also contribute to math entries. Rather than discussing it, why not just begin? There's nothing special about math entries. Like any other entry, it should be clear and educational, and not an incoherent rat's nest of jargon like on Wikipedia. Also, math is not immune from liberal bias, and we'll keep the bias out of math entries here just as we do for the other entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:33, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Great! I'm not really sure what a "wikiproject" would entail -- would it be useful to set one up? How would I do it? I'd like to get started writing, but the existing articles don't really give me a clear sense of the level and breadth to shoot for. If you could point out a few exemplary articles at the right level, it would be very helpful. For example, how much of elementary real analysis should we aim to cover? Should Cauchy Sequence have its own page, or is that beyond what we're aiming for? The existing article looks pretty useful already. What about things like uniform convergence? These are very specific questions, but I'm equally unsure of just what topics in subjects like differential geometry or algebraic topology merit though own pages. The page on homotopy groups strikes me as not particularly useful, since no one ought to be trying to learn all the necessary definitions here, and it doesn't give much more. But I believe it could be rewritten to aid the intuition of those learning it, and to pique the interest of even high schoolers. Surely we don't want to write textbooks on these subjects, I'm just not sure how much ought to be said. There doesn't seem to have been much consistency in the history of the math articles on CP about what belongs and what doesn't, and some guidelines would be much appreciated. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:28, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::::: Mark, please start however you see fit. But please focus on a style that really does teach and explain, rather than simply dumping a ton of jargon on a page as is often found in math/science entries on Wikipedia. Conservapedia is a learning resource, and math/science entries here should proceed from the simple to the complex in a clear style that actually educates rather than merely tries to show off. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:47, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Your suggestions are great guidelines to start with, but I'd appreciate just a bit more specific guidance. The fact that all editors have been doing whatever they see fit is the reason that the math articles are presently so inconsistent in depth and scope. If someone could just create a set of guidelines about a) what topics merit their own CP pages and b) the extent to which we should favor motivation and examples over precise definitions, it would make editing much easier. I appreciate that including definitions risks becoming too jargony, but including the definition of something like a group seems to me essential for any reasonable treatment. Is this talk page the appropriate forum to discuss such guidelines?

:::::: In any case, I'll try to write a few articles on differential geometry the level that I think is appropriate. This will probably entail beefing up the motivation on [[differential geometry]] and adding a page about Gaussian curvature for surfaces in R^3, with motivation for the more general situation. I will also write a page about minimal surfaces, with particular reference to the 3d case, but perhaps some discussion of mean curvature. Once these are up, please tell me what you think! After that I may work on [[algebraic topology]], but that topic looks like it will require a substantial amount of cleaning of the existing pages to a more appropriate level. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:02, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::I can also contribute to analysis. My particular interest is introductory (and that's the only kind you can do at this level!) topology, and its relatiionship to analysis and calculus. In other words, I want to answer the question "Why are mathematicians so obsessed with whether a set is open?" [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 14:09, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

MarkGall, try this layout:
*Introduction
*Symbols, Equations, and Theories
*Pure and Applied Mathematics
::Pure Mathematics
::Applied Mathematics
*Branches of Mathematics
::Arithmetic
::Algebra
::Calculus
::Chaos Theory
::Geometry
::Number Theory
::Probability and Statistics
::Set Theory and Logic
::Systems Analysis
::Triginometry
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:Sure, that looks like a reasonable outline for the whole category (though with most of the emphasis on things covered in school -- there are currently many more advanced pages here). What I am wondering is what subtopics of these merit their own pages, and whether we want any rigor in defining basic concepts. What topics in number theory merit their own pages? Should we attempt to define something like a number field (with appropriate motivation and examples, of course), or just write elementary things like Fermat's little theorem? Or no subpages at all? I'm just not sure of the scope that CP is aiming for in these pages, so it's hard to know what writing would be most useful. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:53, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
:::MarkGall, this is just a basic outline for a basic article that goes into general detail about the subject at hand. This article itself ''is a general article'', and it's not necessary to get into greater detail other then to provide simple descriptions of what each topic is about; the topics themselves will lead to more detailed articles as necessary. So, sit back with a cold beverage, turn up Michael Jackson's ''Thriller'' or Beethoven's 9th symphony, and just work the article as planned. You'd be surprised where it leads you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:22, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Mark, there's nothing special about math pages. As with any other topic here, just enter good educational material as you see fit. The wiki software permits easy improvement afterward. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Sorry for dragging out this discussion so much (and I'll get back to real editing after this post). The math pages here are in dreadful shape, because everyone just writes whatever they want. There is no consistency in the level of the pages or the degree of rigor, and there is no organization to the category. As such I very much doubt that most of them in their current form are of use to, or interesting to, students or anyone else. But they could be. I understand that I could improve things by just going one article at a time, but a set of guidelines from some admin about the desired level and content would go a long way in improving the consistency and quality of these articles. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:12, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this is a wiki, not a talk site. Please edit a math entry as you think best, and I'll improve it, and then someone else will improve it, and then it will be a superb educational resource. That's how the benefits of a wiki are harnessed. Please: less talk, more substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:43, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::::: No one wants their energy to be wasted and work deleted, and there is no sense in duplicating effort. Mathematical terminology and structure is pretty much standard, but the nature of a good mathematics article, whether in Conservapedia, Wikipedia, Wolfram or Scholarpedia, would be characterized by a clarity of exposition and correctness. What is needed, in my opinion, is a different slant from those in other sources. Why would you want to duplicate an article about, say, symbolic dynamics if there is a perfectly good one in Scholarpedia? To make it clear to a different target group. Scholarpedia is aimed at professional scientists, students of science and highly motivated non-scientists, Wikipedia is (supposedly) aimed at ordinary folk -- so, aside from a conservative POV (which doesn't apply to science, as far as I am concerned), what should differentiate mathematics articles here? I don't think there is any harm in adopting a "mission statement" of sorts, and spending a little time making sure the goals are crystal clear.[[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)

:::::: What sets Conservapedia apart, and in many ways above, the sources you cite is that Conservapedia is an ''educational'' resource free of [[liberal bias]]. That applies to the math entries just like any other.

::::::: I don't know what you mean by "liberal bias" in regards to mathematics in the sources I cited, and the Wikipedia, Scholarpedia and Wolfram site are certainly educational in nature. That said, it appears that a good start has been made on remodeling the mathematics section. Has anyone considered inviting Robert Herrmann to write an article on nonstandard analysis? He is a believer with an extremely interesting story, many published articles on mathematics and Christianity (and both!) and impeccable credentials. [[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 16:49, 1 July 2009 (MST)

:::::: A wiki is not for standing around talking. It's for substantive edits, and the sooner one starts, the better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

==Layout is rearranged==
Ok, MarkGall...fill in the blanks! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:Wow, thanks! Looks like a good start. Sorry I haven't gotten around to working yet -- busy week. I'll get started this weekend. Hopefully some of the others on this talk page will pitch in too. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:08, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== Hints and tricks for math authors ==

::'''This section has been moved to a new article, [[Tips for writing math and science articles]]. Further material on this topic, and discussion of same, should be on that page.''' [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 21:59, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Formulae on Conservapedia are entered in a markup language that is a slightly restricted version of the LaTeX typesetting system (with some AMSLaTeX packages). See [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Formula the Wikimedia help page] for a brief introduction. There are many excellent tutorials on LaTeX available online, including [http://tobi.oetiker.ch/lshort/lshort.pdf The Not So Short Introduction to LaTeX2e]. A few typesetting tips:

*If you need to write vertically aligned stuff in braces, using the "<nowiki>\begin{cases}</nowiki>" mechanism, do not use <nowiki>\textrm</nowiki> inside the cases. It's legal LaTeX, but it doesn't work in Wikimedia. Use <nowiki>\mbox</nowiki> instead. See [[Fundamental group]] for examples. [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 14:13, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

:It looks fantastic. Thanks for the superb tip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

*You can force the wikimedia software to use the full-blown "PNG" rendering of equations by putting the command "\," (backslash comma) at the end, just before the <nowiki></math></nowiki>. Normally, the software tries not to use PNG display if it thinks it can get away with it, because it believes (rightly) that PNG is computationally more taxing. So if the equation just has simple things like Greek letters, the software will try to use the Greek font that it has access to. That font is nowhere near as nice as the true PNG display. The LaTeX command backslash comma introduces an extremely tiny space at the end of the equation, which the display software can't handle except by going to PNG. Of course, if your equations has hairy integrals and such, you won't need to do this.

*All math articles should have one of these four templates at the top:
:<nowiki>{{Math-e}}</nowiki> (elementary school)
:<nowiki>{{Math-m}}</nowiki> (middle school)
:<nowiki>{{Math-h}}</nowiki> (high school / early college)
:<nowiki>{{Math-a}}</nowiki> (advanced)
:The math articles on CP span a wide range of levels of difficulty; these will offer guidance to the reader.

== Filled some of the blanks ==

I filled some of the blank definitions that were in this article. They are not perfect, but its a start. I hope to contribute more here when I have time.--[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 03:42, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Gender bias

2015-02-08T07:40:49Z

Wschact: /* Biased content */ gamer gate

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]], related to [[gender bias]]. It includes both discrimination in the internal management of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) and in the content of the encyclopedia:
==Gender gap crusade==
# WMF President Sue Gardner noted that there is a "gender gap" at Wikipedia and the WMF Board adopted a goal of increasing the percentage of volunteer editors who are female. In practice, the male volunteer editors have been abused and mistreated so that their reduction has caused an increase in the percentage. WMF has issued a "[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_Gap_Manifesto Gender Gap Manifesto]" which includes as one of its goals, "Help men understand the obstacles women face and help them become better feminists."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_Gap_Manifesto&oldid=2470786|title=Gender Gap Manifesto|accessdate=July 7, 2012}}</ref>
#In response to surveys showing that only 10%-13% of Wikipedia editors are women, the Wikimedia Foundation established a "Gender Gap email list" to discuss how to encourage more women to participate as editors. It was proposed that the email list be split into two section, one for women and transgendered and another for their male allies.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-March/000770.html</ref> When the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation questioned the wisdom of the proposal,<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-March/000817.html</ref> he was denounced as "sexist."
#WMF's efforts at [[affirmative action]] have been frustrated because most user names are not gender-specific and some editors online personalities do not correspond to their real-life genders. Apparently, some Wikipedia editors regard that project as a large role-playing game where accusing an opponent in a debate of "sexism" is a legitimate tactic (even if the parties are not truthful about their online gender claims.)
#Wikipedia editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch Sarah Stierch] was the volunteer moderator of the Gender Gap email list where she departed from discussing Wikipedia to freely share her negative experiences with men in her life. In fall 2011, she was hired by the WMF as a Community Fellow to work on creating a "Teahouse" for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project<ref>{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}</ref> explained, "If you click through to the Teahouse, it’s clearly aiming to broaden female participation - just look at the pastel background and references to tea." Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, "Because so much time and energy needed to be spend during the pilot on setting up and maintaining the space, we weren't able to focus as much as we'd have liked on gender-targeted strategies for recruiting female guests and hosts. There are clearly more experiments that need to be run in order to better integrate the space with other gender gap efforts and WikiWomen's calls to actions." Stierch was dismissed by the WMF in January 2014 for moonlighting as a paid Wikipedia editor.

==Biased content==
# Wikipedia user MZMcBride ran a search to analyse all the biographies of living people that [[Jimmy Wales]] has edited. Wales has made 469 edits to biographies of living persons. Nearly 33% of those were applied to female biography subjects. Because only 19% of Wikipedia’s biographies are about women, Jimmy Wales is 72% more likely than “random” to address the biographies of women than those of men. His edits focus upon younger women.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/jimmy-wales-shows-favoritism-on-wikipedia|title=Jimmy Wales shows favoritism on Wikipedia|work=examiner.com|first=Greg|last=Kohs|date=March 4, 2011|accessdate=March 15, 2014}}</ref>
# Wikipedia created a POV-pushing fork article attacking Republican Congressman [[Todd Akin]], called "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Akin_%27legitimate_rape%27_and_pregnancy_comment_controversy&oldid=509892381</ref> which was nominated for deletion. Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, weighed in to advocate keeping the article when most editors thought it was sufficiently covered in Todd Akin's biography.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Todd_Akin_rape_and_pregnancy_controversy&diff=508894934&oldid=508887733</ref> This in turn, prompted a thread entitled "Is Sue Gardner an Idiot?" on wikipediareview.com.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=39036</ref> After 130,738 bytes of debate, the deletion proposal was rejected as "no consensus," allowing the attack article to be kept.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Todd_Akin_rape_and_pregnancy_controversy&oldid=509649032</ref>
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of [[liberal]] Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/16/MNGE2KJB5K1.DTL Student Successes Defy Urban Trends]" San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
#Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of [[antonym]]s don't match up:
## '''Matriarchy''' is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy</ref>
## '''Patriarchy''' describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy</ref>
#The Carrie Prejean article on Wikipedia is carefully crafted however, major points tend to end with a liberals last word. 'Photograph controversy' last line quotes "go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate, and do not benefit Prejean's status." The section 'Crown retention', last line says- "she no longer believes in the organization," referring to a pageant official. The page is locked from mentioning other contestants who also had photos questionable under pageant rules. The last line of 'Miss USA 2009 controversy', plug the candidate for governor of Ca. and same-sex advocate SF mayor Gavin Newsom beliefs, supports Prejean. Wikipedia's non family-friendly presentation is complete with text of Hilton's foul-mouthed tirade.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff=] Wikipedia- Carrie Prejean</ref>
#Radical feminists have taken control of Wikipedia's coverage of [[netball]] to promote the idea there is a bias against sports that are played primarily by women (such as netball) in the Olympics<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement Wikipedia article on Netball and the Olympic Movement]</ref> and that netball helps obscure nations like the Cook Islands to "raise the profile of the country internationally."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands Wikipedia article on netball in the Cook Islands]</ref> At one time, they tried to create the impression that Netball is played "at the Olympics" and created an article "Netball at the Olympics"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=&page=Netball+at+the+Olympics&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=|title=Move Log:Netball at the Olympics|date=27 March 2011}}</ref> with a pictogram to mimic the other Olympic sports.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&oldid=420767140|date=March 26, 2011|title=Netball at the Olympics|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|first=Laura|last=Hale|accessdate=2011-06-28}}</ref> When other editors have tried to curb such excesses<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_at_the_Olympics/GA1|title=Good Article Review of Netball at the Olympics|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|accessdate=2011-06-28|date=March 26, 2011}}</ref> they were proposed to be topic blocked. The radical feminists are trying to create the myth that Netball is an "Olympic sport" (which Wikipedia defines as being played in the Olympics) and they revert any effort to correct their false claims.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=499427816&oldid=499426481|title=Netball|date=June 26, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=499513580|title=Netball and the Olympic Movement|date=June 26, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=535727625&oldid=535707765|title=Netball|date=January 30, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=535719635&oldid=535700863|title=Netball in the Cook Islands|date=January 30, 2013}}</ref> The radical feminists ignored the consensus of Wikiproject Olympics.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Olympic_recognised_sports|title=Olympic recognized sports|date=April 26, 2011}}</ref> They removed documented claims that the earliest that netball could be considered for inclusion would be 2024.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=502350819&oldid=502347852|title=Netball|date=July 15, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Federation_of_Netball_Associations&diff=502678336&oldid=502667883|title=International Federation of Netball Associations|date=July 16, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&diff=526980607&oldid=526980531|title=Netball and the Olympic Movement|date=December 8, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&diff=535746107&oldid=535699132|title=Netball and the Olympic Movement|date=January 30, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&diff=559118828&oldid=559116700|title=Netball and the Olympic Movement|date=June 9, 2013}}</ref>
#The same radical feminists who wrote "Netball and the Olympic Movement" have virtually the same biased material in the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_sport_at_the_Olympics Women's sports at the Olympics].
#Again, out of defensiveness over the relative obscurity of netball, the radical feminists go out of their way to phrase articles in terms of the undocumented "popularity" of netball rather than the extent of participation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_Singapore&diff=502678304&oldid=502669653|title=Netball in Singapore|date=July 16, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands&diff=505043753&oldid=505042779|title=Netball in the Cook Islands|author=Hawkeye7|date=July 31, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=526978735&oldid=526975602|title=Netball|author=Stuartyeates|date=December 8, 2012}}</ref>
#The Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Women_Canada Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Canada)] is extremely superficial and makes only a quick mention of the slander lawsuit that the government agency lost in 2003 against the creator of the "BC Fathers" website that provides information for fathers in custody disputes.<ref>[http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/08/02/2008BCSC0249.htm ''Wiebe v. Bouchard''] Supreme Court of British Columbia, 2008 BCSC 249 (March 11, 2008) Retreived June 29, 2012.</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "Status of Women" redirects to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Women Women's history]. That article is filled with biased, unreferenced statements like, "Women are usually excluded [from history] and, when mentioned, are usually portrayed in sex-stereotypical roles, such as wives, mothers, daughters and mistresses."
#Wikipedia has a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Feminism Feminism Portal] which is much more extensive than its [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Men%27s_rights Men's Rights Portal] which purports to cover the corresponding movement to end discrimination against men. Similarly, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism Maculism] article is only 18,086 bytes long while the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&oldid=501002100 Feminism] article is 97,301 bytes long and has five photographs.
#Wikipedia glowing biography of [[Helen Gurley Brown]] has been the subject of an edit war which has deleted references to critics of Brown's feminist views.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helen_Gurley_Brown&diff=526984890&oldid=526177954 (Dec. 8, 2012).</ref>
#Outspoken feminist Carol Moore, who was active in Wikipedia's Gender Gap Task Force, was banned from editing Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Carolmooredc_banned|title=Carolmooredc Banned|date=December 1, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref> Prior to that, Wikipedia created an attack biography about her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Moore_%282nd_nomination%29</ref> It was deleted after a debate.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sitush/Carol_Moore</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html|title=Encyclopedia Frown|first= David |last=Auerbach|date=Dec. 11 2014|work=Slate|accessdate=Dec 15, 2014}}</ref>
#A Women's Studies class at Mount Royal University tried to create a Wikipedia article about a feminist blogger, but was met with resistance.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1247529/mount-royal-university-womens-studies-class-aims-to-take-back-piece-of-wikipedia/|title=Mount Royal University women’s studies class aims to take back piece of Wikipedia|first= Jeremy |last=Nolais|date=December 23, 2014|accessdate=December 25, 2014|work=Calgary Metro News}}</ref>
#Wikipedia's article "Gamergate controversy" is a prolonged edit war between feminists and computer game fans, which became the subject of a Wikipedia Arbitration Committee case. The Committee banned long-time editor Ryulong.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate|title=GamerGate|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category: Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing

2015-02-08T07:04:37Z

Wschact: old intro was smoother

Wikipedia claims to be edited by volunteers rather than by paid editors who are pushing the point of view of their clients. Paid Wikipedia editors have added a large number of [[Bias in Wikipedia|biased]] articles on less than notable<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&oldid=600916287</ref> people and businesses.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&oldid=600916287#Self-promotion_and_indiscriminate_publicity</ref>

In theory, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by disinterested volunteers based on reliable secondary sources. However, because Google will rank a Wikipedia article as the first result when a person searches on the article's title, public relations firms and "reputation management" companies work hard to remove any negative or controversial facts from Wikipedia articles relating to their clients. Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to enforce its rules against paid editing and there are numerous examples of paid editors introducing biased content on behalf of their clients.

==Indian Institute of Planning and Management==
Perhaps one of the extreme examples is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), an unaccredited business school in India. Even though the IIPM was in regulatory problems, an editor(s) Wifione managed to keep the Wikipedia article on IIPM and its President positive while adding negative items to IIPM's competitors. Adding to the problem is that Wifione is a Wikipedia administrator. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee allowed this to continue for years before taking action.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/|title=Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR|date=December 2, 2013|accessdate=February 8, 2015|work=Wikipediocracy}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|title=Wifione Case|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>
==Paralympics==
Historically, [[Wikipedia]] did not give much coverage to the Paralympics, because most paralympic athletes did not receive much independent media coverage and hence did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability test for having articles in its online encyclopedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28sports%29&oldid=507180157#Olympic_and_Paralympic_Games|title=Wikipedia:Notabiity (sports)|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref> However, in 2011, the [[Australian Paralympic Committee]] (APC) issued an Request for Proposal to pay someone to write a history of Australia's paralympians.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.paralympic.org.au/sites/default/files/APC%20Paralympic%20history%20request%20for%20proposals%20document.pdf|title=Paralymic History Request for Proposals|format=PDF|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref> The original plans was for the resulting document to be published as a book. Instead, a team, which included the President (who was also then serving on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee) and Vice President of Wikimedia Australia, won the contract and decided to post their work on Wikipedia. As a result, the APC hired one of them as a "Wikipedian in residence" and they also organized a competition to encourage volunteer editors to write about paralympians called "Wikimedians to the Games" offering as a prize two trips to London to cover the 2012 Paralympic Games.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Paralympic_Movement_in_Australia/Wikimedians_to_the_Games|title=Wikimedians to the Games|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref> The contest did not draw many entrants nor generate much content. Most of the content was generated by the paid writer instead of by volunteers. At the last minute, they proposed a new combined Olympic/paralympic competition.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Paralympics&diff=prev&oldid=499714886|title=Olympic/Paralympic WikiCup? |date=June 28, 2012|accessdate=August 30, 3012}}</ref> Apparantly, the two people who are going to London to cover the Paralympics are the paid writer and her significant other.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Paralympics&diff=prev&oldid=503661796|title=Covering the Olympics/Paralympics live and in person for Wikipedia and other WMF projects|date=July 22, 2012|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref> Their "wikinews" coverage gained about 300-400 readers, worldwide.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALauraHale&diff=509717911&oldid=507354260|title=User:LauraHale|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref>
In December 2012, there was a separate funding controversy as these individuals travelled from Australia to Colorado in the United States to photograph and write about a [[skiing]] competition for para-sport athletes.<ref>http://www.wikimedia.org.au/w/index.php?title=Proposal:Paralympic_Winter_Sports&oldid=8387</ref> They sought $4,635 in funding from the Australia Wikimedia Chapter for their trip, but started the trip before hearing a reply and pressed their funding claim while already on route. If Wikipedia relies upon secondary sources, it is not clear why they should fund amateur photographers and journalist to travel to para-sport events on the other side of the globe.
Nor was it clear why one of the thousands of Wikipedia volunteers in the United States could not have covered the event in Colorado instead of a three-person team from Australia. Perhaps to seek protection for this policy transgression, the editor has since publicly self-identified as "LGBT".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LauraHale&diff=4455712&oldid=4455711|title=User:LauraHale|date=June 13, 2013}}</ref>

==United Kingdom Parliament==
In March 2012, a British non-profit journalism organization called the [[Bureau of Investigative Journalism]] uncovered that members of the UK Parliament or their staff had made almost 10,000 edits to Wikipedia, and that almost one in six members of Parliament had had their Wikipedia article edited from IP addresses tracing back to Parliament.<ref>{{cite news|author=Wikipedia |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9132758/MPs-Wikipedia-pages-changed-from-inside-Parliament.html |title=MPs Wikipedia pages 'changed from inside Parliament' |publisher=Telegraph |date=March 9, 2012|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref> Many of the edits removed unflattering details from during the controversy over parliamentary expense accounts.<ref name=bureauuk>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/03/09/wikipedia-bob-crow-the-lord-of-the-rings-and-notable-djs/ |title=Wikipedia: ‘Bob Crow, The Lord of the Rings and Notable DJs’: TBIJ |publisher=Thebureauinvestigates.com |accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|author=Eddie Wrenn |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112616/MPs-staff-make-10-000-changes-Wikipedia-pages-bid-hide-embarrassing-information.html |title=MPs and their staff make 10,000 changes to Wikipedia pages in bid to hide embarrassing information | Mail Online |publisher=Dailymail.co.uk |date=March 9, 2012 |accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref>
==[[Gibraltar]]==
The small Welsh town of Monmouth hired Roger Bamkin who was a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the former chairman of its board. This became a model for a larger project funded by the Government of Gilbraltar. Although his primary task was to post QR codes around those locations to link to Wikipedia articles, he also edited articles relating to Gibraltar and Monmouth on the English Wikipedia. The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and its UK chapter launched a joint investigation of this conflict of interest on September 28, and Bamkin resigned as a trustee.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-ethics-probe-roger-bamkin/|title=
Wikipedia parent launches ethics probe into influence peddling scandal|date=October 3, 2012|work=Daily Dot|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref>

==Vonage==
In January 2012, four new editors registered with Wikipedia and started to make edits only on the Vonage article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vonage&diff=475805081&oldid=469974275</ref> removing unfavorable facts and adding promotional materials. This was noticed by a Reddit user,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/115vum/did_vonage_try_to_sterilize_its_wikipedia_article/|title=Did Vonage try to sterilize its Wikipedia article?|accessdate=October 11, 2012|date=October 9, 2012}}</ref> which was then cited on the Wikipedia article's talk page. Although the biased edits made by users with names like "VonageAdmin" are now being cleaned-up, the edits persisted for ten months.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-whitewash-wikipedia-911-ipo/|work=Daily Dot|title=
Did Vonage attempt to whitewash its Wikipedia page?|date=October 9, 2012|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref>
==WikiPR==
A firm called "Wiki-PR" used hundreds of "sockpuppet accounts" to edit articles covering their clients for years without disclosing that the paid editing created a conflict of interest.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/21/money-to-pr-firm-can-buy-good-image-on-wikipedia/?page=1|title=Click capitalism: PR firms cash in cleaning up clients' Wikipedia pages|work=Washington Times|date=October 21, 2013|first=Shaun |last=Waterman|accessdate=October 24, 2013}}</ref> The clients included Viacom and priceline.com.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-16/News_and_notes</ref> The matter is also being discussed by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&curid=4773009&diff=577350198&oldid=577350005#So_what.27s_the_deal_here.3F</ref>

==Others==
# In April 2013, a marketer sent out unsolicited emails claiming to "have a Wikiepdia Admin on staff who can get your pages up and keep them up. He is also very good at fixing client's pages who have gotten slandered online. Get in touch for more details. Our price is $2,500." Wikipedia did not investigate the claim.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_63#Paid_editing_with_a_twist</ref>
# Starting in April 2008, Karen “Fluffernutter” Ingraffea, who worked as a paid member of IBM's Watson AI team, began editing Wikipedia on company time, including the article covering the Watson AI project.<ref>https://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/usersearch.py?name=Fluffernutter&page=Watson+%28computer%29&server=enwiki&max=100</ref> She married Wikipedia arbitrator Brad “Courcelles” Brown in September 2013 and no action has been taken against her for her paid editing.<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/02/09/elementary-my-dear-watson/</ref>
# Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) employee Sarah Stierch advertised her services as a Wikipedia writer for hire on the same freelancer site Wikimedia uses for its own contractors. Wikipedia articles she was alleged to have edited for pay include: the biography of Sally Hogshead,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Hogshead&oldid=588872113</ref> an author and professional speaker; the article on ''The Leadership Challenge'',<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Leadership_Challenge&oldid=580204865</ref> a book on leadership and professional development; and the biography of Barry Posner, one of the book’s authors.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Posner_%28academic%29&oldid=586827885</ref> Critics raised this paid editing on Jimmy Wales' talk page.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_153#Paid_editing_by_WMF_employee_on_oDesk</ref> After Wales denied Stierch was a WMF employee, and Fluffernutter jumped to her defense, she was terminated without public explanation by the WMF on January 9.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-January/129466.html</ref>
# Tony Ahn & Co., a marketing firm based out of the Philippines, offers to provide Wikipedia pages for its clients and to place them on the main page of Wikipedia by nominating them for "Did You Know?" entries.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailydot.com/business/wikipedia-tony-ahn-pr-did-you-know/|title=Is Wikipedia's front page for sale?|work=Daily Dot|first=Tim |last=Sampson|date=June 07, 2013|accessdate=March 16, 2014}}</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category: Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing

2015-02-08T07:03:41Z

Wschact: intro

This list includes many examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]], related to paid editing.

Wikipedia claims to be edited by volunteers rather than by paid editors who are pushing the point of view of their clients. Paid Wikipedia editors have added a large number of [[Bias in Wikipedia|biased]] articles on less than notable<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&oldid=600916287</ref> people and businesses.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&oldid=600916287#Self-promotion_and_indiscriminate_publicity</ref>

In theory, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by disinterested volunteers based on reliable secondary sources. However, because Google will rank a Wikipedia article as the first result when a person searches on the article's title, public relations firms and "reputation management" companies work hard to remove any negative or controversial facts from Wikipedia articles relating to their clients. Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to enforce its rules against paid editing and there are numerous examples of paid editors introducing biased content on behalf of their clients.

==Indian Institute of Planning and Management==
Perhaps one of the extreme examples is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), an unaccredited business school in India. Even though the IIPM was in regulatory problems, an editor(s) Wifione managed to keep the Wikipedia article on IIPM and its President positive while adding negative items to IIPM's competitors. Adding to the problem is that Wifione is a Wikipedia administrator. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee allowed this to continue for years before taking action.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/|title=Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR|date=December 2, 2013|accessdate=February 8, 2015|work=Wikipediocracy}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|title=Wifione Case|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>
==Paralympics==
Historically, [[Wikipedia]] did not give much coverage to the Paralympics, because most paralympic athletes did not receive much independent media coverage and hence did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability test for having articles in its online encyclopedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28sports%29&oldid=507180157#Olympic_and_Paralympic_Games|title=Wikipedia:Notabiity (sports)|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref> However, in 2011, the [[Australian Paralympic Committee]] (APC) issued an Request for Proposal to pay someone to write a history of Australia's paralympians.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.paralympic.org.au/sites/default/files/APC%20Paralympic%20history%20request%20for%20proposals%20document.pdf|title=Paralymic History Request for Proposals|format=PDF|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref> The original plans was for the resulting document to be published as a book. Instead, a team, which included the President (who was also then serving on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee) and Vice President of Wikimedia Australia, won the contract and decided to post their work on Wikipedia. As a result, the APC hired one of them as a "Wikipedian in residence" and they also organized a competition to encourage volunteer editors to write about paralympians called "Wikimedians to the Games" offering as a prize two trips to London to cover the 2012 Paralympic Games.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Paralympic_Movement_in_Australia/Wikimedians_to_the_Games|title=Wikimedians to the Games|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref> The contest did not draw many entrants nor generate much content. Most of the content was generated by the paid writer instead of by volunteers. At the last minute, they proposed a new combined Olympic/paralympic competition.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Paralympics&diff=prev&oldid=499714886|title=Olympic/Paralympic WikiCup? |date=June 28, 2012|accessdate=August 30, 3012}}</ref> Apparantly, the two people who are going to London to cover the Paralympics are the paid writer and her significant other.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Paralympics&diff=prev&oldid=503661796|title=Covering the Olympics/Paralympics live and in person for Wikipedia and other WMF projects|date=July 22, 2012|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref> Their "wikinews" coverage gained about 300-400 readers, worldwide.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALauraHale&diff=509717911&oldid=507354260|title=User:LauraHale|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref>
In December 2012, there was a separate funding controversy as these individuals travelled from Australia to Colorado in the United States to photograph and write about a [[skiing]] competition for para-sport athletes.<ref>http://www.wikimedia.org.au/w/index.php?title=Proposal:Paralympic_Winter_Sports&oldid=8387</ref> They sought $4,635 in funding from the Australia Wikimedia Chapter for their trip, but started the trip before hearing a reply and pressed their funding claim while already on route. If Wikipedia relies upon secondary sources, it is not clear why they should fund amateur photographers and journalist to travel to para-sport events on the other side of the globe.
Nor was it clear why one of the thousands of Wikipedia volunteers in the United States could not have covered the event in Colorado instead of a three-person team from Australia. Perhaps to seek protection for this policy transgression, the editor has since publicly self-identified as "LGBT".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LauraHale&diff=4455712&oldid=4455711|title=User:LauraHale|date=June 13, 2013}}</ref>

==United Kingdom Parliament==
In March 2012, a British non-profit journalism organization called the [[Bureau of Investigative Journalism]] uncovered that members of the UK Parliament or their staff had made almost 10,000 edits to Wikipedia, and that almost one in six members of Parliament had had their Wikipedia article edited from IP addresses tracing back to Parliament.<ref>{{cite news|author=Wikipedia |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9132758/MPs-Wikipedia-pages-changed-from-inside-Parliament.html |title=MPs Wikipedia pages 'changed from inside Parliament' |publisher=Telegraph |date=March 9, 2012|accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref> Many of the edits removed unflattering details from during the controversy over parliamentary expense accounts.<ref name=bureauuk>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/03/09/wikipedia-bob-crow-the-lord-of-the-rings-and-notable-djs/ |title=Wikipedia: ‘Bob Crow, The Lord of the Rings and Notable DJs’: TBIJ |publisher=Thebureauinvestigates.com |accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|author=Eddie Wrenn |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112616/MPs-staff-make-10-000-changes-Wikipedia-pages-bid-hide-embarrassing-information.html |title=MPs and their staff make 10,000 changes to Wikipedia pages in bid to hide embarrassing information | Mail Online |publisher=Dailymail.co.uk |date=March 9, 2012 |accessdate=August 30, 2012}}</ref>
==[[Gibraltar]]==
The small Welsh town of Monmouth hired Roger Bamkin who was a trustee of Wikimedia UK and the former chairman of its board. This became a model for a larger project funded by the Government of Gilbraltar. Although his primary task was to post QR codes around those locations to link to Wikipedia articles, he also edited articles relating to Gibraltar and Monmouth on the English Wikipedia. The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and its UK chapter launched a joint investigation of this conflict of interest on September 28, and Bamkin resigned as a trustee.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-ethics-probe-roger-bamkin/|title=
Wikipedia parent launches ethics probe into influence peddling scandal|date=October 3, 2012|work=Daily Dot|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref>

==Vonage==
In January 2012, four new editors registered with Wikipedia and started to make edits only on the Vonage article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vonage&diff=475805081&oldid=469974275</ref> removing unfavorable facts and adding promotional materials. This was noticed by a Reddit user,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/115vum/did_vonage_try_to_sterilize_its_wikipedia_article/|title=Did Vonage try to sterilize its Wikipedia article?|accessdate=October 11, 2012|date=October 9, 2012}}</ref> which was then cited on the Wikipedia article's talk page. Although the biased edits made by users with names like "VonageAdmin" are now being cleaned-up, the edits persisted for ten months.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-whitewash-wikipedia-911-ipo/|work=Daily Dot|title=
Did Vonage attempt to whitewash its Wikipedia page?|date=October 9, 2012|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref>
==WikiPR==
A firm called "Wiki-PR" used hundreds of "sockpuppet accounts" to edit articles covering their clients for years without disclosing that the paid editing created a conflict of interest.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/21/money-to-pr-firm-can-buy-good-image-on-wikipedia/?page=1|title=Click capitalism: PR firms cash in cleaning up clients' Wikipedia pages|work=Washington Times|date=October 21, 2013|first=Shaun |last=Waterman|accessdate=October 24, 2013}}</ref> The clients included Viacom and priceline.com.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-16/News_and_notes</ref> The matter is also being discussed by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&curid=4773009&diff=577350198&oldid=577350005#So_what.27s_the_deal_here.3F</ref>

==Others==
# In April 2013, a marketer sent out unsolicited emails claiming to "have a Wikiepdia Admin on staff who can get your pages up and keep them up. He is also very good at fixing client's pages who have gotten slandered online. Get in touch for more details. Our price is $2,500." Wikipedia did not investigate the claim.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_63#Paid_editing_with_a_twist</ref>
# Starting in April 2008, Karen “Fluffernutter” Ingraffea, who worked as a paid member of IBM's Watson AI team, began editing Wikipedia on company time, including the article covering the Watson AI project.<ref>https://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/usersearch.py?name=Fluffernutter&page=Watson+%28computer%29&server=enwiki&max=100</ref> She married Wikipedia arbitrator Brad “Courcelles” Brown in September 2013 and no action has been taken against her for her paid editing.<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/02/09/elementary-my-dear-watson/</ref>
# Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) employee Sarah Stierch advertised her services as a Wikipedia writer for hire on the same freelancer site Wikimedia uses for its own contractors. Wikipedia articles she was alleged to have edited for pay include: the biography of Sally Hogshead,<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sally_Hogshead&oldid=588872113</ref> an author and professional speaker; the article on ''The Leadership Challenge'',<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Leadership_Challenge&oldid=580204865</ref> a book on leadership and professional development; and the biography of Barry Posner, one of the book’s authors.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Posner_%28academic%29&oldid=586827885</ref> Critics raised this paid editing on Jimmy Wales' talk page.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_153#Paid_editing_by_WMF_employee_on_oDesk</ref> After Wales denied Stierch was a WMF employee, and Fluffernutter jumped to her defense, she was terminated without public explanation by the WMF on January 9.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-January/129466.html</ref>
# Tony Ahn & Co., a marketing firm based out of the Philippines, offers to provide Wikipedia pages for its clients and to place them on the main page of Wikipedia by nominating them for "Did You Know?" entries.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailydot.com/business/wikipedia-tony-ahn-pr-did-you-know/|title=Is Wikipedia's front page for sale?|work=Daily Dot|first=Tim |last=Sampson|date=June 07, 2013|accessdate=March 16, 2014}}</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category: Wikipedia]]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing

2015-02-08T06:53:21Z

Wschact: Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2015-02-08T06:51:53Z

Wschact: /* Paid Editing */ wifione case

This list covers a wide range of bias in the English Wikipedia website. Although Wikipedia claims to have credibility because anyone can edit it, in fact the website represents the viewpoint of its most strident and persistent editors. It is also heavily influenced by paid public relations professionals who do not disclose their conflicts of interest. This list together with the sublists linked below provide a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

[[Image:Jimmy_wales_1.jpg‎|right|250px|thumb|Co-Founder of Wikipedia, the [[atheism|atheist]] Jimmy Wales]]
On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how [[Wikipedia]] has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]]; he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]], which helped demonstrate that Wikipedia has a leftist bias, and he discussed the [[liberal]]/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref></blockquote>

The project was initiated by [[atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref> An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref> Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker," he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>
{|
|bgcolor=yellow|    Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.
|}

== List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia ==

Below is a growing list of around 300 examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], edits stemming from corrupting conflicts of interest, frivolous [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]]. The [[atheism|atheist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] was a lead founder of Wikipedia. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref> Because the list of examples is so long, it is divided into sublists based on subject matter. Some of the most egregious examples are in these sublists, which are well worth reading. At risk of duplication, some of the most interesting examples from the sublists are also repeated on this main list to give an overview. (We limit this main list to up to three examples from each sublist.)

==Examples of Bias ==
=== Abortion ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]
[[Image:B Bhutto.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Benazir Bhutto]]
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Abortion debate" article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ...the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissingly began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>

=== Anti-Christianity ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity]]
#A Wikipedia editor Qworty devoted 13,000 edits to cleaning up articles on pro-pagan topics before being permanently banned<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://illusionofmore.com/montags-grin-wikipedia/|title=Montag’s Grin: A Look at Wikipedia|first=David|last=Newhoff|date=June 5, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref> and then outed as Robert Clark Young by the website salon.com.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/|title=Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia|date=May 17, 2013|work=salon.com|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> The failure to crack down on his work earlier drew criticism from the pagan website wildhunt.org.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wildhunt.org/2013/05/anti-pagan-wikipedia-editor-outed-by-salon-com.html|title=Anti-Pagan Wikipedia Editor Outed by Salon.com|date=May 22, 2013|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_Can_Run_But_You_Cannot_Hide_International&oldid=524629239 You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International], the youth rock ministry of Bradlee Dean, is an attack page which was criticized in a WND column.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/whos-afraid-of-bradlee-dean/|title=Who's afraid of Bradlee Dean|date=December 14, 2012|work=WND|accessdate=December 26, 2012}}</ref> In response, [[Jimmy Wales]], Wikipedia's founder, demanded a retraction regarding his past as "a pornography trafficker". Instead, WND published detailed documentation of Wales' Boomis pornography website.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/heres-your-correction-wikipedia-founder/|title=Here's Your Correction, Wikipedia Founder|date=December 17, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2012|work=WND}}</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on Extremism specifically points out Christians are commonly called extreme, ''"It is also not uncommon to necessarily define distinctions regarding extremist Christians as opposed to moderate Christians, as in countries such as the United States"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extremism&oldid=497191070]
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elopement_%28marriage%29&oldid=527790928 elopement] appears to make light of the tradition of marriage and weddings.

=== Bestiality/zoophilia ===
[[Image:Sheep.jpg|right|thumb|200px|sheep]]
See [[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

As of July 18, 2012, [[Wikipedia]]'s article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoopilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>

=== Conservapedia smears ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears]]

# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more [[liberal]] than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC. This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&oldid=516746349</ref>

=== Conservative personalities and politicians ===
[[File:Hannahgiles.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hannah Giles]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities]]

#On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>[dead link]
# Wikipedia has thousands of obscure pages for individuals that the public never heard of or recognize. Conservative undercover journalist [[Hannah Giles]] is not given her own page mostly likely due to the fact she has taken on the liberal establishment and won. A search of Hannah Giles gives her an obscure paragraph in what Wikipedia titles the ''ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy''.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Giles#Hannah_Giles_and_James_O.27Keefe</ref>
# For [[liberal]] politicians, Wikipedia uses flattering photos. But for [[conservative]] politician [[Sally Kern]], about whom [[homosexual]] activists have had a sissy fit, from 2009 to 2011, Wikipedia used an absurd, uncharacteristic photo.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_February_26#File:Sally_Kern_2009.jpg</ref>

===Criminals and mentally ill editors===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Criminals and mentally ill editors]]
#Adam Lanza, who conducted a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, has been identified as editing Wikipedia particularly regarding guns and other mass murders.<ref>{{cite web|title=Report: Computer user believed to be Adam Lanza discovered|url=http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/report_computer_user_believed_to_be_adam_lanza_discovered/|first=Alex|last=Halperin|date=July 1, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013|work=Salon.com}}</ref>
#Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik edited English Wikipedia under the username "Conservatism". He also edited the Norwegian Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-05-06/In_the_media#Anders_Behring_Breivik.27s_English_Wikipedia_account_revealed|title=Signpost|date=May 6, 2013|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>
#The the United States Federal Government claimed, among other things, that Bruce Edwards Ivins, a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks who apparently committed suicide in July 2008, had edit-warred on Wikipedia under the username Jimmyflathead.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-08-09/Ivins%27_edits|title=Signpost|date=August 8, 2008|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/anthrax-killer-case|title=Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect|work=CNN|date=October 1, 2011|accessdate=August 27, 2013}}</ref>

=== Ethnic and racial bias ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Ethnic and racial]]
# In 2008, two 15-year old students wanted to harass a third student named "Azid", so they edited a Wikipedia article on Korma (a Eastern food) to add Azid as a synonym for a spice.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=491479704 May 8, 2012</ref> This meaning was then added to hundreds of web postings about mid-eastern cooking. On July 16, 2014, one of the students confessed his stunt on Reddit<ref>http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2awfib/its_time_for_the_truth_to_come_out/ July 16, 2014</ref>, but so many Azid references copied from Wikipedia had emerged in the meantime that Wikipedia did not delete the vandalism as untrue.<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5028</ref>
# For over a year, the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_A._Wilson_High_School Glen A. Wilson High School] contained threats against an Asian student and made ethnic slurs against the school's primarily Asian badminton team.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref>
#Wikipedia has developed a series of history articles outlining the struggles of Jews, Catholics, Asians and blacks against discrimination and the Kl Klux Klan. These articles are now called "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29 African-American Civil Rights Movement]" despite being formerly called "American Civil Rights Movement."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281896%E2%80%931954%29/Archive_1#Name_of_this_article.3F</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Why_.22African.22-American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29#Proposed_Move</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#American_Civil_Rights_Movement</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%931968%29/Archive_1#Name_change</ref>

=== Gender bias ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Gender bias]]

# Wikipedia has a gender gap crusade which seeks to increase the percentage of female editors. (In practice that crusade has the effect of driving away male editors.) There are also many serious examples of gender bias in Wikipedia's content.
# When a '''New York Times''' op-ed crticised feminist Wikipedia editors for moving women from [[:Category:American Novelists]] to a separate category,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism-toward-female-novelists.html?_r=0&ref=sunday|title=Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists|date=April 24, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}</ref> the article about the author was attacked and watered down, restored<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Filipacchi&diff=552260688&oldid=552235515</ref> and attacked again.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism.html?_r=1|title=Wikipedia's Sexism|date=April 27, 2013|work=New York Times|accessdate=May 2, 2013}}</ref>

=== Global warming ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming]]

# A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member William Connolley functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he "rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period."<ref>[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx ''Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor'',] December 19, 2009</ref>
#[[Michael Mann]] is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wikipedia decides not to allow any mention of his involvement with Climategate. Any mention of Climategate is immediately removed from Mann's page. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&diff=prev&oldid=332744981|title=Michael E. Mann}}</ref>

=== Homosexuality ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality]]

#Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding [[cross-dressing]]/[[transsexual]] figures. Male to Female transexuals are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
#When NBA Basketball player [[Jason Collins]] announced that he was a homosexual, his Wikipedia biography was altered to say that he was a "faggot." When an editor attempted to change the word to "gay" Wikipedia's anti-vandalism robot changed it back.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/jason-collins-faggot-washington-wizards-wikipedia_n_3223693.html?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=Sports</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=553353534</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=next&oldid=554154699</ref> An editor replaced his photo with a poster for "Gay N-word".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Collins&diff=prev&oldid=554154681</ref> After the page drew criticism on the Huffington Post, Wikipedia locked the page to editing and the changes have been hidden from public view. The article on the 2012-13 Washington Wizzards season had similar problems.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012–13_Washington_Wizards_season&diff=553709164&oldid=552936180</ref>
#After an edit war,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_Manning&diff=569753966&oldid=569753791</ref> Wikipedia changed the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning and gave the article subject female attributes, even though Manning had yet to legal change his name or begin any sex reassignment treatments or therapies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Page_moved_to_Chelsea_Manning_without_sufficient_consensus|title=Chelsea Manning talk page|accessdate=Aug 24, 2013}}</ref> The article was moved between "Chelsea Manning" and "Bradley Manning" six times in one day as Wikipedia administrators fought among themselves.

=== Internet policies ===
#The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) claims to have a policy against internet censorship. Yet, the WMF has entered into a partnership with the [[Saudi Telecom Company]] (STC) to provide Wikipedia to mobile phone subscribers, prompting questions about the potential conflict over censorship.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-October/122320.html</ref> Meanwhile, the English Wikipedia has an article entitled "List of Wikipedia articles censored in Saudi Arabia".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_censored_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=505551894</ref>

===Journalists===
See, [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sun News Network]]
#In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Instead of correcting the false allegations that Seignthaler was involved in the Kennedy assassinations, Wales and other editors turned it into a wikidrama with attacks on Seigenthaler for trying to defend his own good name.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref><ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref> <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref><ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>
#Israeli journalist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Levy Gideon Levy's Wikipedia Biography] has been frequently vandalized with false facts, including allegations that his father was a Nazi collaborator.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/in-a-web-of-lies-the-newspaper-must-live.premium-1.469273|title=
In a Web of lies, the newspaper must live|first=Gideon|last=Levy|date=October 11, 2012|accesdate=October 11, 2012|work=Haaretz Daily Newspaper}}</ref> So many slanderous statements have been posted that the revisions to the article have been hidden from public view at least 22 times.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Gideon_Levy|title=Gideon Levy Deletion Log|accessdate=October 11, 2012}}</ref>
#BBC presenter Lynn Parsons wrote Wikipedia claiming that her biography was false -- including her birth date. Her request to have her article deleted was voted down.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lynn_Parsons|title=Articles for Deletion|accessdate=November 18, 2012|date=November 10, 2012}}</ref>
# Journalist Violet Blue reported on a Wikipedia paid editing scandal for CNET. In response, " Mr. Wales said on his Wikipedia “Talk” page that I’m not a journalist, or credible. Shortly afterward, everything on the Wikipedia page about me citing and documenting my career as a journalist was removed, as were related links on Wikipedia to stories I broke writing for CBS."<ref>http://violetblue.tumblr.com/journalism</ref>

=== Liberal Politicians ===
[[File:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Jimmy Carter]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians]]

# Wikipedia now promotes the late [[liberal]] icon [[Ted Kennedy]] as the leader of ... "progressivism": "By the time of his death, he had come to be viewed as a major figure and spokesman for American progressivism."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[Jimmy Carter]]'s Presidency is clearly biased in favor of the failed politician.<ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter#Budget</ref>
===Mathematics and Engineering ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Mathematics and Engineering]]

Subjects such as Mathematics and Engineering require a precision of thought that is more than the group-think of Wikipedia editors can muster.
# The Wikipedia article [[Elementary proof]] was proposed for deletion in October 2009 and the debate turned on what Conservapedia had written on the subject. The article was kept and not deleted.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elementary_proof Retrieved July 17, 2014.</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]

=== Obama ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama]]

# Wikipedia added a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=282227871#Controversies_and_criticism</ref> but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The section on Bush has since been removed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_W._Bush&diff=282810799&oldid=282227871</ref>
# In addition to the previous example, there was a massive Wikipedia article for "Criticism of George W. Bush,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_George_W._Bush&oldid=278422248</ref> but the article for "Criticism of Barack Obama" had been deleted at least ''FOUR TIMES'' since October 2008 with excuses like "Article that has no meaningful, substantive content" and "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Barack_Obama</ref> Wikipedia has since redirected "Criticism of George W. Bush" and added "Public image of" articles for both presidents, however President Bush's article is heavily negative<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush</ref> while President Obama's is filled with glowing, pandering fluff with very few meaningful criticisms.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</ref> The edit summary of the redirect says, "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist."

===Paid Editing===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Paid Editing]]

In theory, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by disinterested volunteers based on reliable secondary sources. However, because Google will rank a Wikipedia article as the first result when a person searches on the article's title, public relations firms and "reputation management" companies work hard to remove any negative or controversial facts from Wikipedia articles relating to their clients. Although such paid editing is not allowed, Wikipedia does little to enforce its rules against paid editing and there are numerous examples of paid editors introducing biased content on behalf of their clients. Wikipedia selectively fails to enforce its ban on paid editing when the payments come from its large donors.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/03/18/the-thin-bright-line-part-2-wikipedia-donors-feel-entitled-to-more-than-a-mug-or-a-tote-bag/|title=Wikipedia donors feel entitled to more than a mug or a tote bag|date=March 18, 2014|accessdate=April 3, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref> Many organizations that visit the WMF Headquarters also engage in undisclosed paid editing to promote themselves.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/06/look-whos-visiting-the-wmf/|title=Look Who Is Visiting the WMF|date=July 6, 2014|accessdate=July 17, 2014|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

Perhaps one of the extreme examples is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), an unaccredited business school in India. Even though the IIPM was in regulatory problems, an editor(s) Wifione managed to keep the Wikipedia article on IIPM and its President positive while adding negative items to IIPM's competitors. Adding to the problem is that Wifione is a Wikipedia administrator. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee allowed this to continue for years before taking action.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/|title=Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR|date=December 2, 2013|accessdate=February 8, 2015|work=Wikipediocracy}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|title=Wifione Case|accessdate=February 8, 2015}}</ref>

===Pornography / Sexuality===
# Wikipedia Commons, which collects public domain images, has drawn extensive criticism for sexually explicit material, including nude photos and photos of various acts. The editors of Wikipedia Commons have created a "Hot Sex Barnstar" to reward those people who upload particularly explicit images. When a former member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee asked to have it removed, many people opposed his suggestion.<ref>http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Hot_sex_barnstar&oldid=96124965 Retrieved May 12, 2013</ref>
# The Wikipedia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_parts_slang&redirect=no Body parts slang] had an elaborate list of definitions. It was subject to two controversial deletion debates, and finally merged into [[Slang]].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang (2005)</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_parts_slang_2</ref> Many of the definitions were moved to Wikitionary. The deleted article was also copied to Wikibooks.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABody_parts_slang&diff=27163440&oldid=26851206</ref>
#The wikipedia article "Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)" included a section society's reaction to the soccer match, which stated that many people had uploaded video excerpts from the match to a pornography website with sexually suggestive titles. A long debate and edit war ensued over whether the explicit words should remain in the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABrazil_v_Germany_%282014_FIFA_World_Cup%29&diff=631482381&oldid=617292981</ref>
# When the WMF Board of Directors voted to implement an image filter so that pornographic images would not be shown to children or people who wished to avoid them, Wikipedia volunteers rebelled and Fox News reported that WMF had abandoned its plans to address the problem.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/17/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia/|title=Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia|work=Fox News|date=Sept. 17, 2013|accessdate=Sept. 20, 2013}}</ref>
#A Wikipedia editor who edited both WP and [[Wikia]] using the same account name was caught as a child predator by a Wikia sting in July 2011. He was allowed to continue editing Wikipedia for another three years before being banned.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-finally-bans-middle-aged-pervert|title=Wikipedia finally bans middle-aged pervert|work=Examiner|date=June 30, 2014|accessdate=January 9, 2015|first=Greg|last=Kohs}}</ref>

=== Public Policy in the United States ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Public Policy in the US]]

# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# The Wikipedia article on the Haymarket Riots and subsequent trial of the labor terrorists claimed, "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing. ... " A college professor who wrote a book about the trial knew that a lot of evidence was presented during the lengthy trial and tried to correct the article. His account in the ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' shows the contempt that Wikipedia holds for scholarly experts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/|title=The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia|date=February 12, 2012|accessdate=September 20, 2013}}</ref>

=== Science and Evolution ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution]]

#Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], such as Dr. [[William Dembski]], whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by [[liberal]] critics.<ref name="Wiki Dembski">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski</ref> For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.<ref name="Wiki Dembski"/> In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.<ref>http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf</ref> Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
#Wikipedia's article on [[dinosaurs]] contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur</ref>
#Wikipedia has separate articles on many small wikis, for instance, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_History_Project LGBT History Project] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/LGBT_History_UK 6], but does not have an article on [[CreationWiki]] with a WikiFactor of [http://wikiindex.org/CreationWiki 45]. Articles on CreationWiki are repeatedly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki_%282nd_nomination%29 deleted].

===Sports===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Sports]]

# From 2008 until October 2014, the Wikipedia article on the 1978-79 Boston College Basketball Point Shaving Scandal named Joe Streater as one of the participating players.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978%E2%80%9379_Boston_College_basketball_point_shaving_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=231463815</ref> However, he was not even on the team that year. He was inserted into the article by an anonymous IP address and the erroneous information was left until the press publicized the error.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater-became-falsely-attached-boston-college-point-shaving-scandal.html/2|title=Guilt By Wikipedia: How Joe Streater became falsely attached to the Boston College point shaving scandal|first=Ben |last=Koo|date=Oct 9, 2014 |accessdate=October 13, 2014}}</ref>
#Wikipedia's biographies of Scottish soccer players are so notoriously biased that the new General Manager of the Hiberian Football Club, Alan Stubbs, told the press, "We can't be scouting players any more on the back of a Wikipedia page and one individual's opinion. I’ll want background checks and medical histories."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/wont-signing-players-based-wikipedia-4063573|title= We won't be signing players based on their Wikipedia descriptions anymore, says Hibs boss Alan Stubbs|date=August 17, 2014|accessdate=August 18, 2014|first= Scott |last=McDermott|work=Daily Record}}</ref>
# On December 14, 2014, the Dallas Cowboy's Dez Bryant successfully played against Eagles' defensive back Bradley Fletcher. In response, Wikipedia changed Fletcher's biography to describe his position as "Dez Bryant's bitch" and added a paragraph, which said, Fletcher "displayed his poor mechanics, speed, and talent."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.totalprosports.com/2014/12/15/bradley-fletcher-wikipedia-page/|title=Bradley Fletcher Wikipedia Page Changed After Loss to Cowboys (Pic)|date=December 15, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014|work=totalprosports.com}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=638157096&oldid=638156965</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156942</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156868</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Fletcher&diff=prev&oldid=638156546</ref>
# The [[University of Pittsburgh]]'s athletic director, Steve Pederson, may be unpopular, but Wikipedia changed the infobox about its athletic program to list "Satan" as the athletic director.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cardiachill.com/2014/12/13/7386693/steve-pederson-paul-chryst-wisconsin-pitt-football-pittsburgh-panthers-athletic-director|title=Satan employed by Pitt. Per Wikipedia.|date=December 13, 2014|accessdate=December 15, 2014}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pittsburgh_Panthers&diff=prev&oldid=637798626</ref>

=== Conspiracy Theories ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conspiracy theories]]

#In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11, the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama Blocking the Path to 9/11 [http://www.johnziegler.com/], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the [[MSM]] liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11]
#The Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758 List of consipracy theories]" ridicules and dismisses as "conspiracy theories" more hypotheses advanced by conservative thinkers than hypotheses advanced by left wing thinkers. The editor(s) of this page have an obvious liberal bias that hold in disfavor a number of ideas advanced by conservatives. For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758#Water_fluoridation Water Fluoridation] has been opposed by many conservative groups due to concerns about health impacts as well as a question of personal freedom and limits on the proper scope of government. Yet, the Wikipedia list dismisses these views as a "conspiracy theory" that draws on "distrust of experts and unease about medicine and science". In another example, [[peak oil]] is a theory advanced by many conservatives including geologist [[T. Boone Pickens]]. Yet, the page dismisses it, noting "There are theories that the 'peak oil' concept is a fraud concocted by the oil industries to increase prices amid concerns about future supplies."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=504359758|title=List of conspiracy theories#Peak oil|date=July 28, 2012|accessdate=July 28, 2012}}</ref>
#The Wikipedia article "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plan_%28Washington,_D.C.%29&oldid=478678893 The Plan (Washington, D.C.)]" is one of the conspiracy theories included on the official Wikipedia conspiracy list. However, the article cites few sources supporting the existence of the conspiracy to replace black residents with whites in Washington DC and no sources that refute the existence of the conspiracy.

=== Naziism, Socialism, Communism ===
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Naziism, Socialism, Communism]]

#Edits from Russian Government IP addresses removed statements in the Wikipedia article on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 which said that Russia had provided the terrorists with the surface to air missile used to shoot down that civilian flight.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10977082/Russian-government-edits-Wikipedia-on-flight-MH17.html|title=Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17|first=Matthew |last=Sparkes|date=18 Jul 2014|work=Telegraph|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/18/a_wikipedia_edit_twitterbot_caught_the_russian_state_tv_editing_the_mh17.html|title=Wikipedia Edit Twitterbots Are Revealing How Russia Wants to Frame the MH17 Crash|first=Lily |last=Hay Newman|work=Slate|date=July 18, 2014|accessdate=July 25, 2014}}</ref>
#Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
# [[Kazakhstan]] a dictatorship that used to be in the [[Soviet Union]] paid $13 million to [[Tony Blair]]'s PR firm to polish its image. [[Jimmy Wales]]'s new wife works for that firm, and the WMF accepted a government-front organization which is funded by the Kazakh government to be its local chapter. In 2011, Wales declared the founder of the chapter to be the "Global Wikipedian of the year" and promised to pay $5,000 of expenses toward his attending the 2012 Wikimania in Washington DC. Wales denies the government involvement and failed to make the promised payment.<ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/12/23/jimmy-wales-in-the-dictator-and-i/</ref><ref>http://www.quora.com/Why-does-it-appear-that-Wikipedias-co-founder-is-covering-for-Kazakhstans-government-manipulation-of-Wikipedia</ref><ref>http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/16/whos-the-best-yoruban-wikipedian-of-them-all/</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=551703840&oldid=551703680</ref><ref>http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-co-founder-jimmy-wales-denies-kazakhstan-connection</ref>
#[[Augusto Pinochet]], who overthrew [[communism]] in [[Chile]] and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet</ref> but [[Fidel Castro]], the communist dictator of [[Cuba]] for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on far-left politics outright praises the dismantling of social structures and even goes on to say that the far-left promotes equality, while failing to mention the blatant anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate speech among the far-left, its racism against whites in the form of Jeremiah Wright, the blatant racism among groups like Black Panthers. While its far-right politics articles accuse them of maintaining a social hierarchy and being racist and being supremacists that keep the "oppression" in check, while utterly failing to mention the black supremacist politics among the far-left. It promotes the far-left as bringing equality, while failing to mention its supremacist racism by people like NBP for example.

=== General/Uncategorized ===
[[File:Jens Stoltenberg Norweigian PM 2005 Gothenburg.jpg|thumb|right|Jens Stoltenberg.]]
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: General or uncategorized]]
#Wikipedia falsely reported that the prime minister of Norway, [[Jens Stoltenberg]], was a pedophile who had served time in prison.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/06/wikipedia_bio/|title=Who owns your Wikipedia bio?|first= Andrew|last=Orlowski|work=The Register|date=December 6, 2005|accessdate=September 19, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5182883|title=
Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers|work=National Public Radio|date=February 1, 2006|accessdate=September 20, 2012}}</ref>
#Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users that appreciate obscenity instead of education. The vulgar swear word referring to sex, F---, is mentioned in nearly 7,000 articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search] Most recently, it is used in an article about Republican Senate candidate [[Michael Baumgartner]] when the article's sources did not spell out that word.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054|title=Michael Baumgartner|accessdate=August 27, 2012}}</ref>
#Wikipedia does its best to cover-up crimes and lewd behavior coming from left leaning [[Occupy Wall Street]] crowd. Assault emphasized, rape is minimized by the terms omission. Rape is not used in the article and can only be found in a reference title at the end of the page. <ref>Occupy_Wall_Street&oldid=466639949 Cover-up at Wikipedia,lewd acts downplayed</ref>
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>

{|
|bgcolor=yellow|    Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.
|}

==Structural problems with Wikipedia==
Wikipedia claims to be "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That is both its strength and its biggest weakness. Although Wikipedia started as having all editors on an equal footing, it has evolved into a highly-stratified structure where a large number of people cannot edit it. In order to edit Wikipedia, a person must master its wiki-markup language and a large number of complex rules. The number of people who edit Wikipedia on a regular basis has declined. Many editors left voluntarily, but many others have been "banned" or "blocked" by administrators or a community vote. In theory, people can edit Wikipedia without logging in, but in order to prevent "banned" users from editing, Wikipedia blocks various ranges of IP addresses, preventing persons who are '''not''' banned from editing from those locations, such as hotels, schools and libraries. Wikipedia's terms and conditions bar people with a conflict of interest from directly editing Wikipedia article. This prevents knowledgable people who work for companies from editing article relating to their work. Finally, because the administrator caste has certain political views, editors who do not conform to those beliefs are more likely to be "banned" or "blocked".

A major source of bias comes from the Wikipedia pillar of "verifiability." Wikipedia proudly proclaims, "'''Verifiability, and not truth''', is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia;"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&oldid=502902820|title=WP:Verifiability|accessdate=July 19, 2012}}</ref> There have been many attempts to change this because when a Wikipedia editor tries to remove false content, editors who favor biased content rely upon this policy to retain the falsehoods.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012_RfC</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability</ref> An example of such misuse involve radical feminists who tried to have Wikipedia state that netball was an Olympic sport<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_and_the_Olympic_Movement&oldid=420754256|title=Netball at the Olympics|date=March 26, 2011|author=Laura Hale}}</ref> when in fact it has never been played "at the Olympics." Because they found a speech where a politician told the New South Wales Parliament that netball was "technically an Olympic sport"<ref>Parliament of New South Wales, [http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20040921018 Parliamentary Debates,] Legislative Assembly, 21 September 2004, columns 11179–11179, (Alison Megarrity).</ref> they were able to retain this false material as if it were a verified fact.

Requiring just one source to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard is a serious logical flaw. Any well-established fact can be contradicted by finding one obscure source somewhere on the web, and Wikipedia will allow just one reference to overrule the majority of definitive sources saying the opposite.

[[File:Girls Netball Team.jpg|thumb|right|250 px|An editor who was never in Malawi says this is a photo of a Malawian netball team. An edit war ensued.]]
Another bias is from "show and tell." Some Wikipedia editors have not outgrown their need to show off what they have found on the internet. Again using the obscure sport of netball as an example, the editor found a photo posted on flickr that was labeled, "The Girls Netball Team"<ref>http://www.flickr.com/photos/51132506@N00/1954358144</ref> even though it did not show anyone playing netball. The editor then captioned the photo, "A Malawian netball team" and placed it along side a few other obscure facts to create a Malawi section of the netball article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&oldid=420915334</ref> So how can the reader trust that the people in the photograph are really in Malawi and that they really play netball?<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_Africa#Malawi_image</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/Archive_3#Should_image_of_Netball_players_not_playing_be_used</ref> Adding photos to articles is the most visible form of the "show and tell" syndrome. The need to "show and tell" can also result in including random, obscure facts and data in an article. For example, an editor can find a data source from years ago, but if the data is included in the article without proper emphasis of the date, it creates the implication that the data remains true today.<ref>E.g., {{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_in_Brunei&diff=502678275&oldid=502670120|title=Netball in Brunei|date=July 16, 2012}}</ref>

Errors and bias can be introduced by robotic submissions. For example, many Wikipedia articles about populated places in the United States were created by robots using 2000 census data. A standard paragraph on demographics which included 2000 data was automatically included in each article. Wikipedia has not been able to program a robot to update all of those statistics, so most articles about places in the United States do not have more recent data from the 2010 census. Robots tagged many Wikipedia articles that had an article name in common with those in an early edition of ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' as having that book as a source -- even if nothing in the article was based on that book, and no human checked if the Wikipedia article was consistent with the Britannica article.

Another level of error and bias comes from Wikipedia's reliance on poorly-trained volunteers instead of paid professionals. For example, someone proposed that a copyrighted photo of Joseph Stalin taken by [[Margaret Bourke-White]] be deleted in 2009.<ref>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Stalin.jpg</ref> It was kept because someone with a gmail account sent permission claiming to be her son. She died without children<ref>http://womenshistory.about.com/od/margaretbourkewhite/a/Margaret-Bourke-White.htm</ref> and the photo's copyrighted actually belonged to Time, Inc. but the mistake was not detected until 2012.

===Accountability===
Wikipedia relies upon volunteer administrators to maintain the accountability of the website and enforce its rules. The number of administrators continues to shrink. In January 2008, there were 1,011 administrators, but the number dropped to 661 in November 2012.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/stat_table|title=Wikipedia:List of administrators/stat table|accessdate=Feburary 7, 2013}}</ref> The number drops because the process of selecting new administrators subjects each candidate to extensive abuse. If the action of Wikipedia administrators appear very odd, perhaps it is because the actions are the product of anonymous, very young people or, in some cases, of mentally ill people. For example, sysop Altenmann was desysopped and community-banned in April 2010 for sockpuppeting and improper closure of deletion discussions over a period of several years. He admitted mental illness and has been unbanned.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=491693521</ref>

Fundametally, the owner of a website is accountable for its governance and contents. To qualify for a tax exemption, Wikipedia is owned by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) that has a Board of Directors and a paid professional staff of 146.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en|title=Frequently asked questions|accessdate=February 7, 2013}}</ref> However, the WMF, its Board and Staff disavow any accountability for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Instead, co-founder Jimmy Wales claims ultimate authority for it, and acts as the executive/monarch on whatever he chooses. For example, although the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is selected in an election, Wales accepts the election results and appoints the new members. As recently as September 2013, Wales claims to have the right to overturn Arbitration Committee decisions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=571759721&oldid=571756060If|title=User Talk:Jimbo Wales|date=September 6, 2013}}</ref> If a person has a complaint about being falsely libled by Wikipedia, the WMF disavows any control of the matter and hides behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. So, the WMF has a legal incentive to maintain a "hands off" approach to content disputes. Its Board and Staff collect the charitable donations and meet IRS requirements, but Wales and the volunteer editors maintain the biased, defamatory site.

There have been lawsuits against Wikipedia and its editors. For example, Theodore Katsanevas, a Greek politician sued a Wikipedia editor and the WMF to seek removal of allegedly defamatory materials from the Greek Wikipedia. A Greek Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the removal of material, but other editors have added it back in and have translated the biography with the offending material into 20 other languages. A full trial is expected in 2016, and the WMF has promised to pay all of the defendants' legal fees.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/14/wikimedia-foundation-supports-wikipedia-user-subject-to-defamation-lawsuit-in-greece/|title=Wikimedia Foundation supports Wikipedia user subject to defamation lawsuit in Greece|work=Wikimedia Blog|date=February 14, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref>

== Humorous quotes relating to bias and Wikipedia ==

''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]

An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref>}}

=== Song excerpt ===

{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,
whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin'
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so
White and nerdy". - ''White and Nerdy'', [[Weird Al Yankovic]]<ref>http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm</ref>}}

From July 26, 2011 to March 13, 2012, the Wikipedia article "Cannabis reform at the international level" referred to the "U.S Department of Justice Drug Endorsement Administration" instead of the Drug Enforcement Administration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_reform_at_the_international_level&diff=481706462&oldid=441608281</ref> The phrase had been inserted by User "Dala11a".

==See also==
*[[Hearsay society]]
*[[ Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Subject matter is [[New World Order]] and Cong. [[Larry McDonald]]. Article here in Conservapedia relates it to [[KAL 007]] as the subject matter bears directly).

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipediocracy.com Wikipedia criticism site]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
* [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 Wikipedia lies, slander continue by Joseph Farah]
*[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf The Top 200 Chomsky Lies]--Comprehensively debunks the claims of the [[Noam Chomsky| cult leader]] behind the radical left's talking points.
*[http://wikipediabias.com/ Wikipedia Bias blog]

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

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
* Please post the content to the appropriate sub article if possible.

{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category: Wikipedia]]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2015-02-08T04:11:27Z

Wschact: /* Category:Nuclear Target Structures */ response

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>

''This page contains some material that has been moved from [[Talk:Main_Page]]. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.''

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

==Restoring User Pages==

I wonder if you [I was referring to User:Conservative in the original context] would be be so kind as to restore the following user and user-talk pages. Most of these people were long-time respected sysops and administrators, as I'm sure you, being a long-time respected sysop and administrator yourself, well know. Many of our important articles were written by these people. Current users may want to know something about the people that went before them and built Conservapedia. We should show some respect for our history and our founding fathers/mothers.
*[[User:Jallen]]
*[[User:Tash]]
*[[User:Foxtrot]]
*[[User:Ymmotrojam]]
*[[User:DeanS]]
*[[User:TimS]]
*[[User:DanH]]
*[[User:Deborah]]
*[[User:BethanyS]]
*[[User:WilliamBeason]]

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:33, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

:Your suggestion is a reasonable one. I was not in favor of deleting user pages. But once deleted, I don't think it would be time well spent to restore the pages. Time moves on, and time could be better spent by improving substantive entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

::I can see that all the active users are pretty busy, and are probably disinclined to do this. So how about letting me do it? I'm willing to restore those pages myself. You would have to give me the appropriate temporary rights, which might be "undelete" rights, or maybe full administrator rights, I don't know how this works.

::I'm sure you know, from our many communications, both public and private, that I can be trusted not to harm Conservapedia in any way. During any period in which I have extra rights, I will refrain from annoying, harassing, irritating, teasing, insulting, or otherwise getting under the skin of any other user. I will not react to any taunts. I will not abuse the rights in any way. (Though if my rights include blocking, and I see any vandals come to town, I will of course take action.)

::You didn't want the pages deleted? We can fix that. What say you? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:48, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

:There's an extremely troubling aspect to all this. You say you weren't in favor of deleting the pages, and yet, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeyJ&diff=1100430&oldid=1100429 here], Cons says that the owner of the web site was in favor of the deletion. Was Cons lying? Also, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeyJ&diff=1101617&oldid=1100630 here], Cons seems to indicate that he was in communication with you on the subject of giving JoeyJ deletion powers. These powers are not taken lightly. In fact, JoeyJ is the only non-admin who has them. So it looks as though you gave JoeyJ the deletion powers '''knowing full well''' that he would use those powers to delete user pages. What is going on? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

== God delusion ==

I finished reading the Prof. Dawkin's book. I have to admit that it has shaken my religious foundations... I sometimes wonder whether that has made me an Agnostic now. It has made me question a lot of my upbringing. I was a good catholic girl. I wonder what my mom will say
--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 12:44, 15 November 2014 (EST)
:Richard Dawkins did not research or fact check his book very well and it has a number of errors in it as can be seen in this PDF version of [http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational Atheist].

:Second, how strong were your foundations before you read the book? How did you build your foundation?

:In the physical life, if you are flabby, don't get enough sleep, etc., it provides an opportunity for disease to enter. The same is true in a person's spiritual life. How familiar are you with the classic [[Arguments for the existence of God|defenses of the existence of God]]? How familiar are you with the various evidences for Christianity? See: [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]] Did you ever repent of your sins and dedicate your life to following Jesus Christ? How often were you reading your Bible? How often were you praying? What are the most serious arguments against agnosticism? What are the most serious arguments against atheism. See: [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]].

:Also, Jesus promises that those who repented of their sins and accept Jesus as their Savior and Lord will have communion with Him and will receive the Holy Spirit who will guide them. Did you ever know God or were you just engaging in religious rituals? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:07, 16 November 2014 (EST)

::[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/richard.dawkins.has.had.his.day.says.ravi.zacharias/43042.htm Richard Dawkins has had his day, says Ravi Zacharias] -'' Christianity Today'', November 15, 2014 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:04, 17 November 2014 (EST)

:::@Maria O'Connor: I'm really sorry that you have been abused so badly at Conservapedia. I want you to know that there are quite a number of decent and well-intentioned people here. You should ignore the abusers, and feel welcome to make contributions. We particularly need people who are knowledgeable in matters of science. If you can contribute in this area, dig in! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)

::Sam, you can contribute constructively to Conservapedia, or you can pick fights on the Main Page talk page. You cannot do both. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:16, 21 November 2014 (EST)

:::'''Of course''' Sam can contribute constructively to Conservapedia whilst disagreeing with certain other editors. He's been doing it for years..... and more strength to his arm. There are not enough Sams these days. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:36, 21 November 2014 (EST)

==Subject Matter Experts==
I recently had to deal with a case of someone making an edit to a chemistry article (with a note that he has a chemistry degree, which of course we can't verify, but it very well may be true) that was reverted. It's true that his use of "subjective" and "objective" could give the wrong impression to non-experts, and I have cleaned it up. But it just needed to be cleaned up. (The cleanup that someone did afterwards was ridiculous.) '''This person was blocked''', apparently just because of that edit. This should not have happened. Quite a number of good contributors, and potential good contributors—we'll never know—have been reverted and blocked because the people with blocking powers did not know how to evaluate the edits.
Now Conservapedia often has people come here and make stupid/parody/vandalism edits. But it is monitored constantly by the sysops. It is not necessary for people to be trigger-happy. Except of course for clear vandalism.
I would suggest a page, probably in the Conservapedia namespace rather than "mainspace", listing subject matter experts who can make expert analyses of these things. The list should be publicized to all sysops. Contributors can volunteer as experts in various subjects. And sysops could hold off on reverting questionable edits until an expert opinion is rendered. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:45, 28 November 2014 (EST)

=====Best Troll Detection of the Public=====

:You have no proof that '''the person who was blocked''' was merely a Subject Matter Expert and not a '''troll''' as well. This ought to be dealt with by the Best Troll Detection of the Public. Trolling techniques include emphasizing words (when the logic of argument doesn't require it) to trample over anticipated reasonable opposition to one's argument with raw emotion as well as arguing about things on the Main Page talk page that don't appear on the Main Page. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 10:55, 29 November 2014 (EST)
I can assure you that, in my 7 years here, I have developed a good sense for the kinds of vandals, trolls, parodists, sycophants, "mall cops", and other unsavory personalities that we have. I also notice other fascinating types of people, like those who complain about posting to this page not on the topic of improving the main page content while making quite a few such postings themselves (though, in fairness, they also make on-topic postings, which I rarely do), people who [[User_talk:SamHB#Spammer|did not realize that they had been given blocking powers until I told them]], and people who use [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page&diff=1110822&oldid=1110821 spectacularly recondite sentences] while attacking other contributors. You see, I've been around for a while.

On the matter of making posts to this page that are not directly on the topic of improving the content of the main page, I'm sure you know that, for several years, this page has been used for a discussion of CP in general, and that everyone, including Andy and the other admins, is OK with that. A more natural place for such discussion might have been a general discussion page such as [[Conservapedia:Desk]], but, as you can see, it has rarely been used of late. There is actually a (an?) historical reason, from a few years back, for this. I won't bore everyone with the details, but you can email me if you are interested.

Regarding my "subject matter experts" comment above, I wasn't asking for people who are good at detecting trolls. We already have plenty of people (including myself) who are good at this, and plenty of people (including you) who are good at dealing with them. We probably already have the "Best Troll Detection of the Public". I was requesting "subject matter experts", which we don't really have very many of, or don't know who they are on various topics, and requesting that subject matter expertise be used in deciding whether to revert an edit.

In the case of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Chemical_compound&diff=1118592&oldid=1118584 molar mass] edit, I was well aware that this person might be a troll—his use of the recondite (there's that word again) terms "subjective" and "objective" in a description of quantitative chemical analysis was a bit suspicious—these are quasi-philosophical terms that might be considered provocative on a wiki like this. But he also knew what molar mass means. His change was a vast improvement over the "fuel quantity" phrase. The article just needed to have the "subjective" and "objective" words taken out, which I have done. The person did know his subject matter. There was no urgency in reverting his edit.

A suggestion, Vargas: Let's both try to be nice. You do good work when you're not talking about "withering patrician disdain". We can both do better than fight with each other.

Maybe I should have spent the day shopping instead of this :-) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:02, 1 December 2014 (EST)

:I will not disregard Andy's express instructions at the top of the page! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:12, 2 December 2014 (EST)

::Fair enough. I will try to abide by that policy also. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:11, 6 December 2014 (EST)
:::I would be interested to hear what Andy thinks of the "subject matter expert" approach. Wikipedia generally hates experts and does everything to drive them away as editors. Many of the early CP articles were written by home-schooled students. We then had Ed Poor spending years curating a large number of articles. A few other editors undertook work in particular areaa of expertise such as AlanE and BHathorn. I suspect that Andy has his own lists of experts in the back of his mind, if not written down. The problem is that everyone believes that they are an expert while management may not agree with that assessment. So, we have to see whether this proposal is compatible with the "best of the public" concept. Thanks for raising it. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:16, 7 December 2014 (EST)

== Growing Conservapedia's conservative readership and editor base ==

Now that Conservapedia's Twitter link on the main page, two things:

1. We could organize our wiki editors to create/expand conservative articles in order to feature them on the Twitter feed.

2. Twitter is popular among conservatives. This book shows people how to attract 200 Twitter fans every single day: http://www.amazon.com/Twitter-Followers-Step---Step-guaranteed-ebook/dp/B00KEX694O/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1417623658&sr=8-3&keywords=twitter+marketing The book is only $1.00 and it should be easy to implement. If it was implemented, the Twitter account would go from 10,000 Twitter fans/followers to 83,000 fans/followers in one year.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:30, 3 December 2014 (EST)
:Has anyone considered taking out some modest ($50-$100) number of Facebook advertising? We could use it to drive traffic to the site and to recruit new editors. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)
::Wschact, create a web page called [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]] which I will feature on the main page. I can also talk to Andy about various ways to drive traffic to the page like online advertising, etc.

::It will not be Facebook advertising because Andy dislikes Facebook. Of course, if you want to take out a Facebook advert to have it go to [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]], you could certainly do so.

::Regardless, the main page will give the page [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]] some traffic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)
:::Good idea. 1) Do we have photos of Andy sitting around a computer with a bunch of his students when they were working on editing CP? How about a screen capture of Andy being interviewed with Stephen Colbert? I believe that photos are a powerful way to deliver a message. 2) Do we have any facts that we can use to convey the importance of Conservapedia's mission? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:02, 7 February 2015 (EST)

== Make the username policy more clear ==

:Copied on over from [[Help talk:How To Create a Conservapedia Account]]

I think it should be made clear that the username '''must''' include your real name, as opposed to ''recommending'' your real name; perhaps there could be a help page on Conservapedia's username policy. A few users have been blocked for violating an otherwise nonexistent policy (and also advised to create an account with a real name even though their account creation is disabled for two years). A clear username policy would probably be beneficial for Conservapedia. -- [[User:DanielJackson|DanielJackson]] 10:46, 6 December 2014 (EST)

== Conservative's "Message Area" ==

I seem to be unable to edit it, despite wanting to discuss something with him. As such I put out a general request for a way to contact him or for him to unlock his message area. Hopefully I'm not missing something really obvious! [[User:Nhodgson|Nhodgson]] 20:18, 6 December 2014 (EST)

:You would do well to just ignore him. There's really nothing that you could discuss with him. He is notoriously secretive, seeming to believe that other people go along with his games, and he often locks his own talk page, and the talk pages of his "pet" articles. He seems to expect other people to go along with his fantasy that he might be multiple people. Just ignore him. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:37, 6 December 2014 (EST)
::If we could talk to him, we might tell him that his reversion of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abraham_Lincoln&curid=3942&diff=1121083&oldid=1084045 this] on purely political grounds was ludicrous and shows a serious failure to observe what is going on. That edit was more than just a minor thing about whether Lincoln was a "classical liberal" or a "post New Deal progressive"—it was blatant and outrageous vandalism, about which most admins are very vigilant. The user ("TheonlySIL", whatever that means) should be blocked permanently. Perhaps some other admin will notice. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:48, 6 December 2014 (EST)
Setting aside SamHB's axe to grind because I/we are pro-biblical creationism and anti-Darwinism/liberal Christianity, my/our talk page has just been unlocked.

By the way SamHB, what do you think about the data contained in this article: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] ? Can you refute it? It does not appear so! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 7 December 2014 (EST)
:Haven't read it. But thanks for unlocking your talk page, Could you keep it that way, please? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:52, 11 December 2014 (EST)
::SamHB, may lock it again if I/we become extremely busy for an extended period or for other reasons which I/we prefer not to discuss. The talk pages of articles I/we created/contributed can certainly be used. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:59, 12 December 2014 (EST)

== Categories ==

There are two categories that are treating the same topic: [[:Category:Best of Conservapedia]] and [[:Category:Featured articles]]. How do they differ from each other and should they be merged?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 14:00, 12 December 2014 (EST)
:My guess is that when authors of articles wanted to get extra views for their articles that they spent a lot of time on, they gave their articles these category labels. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:52, 12 December 2014 (EST)
:So should these categories be deleted?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 16:01, 12 December 2014 (EST)
::While I have the greatest respect for Cons's diligence in spending a lot of time on her articles, and in getting them recognized (all her past SEO talk, for example), I notice that she does not put them into the the "best of CP" category. So I suspect that even she doesn't think the category is worth much. It does not seem to be noticed much. I just removed two obvious vanity/silliness things from it. Only three things remain. But their authors did put a lot of effort into them, and two of them are "flagship articles" by Andy. So I would consult with him on this. He probably wants a better way to promote the CBP and the Conservative words articles. In fact he has a better way: they are on the main page. So maybe you should ask him whether the "best of CP" category is worth keeping. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:23, 13 December 2014 (EST)
:::SamHB, no true analyst would pretend to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.

:::But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine [[Sarah Palin]] has more [[machismo]] than all [[Liberal Christianity|liberal "Christians"]] combined!

:::By the way, have you read the [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] article yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::::Nope. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:58, 21 December 2014 (EST)

==Purpose of this page==
This page provides a forum for editors to discuss matters related to CP and its policies. Please do not use it as a sandbox for drafting article. You can create your own sandbox by making a subpage of your user page. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:43, 13 December 2014 (EST)
:You're right. I was in a hurry before. Haste makes waste. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:17, 13 December 2014 (EST)
::There was no need to be hasty. You, of all people, must have known that it wouldn't be lost. Take a deep breath before editing.
::Speaking of careless editing, I'm pleased that you correctly used "you're" above, though it took another edit, at 10:17 yesterday, to fix it. Haste makes waste. But your recent edit to the bottom of TAR's talk page has that mistake. You're in need of more care in editing. Take a deep breath (and get some sleep!) now and then. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
:::@TAR: I've taken out the rest of your stuff. You can move it to your talk page if you like. You can get it out of the page history, of course; nothing is ever lost unless an admin explicitly vapes it, which I don't think is going to happen. You do not need to worry about vandalism; it's easy to revert. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
::::@SamHB, thanks, I didn't know I could make a sandbox page beneath my username page that won't be indexed. I will do that from now on for articles I am working on. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 20:11, 14 December 2014 (EST)
:::::There's a quick-and-easy trick to doing it, that I guess I ought to explain, though you might already know it. To create a new page subordinate to your user page, talk page, whatever, edit the user/talk page, and insert something like
:::::<nowiki>[[User talk:TheAmericanRedoubt/sandbox99|My spiffy subpage]]</nowiki>, and save it. When you look at it, it will be a redlink. Click on it, and you will get something like "this page doesn't exist. If you want to create it, enter the text below." Or something like that. Then paste in you new stuff. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:25, 14 December 2014 (EST)

== Deleting material from talk pages, or, even worse, deleting the page outright ==

Talk page material should not be deleted unless it is truly libelous or detrimental. Talk pages should be an ongoing journal of discussion of the corresponding project page. There is nothing wrong with a talk page being very short, and it is perfectly acceptable, albeit unusual, for an article page's author to say something on the talk page.

I recently had to re-create [[Talk:IP_camera]] to make a comment on the article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:05, 15 December 2014 (EST)
:Is there any way to recover the earlier material. Perhaps Andy or an admin could review the situation? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:50, 18 December 2014 (EST)

----

== Two millionth page view for the "Counterexamples to Relativity" page ==

The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has just gotten its two millionth hit. It is one of Conservapedia's best-known pages.

It seems that this page is very famous all over the internet. A Google search of Conservapedia+Relativity gets about 8000 hits. (Your mileage may vary; the test was done several months ago.) I didn't look at all of them, but I looked at the first 100, other than the CP article itself. Two were completely neutral and matter-of-fact, one was an item on ask.com that was a discussion of what "theory" means in a scientific sense, and was neutral. The other 97 were all derisive, mocking, contemptuous, and sarcastic.

Now I know that principled people are not deterred by popular opinion. But people might want to ask themselves whether the page has convinced '''anyone''' that Relativity is wrong. Or, more generally, whether it has accomplished anywhere near what its goals were. People might also want to ask themselves whether the counterexamples are objectively correct, and whether Relativity is objectively wrong. Now a lot of the discussion at CP has been about '''what people think about Relativity'''—for example, discussion of Laurence Tribe, and Barack Obama, and the folks that designed the GPS system, and the folks that operate that system, and so on. I'd like to get completely away from consideration of what people think about Relativity. Vox Populi and all that. I'd like to propose 3 questions about '''objective, observable facts,''' and ask the senior admins here to explain them without reference to people's opinions. These are matters of ''fact'' and ''incontrovertible observation''.

#It is known that the perihelion of Mercury precesses, beyond Newtonian calculations, by an amount of about 43 arcseconds per (Earth) century. Without getting bogged down into quibbling over thousandths of an arcsecond, and just using the accepted figure of 43 arcseconds, why do you think this is so? Now there has been extensive discussion at Conservapedia over the possibility that the exponent in the "inverse square law" is not exactly 2. People have argued over whether or not that satisfies some principle of theoretical elegance, or makes integration easier, or whatever. I'm not interested in any of that. What I am interested in is that ''it doesn't work''. That theory was proposed by Hall and Newcomb about 100 years ago, and quickly discarded, because it predicts a completely wrong precession for the Moon. So, why do you think this precession occurs? Do you have some theory of gravity that correctly predicts the precession of Mercury, other planets, the Moon, and Earth satellites?
#:
#It is known that the received frequency of GPS satellite clock signals is about 0.44 parts per trillion faster than the frequency at which the signals were transmitted from the satellite. This discrepancy is well known, and there is circuitry in the satellites to compensate for it. Minuscule as this discrepancy is, compensating for it is essential to the correct operation of the system. Without getting into what people believed or were thinking about when the system was designed, or what people believe or think about when they upload correction parameters, why does this discrepancy exist?
#:
#It is known that the mass of a Radium-226 atom (including the electrons--it makes no difference in the final outcome) is 226.025403 amu. When it undergoes alpha decay, it turns into an atom of Radon-222 (222.017571 amu) and an atom of Helium (4.002603 amu). This constitutes a loss of .005229 amu. Why is that? Is the law of conservation of mass not correct?

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:18, 17 December 2014 (EST)

:RESPONSE:

::#The precession of the perihelion of Mercury '''''disproves''''' Relativity. People stopped reporting the discrepancy as technology provided greater precision; yet Relativists still insist that this proves their theory when the actual data disproves it. Newtonians are honest about the issue. Why can't liberal Relativists publicly admit that the data disproves their theory? Every scientist knows that if he questions or criticizes Relativity, then he disqualifies himself from ever winning a Nobel Prize (see, e.g., Robert Dicke), obtaining a doctorate, or receiving any research funding.
::#There are a variety of possible explanations for the GPS discrepancy, starting with the obvious plausibility that the laws of physics are not invariant at every point in the universe. An honest, open-minded discussion of the issue would likely yield some valuable insights.
::#There is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy when something decays. It certainly does not prove Relativity.

::Liberals make false statements about science all the time. Jimmy Carter became president by claiming that oil would run out in 35 years. There is nothing new about liberals misusing science to advance liberal goals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 17 December 2014 (EST)

:::"''There is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy when something decays. It certainly does not prove Relativity. ''" - So, you do accept the equivalence of mass and energy, as SamHB was talking about the loss of mass! That's good news... Or maybe, you want to rephrase your point #3. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:55, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::It requires an enormous leap of [[faith]], far more than is suggested by the [[Bible]], to go from what I said to the silly, illogical ''E=mc2'' equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:::::Does it really? SamHB described a process where '''mass''' disappears - you answered that ''there is nothing startling about an emission or loss of '''energy'''''. This gives the impression that you think of mass and energy as somewhat interchangeable. I know that you don't think so, that's why I asked for you to ''"rephrase your point #3"''. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:26, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::::When something decays to a lower energy state it can emit energy. That is not relativity, that is not E=mc2, and that is not "mass-energy equivalence."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:::::::Agreed - but you are talking about '''energy'''. The question is where is the '''mass''' of .005229 amu? (Take a look [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton|here]]...)--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:56, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::::::You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:51, 21 December 2014 (EST)

I had not intended for this to re-open the entire discussion, including the Cockcroft-Walton experiment. Aside from pointing out the 2 millionth view, the goal was to ask 3 '''very narrowly drawn''' questions. So narrowly drawn that they '''were not about relativity!'''. Not directly, anyway. They were about 3 observable phenomena, and the intent was to ask for explanations, relativity or otherwise, about them. For the second and third questions, Andy sort of did give explanations, though they were totally unsatisfactory by the standards of contemporary science.

I specifically asked for explanations that were indpependent of people's opinions, beliefs, or behavior. I guessed that Andy would either ignore the questions, or give off-topic answers. I got the latter. I got comments about relativity, honesty of "Newtonians", "relativists", liberalism, Nobel prizes, doctorates, research funding, Robert Dicke, Jimmy Carter, oil, and discrepancies with modern measuring technology. (Really? Are you saying that the anomalous precession ''does not occur''? It's been observed since 1843. Are you saying that modern measurements show that the precession is zero, and that Leverrier was seeing something that isn't there?).

Let me restate the questions in their simplest possible form. Note that I am not asking about relativity.
#Anomalous precession. Why does it occur?
#:
#Time dilation. Why does it occur?
#:
#Non-conservation of mass. Why does it occur?

Andy did give a sort of explanation for the 2nd and 3rd of these: "The laws of physics are not invariant at every point" and "There is nothing startling [about this]".

Here is why those answers are completely unsatisfactory. Suppose that Johannes Kepler, when presented with Tycho Brahe's exhaustive data on planetary motion, including the puzzling retrograde motion of Mars, Jupier, and Saturn, had simply said "Well, I guess that, at some points in the Solar System, at some times, some planets go backward for a while." Or "There's nothing startling about this, Mars sometimes just goes backwards." He would simply be abandoning science to the capriciousness of nature. He didn't do that. He was a '''SCIENTIST'''. He looked for an ''explanation''. He and Isaac Newton worked out a formulation that explained it. They didn't just say that the laws of nature are just something random at various places in the solar system, they came up with a physical law that was valid (relative to the measurements of the day) ''at all places and times in the Solar System''.

The time dilation in the Earth's gravitational field is not just something random. It is known, and explained, with great precision. You can set your clock by it. (Literally!) To not be startled, or at least intrigued, by the time dilation, when time can be measured, and found not to dilate, between two points that are at the same altitude, shows a serious lack of scientific curiosity. Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?

The same thing goes for the mass discrepancy. Conservation of mass had been known, with extreme precision, by 1900. Scientists were in fact startled and intrigued by its non-conservation. By the way, it can be measured with greater accuracy now than 82 years ago, and it still holds, or do you deny that it happens? Can you cite modern precise measurements that show that the discrepancy is zero? Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:58, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:I did specifically respond to your three points, and then days went by without a reply from you. Again, the anomalous precession disproves Relativity just as it conflicts with one model of Newtonian gravity in the solar system. Why is there an anomalous precession? The Newtonian model can be tweaked to explain it; Relativity cannot. An honest discussion by scientists of the data would advance the understanding, rather than scientists pretending that the precession proves Relativity (it doesn't).

:Second, time dilation is not directly shown by anything, and certainly not by GPS. The slight variations can be explained by classical physics, or by recognizing that physical laws are probably not invariant across the universe.

:Third, the evidence for non-conservation of mass is almost non-existent, with the leading experiment more than 80 years out of date. But I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved, and Newtonian physics does not depend on it. [[Quantum mechanics]] may have the potential -- if pursued with an open mind -- to shed light on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:16, 22 December 2014 (EST)

::I'm not interested in what the anomalous precession proves or doesn't prove, or what scientists pretend that it proves or doesn't prove. I want to know why it occurs. The Newtonian model can be tweaked to explain it? Can you say what the tweak is? I hope it's not the Hall-Newcomb exponent tweak that was proved to be incorrect almost immediately after it was proposed. Do you have another tweak in mind?

::Time dilation is most definitely shown, both by GPS, and by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959. This can be explained by classical physics? Really? Can you give us details? Can you give us a Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist type of explanation, that goes beyond the cop-out of saying that the laws of physics are simply different in different parts of the universe? "Different parts of the universe" is a far bigger chunk of real estate than is needed to show the effect. The Pound-Rebka experiment involved different parts of the ''same building'', and GPS exhibits the discrepancy between different parts of medium Earth orbit. We should have a pretty good handle on how physics works in the vicinity of the Earth. Newton's law of gravitation worked over the whole solar system.

::Evidence for non-conservation of mass is not "almost non-existent"; it is ubiquitous. The specific case of Radium alpha decay can be found on the periodic table charts hanging in high-school science classrooms. "I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved"—well at least you qualified it with "necessarily always", but can you be more specific? To a degree that Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist would respect? You are quite right in that Newtonian physics does not depend on it, but that's not what I was asking.

::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:38, 22 December 2014 (EST)

:::Andy: ''"You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified."'' No, the experiment is routinely performed in courses on modern physics around the world, using modern technology. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:37, 22 December 2014 (EST)

::::On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data. Some objected to anything other than an exponent of precisely -2 for the force, because that muddies up the math, but that is a silly objection. The reality, however, is that anyone who pursues this approach is deemed an enemy of Relativity and won't get another research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize. Nothing but radio silence by the Relativity promoters about that obvious reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 22 December 2014 (EST)

:::::''"On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data."'' That's just a canard - and you know it, Andy: yes, the exponent of Newton's law of gravity can be tweaked (or error terms added), but this results in a model which doesn't fit all the other planets. That's known since Simon Newcomb's days - and [[User:SamHB]] elaborated on this '''[[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|nearly five years ago]]'''! The first time you came up with this idea, you could have pretended to be ignorant on this subject. But you repeat it over and over again, without having done the calculations, or looking up why physicists discarded the idea a hundred years ago! That's worse than ignorance, that's willful ignorance.
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:36, 28 December 2014 (EST)

Let's not be too hasty with judgements about ignorance, willful or otherwise. Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this (and the other two phenomena). We're making good progress by drawing the questions very narrowly.

I believe that Andy has indeed read the relevant items, like [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|this page]] from nearly five years ago, and [[Relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|this section]], with its table of precessions of the planets. (I did not put in the phrase "fail to", by the way.)

So let's go over the situation again, extremely carefully. The bulk of the table was from me, though the all-important final column was added by [[User:Jloveday]], using some experimental data that he dug up. I'm not in full agreement with the way he rounded the data, but the effect is clear. Even though getting good error bounds on the minuscule precession of planets beyond Mercury is very difficult, one can easily see, from the last few columns, that General Relativity tracks the observed precession very well, while the Newcomb-Hall tweak of 2.000000157 tracks it extremely poorly. Except for Mercury, of course, since the exponent was tweaked specifically for that planet.

So, Andy: What is the tweak to Newtonian mechanics that explains the precession for all the planets? And, while we're at it, can you give a satisfactory explanation for the other two phenomena, time dilation and mass non-conservation?

Andy also says: "Some objected to anything other than an exponent of precisely -2 for the force, because that muddies up the math, but that is a silly objection." I agree, it's silly. Though I am a little curious about who these "some" are. Can you cite something on the subject? Perhaps one of your physics textbooks?

Also: "The reality, however, is that anyone who pursues this approach is deemed an enemy of Relativity and won't get another research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize." As I said earlier, I'm not interested in the personalities; I just want to know why you think the precession occurs. (Actually, that's not true. I ''am'' deeply interested in the history of science and technology. But not right now. We can discuss that some other time.) So I'll make you an offer: If you get turned down for a research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize over this, I'll stick up for you. I'll cite the spirited debate you and I have been having over the last several years as evidence that you've thought deeply about these issues. Though I don't think I have much influence over funding agencies or Nobel committees. :-)

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:12, 29 December 2014 (EST)

==Categories==
I generally have a "live and let live" attitude towards the edits of others on CP, and don't want to criticize any particular editor. However, CP has experienced over time that editors come here from Wikipedia, where there are millions of articles and a very high number of Categories. Because CP is much smaller, we have opted for fewer categories, Over the past day, someone has created a bunch of new categories like [[:Category:Conservative Authors]]. [[:Category:Christian Authors]], etc. Such narrow new categories will make a lot more work for everyone and may discourage editors from categorizing their articles. Perhaps Andy and management could please take a look? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:58, 18 December 2014 (EST)
:The relevant provision of [[Conservapedia:Quick reference]] says: "'''Creating new "Categories"''' While this is sometimes needed, before undertaking larger projects that will have ramifications for many existing articles, please contact one of the Administrators on their talk page, and inform them of your idea."

== To my liberal, sissy boy, atheist critics of guns in Texas! ==

Gentlemen, consider this picture of [http://www.andrewtonnphoto.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=796 Amish women shooting rifles]. When is the last time you heard of Amish women going on shooting rampages? :)

Amish women do not watch violent video games or watch television shows and/or movies with gratuitous violence! See [[Hollywood values]]. And unlike Muslims, the only beheadings Amish women read about is David beheading Goliath (and we know Goliath deserved it for defying the armies of the living God!).

Amish women are peaceful creationists and not violent evolutionists (see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [[Evolutionary racism]]),

Amish women are loyal wives and are less likely to have their husbands go on jealous/violent rampages (see: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]). And Amish men have submissive wives and do not endlessly quarrel with stubborn, feminist wives! And irreligious men are more likely beat their wives/girlfriends than religious men (see: [[Irreligion and domestic violence]]).

Gentlemen, it is the dysfunctional liberals and liberal influence that causes much of the violence in Texas. No true conservative goes on a gun rampage! When is the last time you heard of a gun rampage occurring due to a student in a Bible believing Christian school? Never, my liberal, atheist friends? If only Texas wasn't creating so many jobs and a magnet to unemployed and undisciplined liberals fleeing their liberal welfare states!

And remember this, guns are an insurance policy for rogue states. Surely, you have read about such states (see: [[Atheism and Mass Murder]] and [[Evolutionary racism|Evolution and Nazi Germany]]).

Gentlemen, I hope this clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:47, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::By the way, don't even think about saying that the Amish are pacifists and would not kill in self-defense.

::Would an Amish man use violence to protect his wife? Did David eat the show bread?[http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/438/how-does-jesus-argument-from-david-and-the-show-bread-work] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:00, 17 December 2014 (EST)
:::Thank you for giving up your precious time to add these insights to the talk page, Conservative. The world would be a better place if more wives followed your example. [[User:JSamson|JSamson]] 17:25, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::::No true skeptic pretends to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.

::::But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine [[Sarah Palin]] has more [[machismo]] than all liberal atheists combined! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:45, 17 December 2014 (EST)
:::::I thought there was to be no further additions from the User: conservative account on the talk page? Perhaps one of the members did not get the memo? -[[User:JaysonK|JaysonK]] 13:51, 18 December 2014 (EST)
::::::Buckling down on time management. Plan to post less on talk pages. Revised plans about talk pages. Will post on talk pages when it is related to article/wiki improvement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:54, 18 December 2014 (EST)

== References ==

<references/>

== A project for active editors to collaborate on ==

Would you anyone like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.

The topic could be decided by the editors participating.

If you are interested, please leave comments below. I suggest picking a leader/leaders for the project or least assign people for various tasks associated with the project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:50, 25 December 2014 (EST)

:I would be happy to help, but my time is limited.[[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 22:06, 25 December 2014 (EST)

::Merry Christmas Cons, and thanks for the thought. I think, however, that I would tend to become a "Devil's Advocate" in any collaboration I can envisage. The token liberal so to speak (and I say that with no malice.) I will need to know more. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:21, 25 December 2014 (EST)
:::AlanE, it doesn't have to be a political project. It can be on a non-political topic. I will let whoever participates decide on the topic and whether or not it will be a political project.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 25 December 2014 (EST)
:::::If AlanE and [[FOIA]] and anyone else who joins wants to decide on a topic tomorrow, the project can start right away. It can be announced on the main page also.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:33, 25 December 2014 (EST)

: I'd be happy to join in and help in any way I can. Merry Christmas. I have been and will mostly focus on the articles [[List of military tactics]] and [[List of military strategies and concepts]]. Long life the Republic! [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 01:33, 26 December 2014 (EST)

:Your invitation was an honor, and I thank you for your confidence. I will be happy to help. As soon as I finish my current "Bible" project, I will look more closely at what you have here and see what I can do. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 19:00, 26 December 2014 (EST)
::Sounds great. Thanks for tackling the project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:16, 27 December 2014 (EST)
=== Ideas for potential articles ===

Political:

*[[Republican beliefs]]

*[[21st Century Republican Party]]

*[[Differences between Republicans and Democrats]]

*[[Social conservatism]] (article needs to be improved)

*<s>[[Islamic terrorism]] (article needs to be improved)</s>

*[[Political fundraising]]

*[[Kim Jong-un]] (article needs to be improved)

*[[Tiananmen Square massacre]] (article needs to be improved)

Less political:

*[[Modern slavery]]

*[[Republican presidents]]

*[[List of military tactics]]

*<s>[[List of military strategies and concepts]]</s>

*[[Socio-cultural indoctrination]]

*[[Rugged individualism vs Christian community (body of Christ)]]

Non-political:

*[[Dog training]]

*[[Chess strategy]]

*[[Marathon]] (needs to be expanded)

*[[Tourism]] (needs to be expanded)

Feel free to add article ideas [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:32, 26 December 2014 (EST)

== Do we really have so few responsible editors ..... ==

that obsessed individuals can materially change the tone and direction of Conservapedia with no one to apply the brakes.? Remember when this was supposed to be a resource for home-school students? A place where they could look up "vibration", for example, and get a concise definition of what it is, at their level, without going off into mystical medical cults? Remember when [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI this] was a good description of Conservapedia's vision and goals?

What happened? We now have just a tiny number of people turning the place into a survivalist blog, and an herbal medicine blog, or whatever, with hardly anyone to apply editorial direction. This wiki needs supervision.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:30, 2 January 2015 (EST)

:Things like [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] look very troubling indeed! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:58, 3 January 2015 (EST)
:: I agree with you there AugustO, I would say the content in those articles would be more at home on hippypedia or alternaticemedicinepedia than on conservapedia. Remember, conservatives like to have things backed up by facts, not nonsensical anecdotes that are the backbone of alternative medicine. [[User:PhilH|PhilH]] 02:15, 3 January 2015 (EST)
:::Despite all the blurbs for Ayurvedic medicine in inappropriate places, [[Ayurvedic medicine]] itself remains a red link. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 17:57, 4 January 2015 (EST)

==Response to [[User:SamHB]], [[User:PhilH]] and [[User:AugustO]] Regarding Ayurvedic - Chinese - Western Herbal Medicine on Conservapedia==

I am reposting-quoting here [[User:AugustO]]'s post on [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Ayurvedic_medicine]] in order to see why I am making such a detailed point-by-point response.

"You know me as conservative on social or fiscal issues, but my conservatism reaches its zenith on medicine. I am very dedicated to Western medicine, and run away from "new age" or other fringe medicine approaches. Andy, you have to draw a line here on whether Conservapedia has the expertise and resources to cover Ayurvedic medicine properly. I doubt that we do and should stay away from it completely. Please decide and tell [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] you decision. Many thanks for all that you do for the Conservative movement. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:42, 2 January 2015 (EST)
:[[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] is like an advert for alternative medicine: it has 110 subcategories and is itself in 26 categories:
::[[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Tibetan Medicine]]|[[:Category:Complementary Medicine]]|[[:Category:Medicine]]|[[:Category:Health Care]]|[[:Category:Traditional Chinese Medicine]]|[[:Category:Naturopathic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Herbalism]]|[[:Category:Medicinal Plants]]|[[:Category:Herbs]]|[[:Category:Spices]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Traditional Chinese Medicine]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Ayurvedic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Western Herbal Medicine]]|[[:Category:Herbalists‎]]|[[:Category:Health]]|[[:Category:Survivalism]]|[[:Category:India]]|[[:Category:Tibet]]|[[:Category:Nepal]]|[[:Category:Mongolia]]|[[:Category:Burma]]|[[:Category:Thailand]]|[[:Category:Sri Lanka]]|[[:Category:Asia]]|[[:Category:Southeast Asia]]|
:That could be a kind of record! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:04, 3 January 2015 (EST)

===Response to [[User:Wschact]] and [[User:AugustO]] Regarding Ayurvedic - Chinese - Western Herbal Medicine on Conservapedia ===
:: Happy New Year [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:Wschact]], [[User:AugustO]], [[User:Conservapedia]], and [[User:Karajou]]

Thank you for your patience with this detailed point-by-point response.

Like you [[User:Wschact]], I too am a steadfast conservative, but on much more than just social and fiscal issues, as my thousands of conservative point-of-view Conservapedia edits can attest to (Please see my [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] for more information). Also like you [[User:Wschact]], I too am very dedicated to Western medicine and work together with a medical doctor with a busy private practice office in a large hospital setting where he and I integrate both modern pharmaceutical based treatment and the use of custom made Ayurvedic-Chinese-Western herbal formulas, nutrition (based on Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine concepts) and acupuncture. He supervises my practice in that setting. Like you [[User:Wschact]], both he and I also run away from the myriad "new age" medicine approaches. However, Ayurvedic medicine, Chinese medicine - Acupuncture and Western herbal medicine are not "new age". Ayurveda and Chinese medicine - Acupuncture have been in continuous use since at least 250 B.C. according to archaeological evidence and extant classic medical texts in both Chinese characters, Tibetan and Sanskrit (which I can read by the way in Devanagari script).

Conservapedia does indeed have the expertise and resources to cover Ayurvedic medicine and Chinese medicine - acupuncture properly since I am contributing as a dedicated regular editor and have joined the [[Wikiproject:Medicine]] to lend my ongoing support editing/categorizing ALL articles in the realm of medicine / anatomy in addition to my other subject matter expertise areas on my User Page / Talk Page.

[[User:PhilH]] has said there is no clinical evidence to support complementary medicine. Not according to the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Institutes of Health who funds clinical trials on herbal medicines effectiveness, not according to medical doctors in America who integrate modern medicine with complementary medicine, not according to numerous conservatives who rely on complementary medicine including Western herbalism, Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda and Acupuncture. Just the fact that there is licensing for acupuncture in most of the U.S. states (majority of states require the licensing examination or certification, and several states allow oriental medicine practitioners to be "primary care providers" for legal and insurance purposes; nineteen states specifically include Chinese herbology instead of just acupuncture). For naturopathic medicine 17 states, five Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia, and the US territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands all have laws regulating naturopathic doctors (See map http://aanmc.org/images/LicensureMapBig.jpg -- even very conservative states such as my home state of Idaho in the [[American Redoubt]], along with Montana and Utah license naturopathy).

All of this attests to complementary medicine's broader acceptance, not to mention the size of the herbal market in the U.S. economy: For herbal medicine "overall sales reached $5.6 billion in 2012" "rising from $4.2 billion in 2000" (http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Markets/Herbal-supplement-sales-rose-5.5-in-US-in-2012-ABC-says)

There are many conservatives blogs and forums that I follow that have regular articles on complementary medicine and herb usage. Complementary/alternative medicine is not some liberal, hippie or New Age thing. It is even paid for by many insurance companies now. There is worker's comp coverage for it in certain U.S. states.

Regarding evidence in my articles, I will indeed be submitting footnoted hyperlinked clinical evidence from MedLine / PubMed.

Regarding the [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] having lots of sub-categories: There are many sub-categories in the Ayurvedic medicine category since it is a broad science including many diverse health and disease topics and since I am a very detail oriented person as you can see with my contributions for the firearms categorizations (which formerly were all lumped into just the Category of "Guns"). I am using that [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] and its temporarily numerous subcategories as a way of '''temporarily''' getting a broad view and tracking ability of ALL of the medicine-anatomy categories and articles in order to update them all over the coming months. I promise that I will pare that category down in the next 60 days to something smaller once I have updated-edited-expanded '''ALL''' of the medicine/anatomy related articles to follow a consistent yet detailed categorization scheme. I always start first with detailed Wiki categories in order to flesh out the scope-breadth-depth and a logical structure for the articles I will submit. I am doing the same detailed categorization for Firearms and other areas.

[[User:Conservative]] has been "mentoring" me as to what I should and shouldn't post. I have been following this for guidance as well: [[Conservapedia:Editorial_authority]]. I also received advice from [[User:Karajou]] on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 23:15:17 by e-mail (conservapedia AT zoho.com) who said, "Try your hand at writing complete articles. Conservapedia is not just something containing conservative thought; it is also intended to be a family encyclopedia, so it has to have info on planes, trains, automobiles, animals, sports teams, camera systems, or whatever else comes to mind. So, if you happen to be an expert on - say, rowboats - write an article on rowboats. Karajou".

Thus, following Karajou's advice above and oversight from [[User:Conservative]], I am writing "whatever comes to mind" on what I "happen to be an expert on". Thus, I have be developing a lot of detailed articles and their categorizations for my 6 areas of specialization (in order of my depth of subject matter expertise): 1. Medicine, 2. Computer networks (17 years professional experience), 3. [[Preparedness]]-Survivalism, 4. [[Firearm]]s, 5. [[Permaculture]] [[gardening]], 6. [[Radio communication technologies]] - [[Amateur radio]]. Being a staunch American conservative libertarian "prepper" [[gun enthusiast|"gun nut"]], I obviously write/edit from that perspective.

For these and many other reasons, I don't see a reason for Conservapedia to stay away from complementary medicine completely as you suggest [[User:Wschact]]. Thus, I will continue to contribute such works to Conservapedia until I am told to stop by any of the CP Administrators such as [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:Conservative]], or user [[User:Karajou]].

Thank you to you all for your work for our Conservative movement. Godspeed. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:57, 3 January 2015 (EST)

=="[[Troll]]" Editing by [[User:SamHB]] of Numerous articles I am Working on / Editing / Contributing ==

[[User:SamHB]], First you accuse me of plagiarizing, then you delete my citation correcting your speedy deletion template notice. Are you "[[Troll]]ing" perhaps ("[[Troll|users who purposely make disruptive edits are considered trolls]]") like your friends [[User:PhilH]] and this other friend of yours who made the comment on [[Talk:Free_state]]?

[[User:SamHB]], Please follow these Guidelines rather than making disruptive edits to further your agenda: [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]]

[[User:SamHB]], Looking at your contribution here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SamHB

[[User:SamHB]], I see that the last time you actually contributed any kind new article other than a Talk Page was here 2 years and 6 months ago:
18:54, 1 June 2013 (diff | hist) New! Propositional Calculus ‎ (A start. Ed, it's time for you to step up to the plate (See? I do know a few metaphores, though I'm not a TopDog!) and fill out this article.)

Looking at your contribution logs, a large amount of your recent edits in the last 30 days have been reverting my edits.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tinospora_cordifolia&action=history:
08:11, 4 January 2015 SamHB (Talk | contribs | block) (7,439 bytes) (Do not "spam" links to extrenal commercial websites. People are routinely banned for that.) (undo)

17:07, 2 January 2015 SamHB (Talk | contribs | block) (6,798 bytes) (If you really think blatantly plagiarized material should stay, please post a note to the community portal explaining this.) (undo)

[[User:SamHB]], It seems you are not listening to my previous Talk page on these articles. This is the second time I am telling you this. Please kindly listen this time and stop [[troll]] editing.

[[User:SamHB]], these links you deleted are ''''not'''' Spam links to external sites. It is a temporary citation for a quote I made to start the rough draft of the article -- the "ref" is to a respected and authoritative source of information on this herb; just as IBM would be an authoritative and respected cite regarding IBM Mainframe computers. Once I type in quotes and/or paraphrase summaries from some of my numerous Ayurvedic herb books listed here [[Tinospora_cordifolia#External_Links]], I will cite them as well to flesh out the article.

Formerly you were here on this very article [[Tinospora cordifolia]] accusing me of plagiarizing by not citing my 1 paragraph quote and nominated the article for deletion. Again, SamHB, please respect as I said before on my user talk page (perhaps you can read it) that I will be completing these articles in the next five days and let me do the editing on my article that I started, otherwise it slows me down to have to constantly go back and check the history of the pager to see if someone is "helping out".

While you can perhaps please consider contributing some new actual articles of your own in your own area of expertise such as math rather than editing one I am in the middle of working on. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 10:41, 4 January 2015 (EST)

-----

== This Site is Being Hijacked ==

There is no more pleasant way to put that.

This is a continuation of what I wrote above about "Do we really have so few responsible editors". The problem is extremely serious. Ultimately, it is about there being so few people who are responsible, level-headed, and able to put reasonable amounts of time into this, that one person can overwhelm everyone and turn Conservapedia into something far removed from its original goal. The original goal, in case people have forgotten, was a site that home-school students (and others, of course) can use as a general reference source, on a wide variety of topics, without bias from the liberals elsewhere on the Internet.

But [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] is single-handedly steering the site into a very different and troubling direction. Multiple directions, actually. How is he able to do this? '''Because his editing is fanatical, intense, and obsessive, and there aren't enough level-headed editors around who have the time and energy to put the brakes on.'''

He is turning this into a blog on survivalism, one very particular "Vata/Dosha/Ayurvedic" type of nontraditional medicine, and many other things. There is nothing wrong with articles on these topics, but he is overwhelming Conservapedia with his obsessive editing.

He has put dozens and dozens of references to his views on survivalism into a huge number of articles for which such references are totally inappropriate. He seems to think that we should all drop out of society, cash in everything we have into "tangibles" (bullets, beans, batteries, whatever) and move to "redoubt states" like Idaho to spend the rest of our days behind some barricades doing .... I don't know.

His steering of CP into his chosen direction is made all the worse by his fanatical cross-referencing and categorizing. This has put his writings "in your face" when people go to normal topics. For example:

*[[vibration]] used to be a short article explaining what wibration is—a rapid periodic undulating motion. TAR put it into the "VATA" category. When one looks around in same, one finds some new-age touchy-feely nonsense about psychological perceptions of vibration. He polluted [[Fashion industry values]] in the same way.

:: Dear [[User:SamHB|SamHB]], I will be adding some explanation to [[Fashion industry values]] and to my [[vata]] article to show that according to Ayurvedic medicine, patients who are "[[vata]]" disturbed or of a vata constitution have a very strong documented tendency to be part of much of the Fashion industry values, particularly [[anorexia nervosa]], serious [[drug abuse]], extreme [[promiscuity]], unfettered cosmetic surgery, severe [[depression]] along with an obsession for fashion.
One of my family members is a psychologist of 24 years who also knows Ayurveda and who has seen fashion industry values addictions among countless "vata" disturbed patients, but not among [[pitta]] or [[kapha]] patients who are more stable and not usually addicted to these same things. Sam, I shall be showing [[vibration]] to show a similar connection to the [[:Category:Vata]] both in Ayurveda, Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine. Perhaps SamHB it is best you stick with writing '''new''' useful articles on mathematics and calculus.
::Perhaps Sam you may want to considering following the wise advice of conservative [[User:VargasMilan]]: "Withholding judgment for now is good".
::Please be patient while I work on expanding articles and writing new content. Thank you. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:49, 5 January 2015 (EST)

*Similar irrelevant edits to [[Empirical science]], [[Natural Law]], [[Scientific observation]], [[Color]], [[Hopelessness]], [[Hearing_(sense)]], and [[Salt]].
:: Sam, in due time I shall expand these articles as well to show my reasoning. But for now I will follow my favorite CP Rule ([[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]]) and get back to work writing '''new''' content and will follow VargasMilan's advice below and try to not urgently "feel pressured to complete all the red links and for-now-obscure connections" "just because some people don't like" me "trying to be an effective voice for conservatism, and so they unfairly single" me "out." [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:26, 5 January 2015 (EST)

*Similar survivalist edits to [[Ruthenium]], [[Transformer]] (the electrical device), and [[Wire]] (the electrical conductor).
:: Dear [[User:SamHB|SamHB]], I corrected my accidental cut and paste of the Category:Survivalism on [[Ruthenium]] done when I first created the [[:Category:Precious Metals]] (
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Precious_Metals&action=history) on Dec. 4. Thanks for catching them SamB.
::I expanded the one sentence stub for transformer to include more content and formatting including its reason for being part of [[:Category:Survivalism]].
::Regarding the article [[Wire]] - was an article on expanded to include the electrical connector (it primary sense), since it formerly only described some Rock band Album (see
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wire&action=historysubmit&diff=1123057&oldid=1102092)
:: SamB, I think I will get back to making constructive edits and creating new content rather than hanging out on Talk pages. Good day. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:34, 5 January 2015 (EST)

*He has written extensively about [[amateur radio]], which, as an extra-class licensed ham, I think is fine. But the implication is that hams are just supposed to do this so they can communicate with each other "off the grid" in their "redoubts". I can assure everyone that the vast majority of hams (even those in call sign area 7) are fully engaged in society. We take emergency preparedness very seriously, of course, and have a big annual contest on this topic every year, but this is always done in cooperation with existing local, state, and federal emergency organizations. We have sub-organizations (ARES and RACES) dealing with this. We are very much on the grid and in society, and I object to the implication that we are not.
*His [[IP camera]] article, to pick just one of dozens of examples, links to [[Survivalist retreat]]. This is absurd.

In addition to his fanatical edits to Conservapedia articles that, by themselves, materially alter this site's direction, this huge web of interconnected categories and "see also"s makes it impossible for readers to escape his actions. This is significantly worse than what [[User:Conservative]] has been doing because, in the latter case, one simply needs to ignore any article with "hot button" phrases like "obesity", "evolutionism", "creationism", "atheism", "ponies", "walrus slides", and "long-haired creationist ladies". It's much much harder to escape from [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]]'s behavior.

I urge the administrators to put a stop to this. The rest of us simply can't do it.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:08, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:SamHB, I did a Google search of instances of the phrase "long-haired" on Conservapedia and none of the instances were done by the User: Conservative account. Are you jealous because you suspect that an editor of the User: Conservative account has a long-haired maiden as a sweetheart and you do not? :)

:::Try [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/120#please_make_a_cost.2Fbenefit_analysis_in_terms_of_human_welfare]]. It has "long haired, sweet and gentle Christian lady wife", no hyphen. Sorry. Anyway, I'm glad that at least one of you (male, I hope!) has "a long-haired maiden as a sweetheart". [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 16:53, 4 January 2015 (EST)

:Second, the odds of you being listened to by Aschlafly in terms of suggestions/complaints, etc. would go dramatically up if you created more content. Right now, I think the odds are pretty much zero given your level of content creation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:21, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:::I agree that the odds are nearly zero, but not for the reason you give. My history as a constructive contributor of long standing is well known to Andy. But thanks for your words of encouragement. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 16:53, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:: Quote Right now, I think the odds are pretty much zero given your level of content creation. Doesn't mean SamHB is not right though. The edits from the redoubt are so obviously either parody or highly biased POV pushing that it is difficult to argue otherwise. Woo is not encyclopedic, no matter who peddles the woo. Now I leave both redoubt and the collective known as User:Conservative to indulge in last wordism. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:35, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:::Oh, and if the collective editors of the User:conservative account have a long haired maiden as a sweetheart then I would question how multiple people having the same sweetheart is in any way Christian? Seems more liberal hippy type behaviour to me. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 4 January 2015 (EST)
::::DavidSpenceer, you may believe that deceitful accusations based on altering the meaning of other people's words is clever. It is not. And it makes the accuser look bad. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:::::That is not what I was doing and you know it. Luke 4:23 Now, as I said I will leave you and redoubt to indulge in last wordism at this point.[[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 16:17, 4 January 2015 (EST)
DavidSpencer, I think posting long screeds to a person who is known to preferring brevity and doing it in a context that has an effective success rate is zero is irrational. But hey, that's just me! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 4 January 2015 (EST)

Is there a specific objection to a specific edit? I looked at [[transformer]], for example, and did not see anything objectionable about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 4 January 2015 (EST)

:I believe the objection was to the addition of the Survivalism category. If transformers are important to Survivalism, then it would be difficult to name a practical object that doesn't deserve inclusion in that category. [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 00:09, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:: I updated the [[Transformer#Transformers_During_an_EMP_or_CME|transformer]] article to reflect why I included it in the [[:Category:Survivalism]]. Thank you for pointing it out. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 01:54, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:: Thanks [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] for your observations. Each item I put in the [[:Category:Survivalism]] will have expanded, footnoted content added to the article to justify its inclusion in this broad Survivalism category. For now, please be patient with it. Unless [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] objects to the content. I will be, in due time, reasonably justifying it with actual expanded content that respects copyright. Please see: [[Talk:Fair_use#Authorization_by_NYT_Best-Selling_Conservative_Christian_Preparedness_Author_James_Wesley_Rawles_to_use_.22up_to_3_Quotes_of_800_Words_Each.22_of_his_Writings_per_CP_Article]]. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:26, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:::SamHB and AlexanderS are worried that there are 404 articles and 125 subcategories in [[:Category:Survivalism]] now. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:35, 5 January 2015 (EST)

I am sure that SamHB has a better list, but you can review the user TAR contrib log for yourself:

A. Categories on Redirect Pages (he has promised to stop, but has not fixed):
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nonviolence&diff=prev&oldid=1128854 diff]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Unfree_state&diff=prev&oldid=1129151 Unfree state redirect categories subject of an edit war with SamHB, when nobody will ever see the redirect page]
B. Excessive See Alsos:
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=28_U.S.C._%C2%A7_453&action=historysubmit&diff=1128848&oldid=910327 what does 28 U.S.C. 453 have to do with the "Oath of the Hindu Physician"?]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Basil&diff=prev&oldid=1128985 Basil]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Priest&diff=prev&oldid=1128857 Priest]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pathology&action=historysubmit&diff=1128356&oldid=908582 Pathology] - also odd categories
C. Copy and Paste:
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tinospora_cordifolia&diff=next&oldid=1128194 SamHB called for a speedy delete] but this is obviously now a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tinospora_cordifolia&action=historysubmit&diff=1128974&oldid=1128895 derivative work with minor rephrasing]
*[[M.D._Creekmore]] from [http://www.thesurvivalistblog.net/about3/]
D. Odd new categories:
* [[:Category:Breathing]] - now 5 martial arts articles have been added but the see also and subcategories don't match the martial arts.
* [[:Category:Respiratory System]] - a bit of back and forth between TAR and SamHB - the 12 articles in this category don't match the ideas added by TAR.
E. Adding novel categories to long-standing articles:
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vibration&action=historysubmit&diff=1127925&oldid=519263 Category Vata to Vibration]
* Due to TAR's massive efforts, there are now 404 articles in [[:Category:Survivalism]] as well as 125 subcategories, including [[:Category:Fruits]]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Inspiration&curid=117861&diff=1129179&oldid=945211 Category Breathing to Inspiration]
F. Sloppy linking:
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Free_States_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=1124521 see also reference to "Cumberland Redoubt" is linked to a CP article about a geographical portion of England, which was not what TAR intended]

G. Unilaterally modifying our legal disclaimer framework
* {{Tl|Medical Notice}} - unlike our general legal disclaimer, TAR's wording implicitly promises that CP articles will be reviewed by experts in the future and that CP will implement a certification program to show which articles have past a review. It implies that a nurse or herbalist have as much expertise as a doctor. A lot more discussion and review should occur before this template is put into article space. TAR has already deployed it at: [[Medication]], [[:Category:Food as Medicine]], [[Ocimum sanctum]], [[Withania somnifera]], [[Embilica officinalis]], and [[Tinospora cordifolia]].
::: I have modified my rough draft [[Template:Medical Notice]] to be more generic. I have now linked the template clearly to the official CP legal disclaimer ([[Conservapedia:General_disclaimer]]). Please feel free to edit the template. But I do think we need a specific medical disclaimer template like the rough draft one I created. This is why I attached it to my several rough drafts he astutely cited above. Please see [[Template_talk:Medical_Notice]] [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:56, 5 January 2015 (EST)
::::With utmost respect, {{Tl|Medical Notice}} should not be put into article space as a "rough draft". Create a page at [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt/Medical Notice]] for the rough draft and then invite other people to edit it with you. Once there is agreement and editors who are lawyers have had a chance to review it, then we will have the go ahead to add {{Tl|Medical Notice}} into articles. Also, interweaving this discussion in the middle of my earlier posting msy confuse other readers. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:30, 5 January 2015 (EST)

I don't want to come across as negative, but there have been a lot of edits from TAR without people taking the time to train him properly. We need you to set the standard so that the end product will meet our consensus expectations. Many thanks! [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:05, 5 January 2015 (EST)

Please see my response to TAR's questions about categories [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category_talk%3AExercise&action=historysubmit&diff=1129321&oldid=1129307 here].

==Withholding judgment for now is good==

The American Redoubt's proving the relevance of [[Transformer]] to survivalism as we speak. I don't agree with every cross-reference he added, but I don't want him to feel pressured to complete all the red links and for-now-obscure connections he made immediately just because some people don't like him trying to be an effective voice for conservatism, and so they unfairly single him out. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:55, 5 January 2015 (EST)

:::Thank you VargasMilan for your kind and inspiring words amidst the loud noise and shock coming from the transformer. :) I will follow your advice and focus on the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]] [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:56, 5 January 2015 (EST)

::I think that if you read User talk:TAR, you will see that everyone is trying to be respectful and constructive. I have also left my comments on the recent [[Transformer]] edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Transformer&oldid=1129177 here]. (His additions go to the question of grid reliability, not the question of whether someone '''should''' go off the grid.) The problem is that CP has a traditional view of conservatism. We need Andy to tell us where to go on non-Western medicine and survivalism. In general, I know a lot about law and social order and the electric industry. <s>I am not an expert in living as a mountain man in a post-civilization world.</s> I am not an expert in non-Western medicine. So, if we go in those new avenues, I would step back from the project. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 02:32, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:::Each time you commented about The American Redoubt's present shortcomings in completeness, you reproduced the section title "This Site Is Being Hijacked" in the edit summary. For someone who claims to know so much about transformers, you didn't seem to realize that you could have been administering to The American Redoubt quite a shock! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:47, 5 January 2015 (EST)
::::I did not name that discussion heading, but that is where Andy asked for specific links. Please look at the user talk page. I believe we must be positive and encouraging to new editors, but we have asked Andy for guidance for five days now. This is like Humpty Dumpty - each hour of indecision creates more and more clean up work. Everyone involved has been very polite, but TAR is pressing ahead full steam rather than consulting and soliciting feedback in an incremental, consensus building way. It is too bad that the Style Manual is protected. Otherwise, I would add further guidance about "see also" lists and categories. Many people come here after using Wikipedia, so they understand the concepts, but TAR is going off in his own direction. Similarly, the Style Manual needs to be clarified on what content should go on a category page and that categories should not be assigned to a redirect page. Thanks! [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:19, 5 January 2015 (EST)
The [[Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages|Manual of style]] page is now unprotected. After reasonable changes have been made to Manual of Style (which are not overly restrictive), ask an Admin to protect the page again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:31, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:I'm done. Please look it over and protect. Many thanks. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:04, 5 January 2015 (EST)
::The edits looked practical. I protected the article again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:24, 5 January 2015 (EST)
::: Looks great [[User:Wschact]]. Thanks for putting it in writing for newer editors who don't know the unwritten policies of the past. I will do my best to follow it. See my responses to your appreciated and polite mentoring over at [[Category_talk:Exercise]]. It's great Wschact that you are pleasantly civil and don't use words like "Rubbish!" and "Hideous!" as you delete my edits without even a Talk Page comment like a certain Expat American from the liberal bastion of Massachusetts. :-) [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]]
::::People are telegraphic and brief in edit summaries. SamHB and others all want CP to be a good resource, and for editors to work well together. The problem is that some people amp up their word choice when they feel that they are being ignored. You cannot finish CP in one day, so don't feel as if we are putting pressure on you. Just focus on one or two things at a time and give people an idea of where you are trying to go. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 17:02, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:::::The abolitionist [[Harriet Tubman]] declared: "I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if they only knew they were slaves." If only SamHB would be open-minded enough to recognize the truth of TheAmericanRedoubt's [[Essay:Free States Movement|essay on unfree states]]. Then he could escape the taxation scourge and big government scourge of Massachusetts that are robbing him of his economic freedom and other liberties! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:41, 5 January 2015 (EST)
Wschact, your "mountain man"/"outside my expertise"/"I'll have to step away from the project" comment is not conducive to building an encyclopedia.

Encyclopedias are broad based reference works. They don't solely cover urban living for example and can cover such topics as eskimos, Middle Eastern and African nomadic life, Australian aboriginal life, anarchy in Somalia, etc. If we wanted a project which solely covered your expertise such as law and social order in first world countries or the electric industry, it would stop being an encyclopedia.

If someone wants to create a wiki called UrbanWhiteLiberalElitePedia.org, I have no problem with that, but it will not be a very encyclopedic work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 12 January 2015 (EST)

On January 12, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] left a message on my talk page about a sentence that I posted above on 02:32, 5 January 2015 (EST). Basically, I argue that being a Conservative means working within society to build a social structure that promotes individual freedom and liberty while using government in a prudent fashion when necessary. I feel that certain extreme people are trying to scare prospective followers into leaving society '''now''' to live alone in a lightly populated area outside of the fabric of society. (This is a separate question from being prepared should society fail due to some crisis or catastrophe.) A conservative perspective should help us learn how to live together with wisdom, rather than endorse a viewpoint that assumes that society will fall apart completely very soon. So, I enthusiastically endorse covering '''all''' human knowledge including mountains, eskimo culture, and even guns. However, under Conservapedia Commandment #5, those article should be written without bias, including bias that advocates that people should leave society '''now''' to anticipate the imminent collapse of American society. I am sorry if my remarks were not clear. I know we both believe in Conservapedia Commandment #5 and don't see any difference in our policy objective. I am putting my energy into building a better encyclopedia within a constantly improving American society, rather than advocating a withdrawal from society based on the assumption that American society will fail soon. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:36, 12 January 2015 (EST)
:Did the 1929 Great Depression in the USA happen unexpectedly to many people? Did many people experience great hardship during the Great Depression? Has the US government, which is 13 trillion dollars in debt and engaged in a lot of money printing, nullified the business cycle and immune from the laws of economics? Are there reputable economists who believe that very seriously harmful, black swan events can still happen to modern economies?[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703791804575439562361453200][http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/01/08/how-falling-oil-prices-makes-a-black-swan-event-more-likely/] Did liberal economist community predict the 2007 economic crisis or did the conservative [[Austrian School of Economics|Austrian school of economics]] much better predict it?[http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMAM1_96GSc] Which liberal economics department at a major university predicted the 2007 economic downturn and made a public announcement beforehand? Is the correct answer none of them did? Are many Austrian economists predicting an extremely serious economic downturn? Are there respected financial analysts (often from the Austrian school) with strong track records predicting an extremely serious US economic downturn?[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e8GMfjgE58]

:Does Conservapedia have a worldwide audience? Is English fluency common in the world? Are most Christian conservatives outside the [[Western World]] (see: [[Global Christianity]])? Are conditions often difficult in developing countries where many Christian conservatives live and would survival skills be useful to these people?

:Are you saying that the devout Christians who witnessed the fall of the Roman Empire were not Christian conservatives? Are you saying that the devout Christians who witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union and experienced significant hardship were not Christian conservatives (when the fall of the Soviet Union occurred some people could not get their insulin, etc. etc.)?

:Would the people of New Orleans who experienced Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath have been better of if they had some survival skills or were they better off relying on big government? Were the [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/lingering_lakeeffect_snow_questions.html 13 people of the 2014 NY State blizzard] who were stranded on the NY State thruway who died better off relying on the liberal Cuomo administration's judgment on when the thruways should be kept open and not shut down for safety reasons or would they have been better off having some survival skills and preparation (weather radio, arctic sleeping bad in their car trunk, etc. etc.)?

:Could survival skills have been helpful to the people who died in the Ferguson riots?

:If one person read about some survival skills from a Conservapedia article and saved their life as a result, would it have been worth it? :)

:There is more in heaven and earth, Wschact, than is dreamt of in your liberal, urbanite/suburban philosophy. :)

:"Be prepared." - USA Boy Scout Motto

:"But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come." - The Apostle Paul

:The 4 Gs: God, gold, guns and a getaway plan! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:17, 12 January 2015 (EST)

::will the users of the conservative account continue to not use the show preview button? Will Karajou and Andy continue to ignore user requests with comment? Will the users of the conservative account continue to berate other users for having multiple people using one account? Will the users of the conservative account continue to pretend that Karajou and Andy actually speak to them? -[[User:RalphWi|RalphWi]] 00:14, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:::The users of the User: Conservative have never pesterfested anyone at CP! A user of the User: Conservative account got RobSmith banned for pesterfesting among other sins. If he hadn't pesterfested, he might still be an Admin.

:::Will the liberal, urbanite/suburban, pesterfester Wsachat be next to get the axe or will he take the hint and stop pesterfesting TheAmericanRedoubt? A user of the User: Conservative account knows that some of Wschat's pesterfesting is ideologically driven and uncalled for. In addition, his liberalism and ignorance of history/economics driven disdain for TheAmericanRedoubt (which inspired his "mountain man" cultural/economics myopia) caused him to have a less than a cooperative spirit. This must change and will not be tolerated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:32, 13 January 2015 (EST)

==Quality over speed==
I realize that [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] has a lot of energy and wants to add a lot of material to Conservapedia. However, we value quality over speed. For example, today we have a brand new article [[CETME‎]]. It appeared nine minutes after TAR's edit to a different article. If I understand correctly, this article is a 45 word cut and paste from the "Survivor Blog" (according to footnote 1). The article then has a See also section and Further reading section to two of James Wesley Rawles books. The new article gives the overall impression that if you want to know about a Spanish manufacturer of army rifles, Rawles is the expert. I find that difficult to believe.

: Dear [[User:Wschact]], you may find that hard to believe, because you haven't read those books. I have read at least 15 minutes per day of his SurvivalBlog articles daily for about 6 years. That's more than 500 hours more of reading of just his Survival Blog which contains a LOT of firearms articles. I read/listen to about 1.5 hours a day from about 5 other firearms and survival blogs/podcasts. I can safely say that he, [[Jack Spirko]] and [[Boston T. Party]] are indeed respected firearms people. Have you read those two books? I have, several times for the 2009 one. Mr. Rawles is indeed an "expert" on them, as much as anyone else I have read writing generally about firearms. I will add additional material at a later date from [[Boston T. Party]]'s [[Boston's Gun Bible]].
:I think we have a 90/10 issue here and I am starting to spend as much time defending my edits/articles as I am making edits.
:I have been working on these offline in MS Word as you suggested and pasting them onto CP. You asked me to do that rather than write it online as lots of drafts. There is not a lot to say about these things unless you are a [[gun enthusiast|"gut nut"]] like me. I am writing them for a basic audience like a new gun owner, not a highly technical one and not with huge amounts of extraneous details like Wikipedia. The gentleman "doth protest too much, methinks" [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

I would suggest that an editor should take more than 11 minutes to write a new CP article.
: See above response. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

When I write an article, I look for two or more independent, reliable sources.
: I did and do. Have you read my sources? I have. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

I then write the article using my own words because I don't want Conservapedia to necessarily or inadvertently adopt some other person's views as its own.
: No, they will adopt your views. I am relying on words from respected sources with permission. Would you like to e-mail him yourself to verify the permission? [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::Perhaps you should look for newspaper or magazine articles about CETME. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:31, 7 January 2015 (EST)

James Rawles' views on CETME are irrelevant, because there is no indication that he has given thought or study to this topic.
: I don't think you are qualified to make such a statement and are showing your bias now. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::With utmost respect, the topic is a Spanish gun manufacturer. Mr. Rawles may know a few of the products, but what does he know about the overall company and its history, structure, capabilities and ownership? How many CETME‎ factories did he visit or employees did he interview? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:31, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Further, when Rawles writes about some CETME products, it is incidental to his writing about survivalism and any article based on his writings will over-emphasize the relationship between those products and survivalism.
: Or not. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

If I were to write an article about a company, I would include where the company is located, how it got started and its subsequent history, its products and how those products have been received in the market place. Ownership and structure can also be important.
: Not for this article. Maybe for IBM, or Microsoft, but not CETME. I think you should go talk to a qualified "[[gun enthusiast|gun guy]]"[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:: I accept that a computer enthusiast would write about IBM or Microsoft and that a gun enthusiast will write about CETME. But a good article about ''any'' company would contain the items I listed above. Look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Gun_Company the Wikipedia article covering the Ithaca Gun Company]. It was probably written by a gun enthusiast, but it covered the company. Could you please write articles like that when you start articles about companies? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:38, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Writing a CP article takes more than 11 minutes and takes a bit of thought about the article's subject.
: I spend more time than that. Ibid [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

This is because CP's audience is different than the audience of the Survivor Blog, and a good author should ask himself "What would a CP user want to know about this subject?"
: I do. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Time is better spent producing 10 articles of a decent length, than creating 100 snippets as articles.
: Your opinion. There are thousands of very short one sentence place holder articles on CP. They serve a valid useful purpose. I have now spent more time defending my edits then is interesting for me. So I will continue doing what I am doing in terms of topics and current quality of work and time spent unless I am told to do otherwise by [[User:Aschlafly‎]], [[User:Karajou]], [[User:Conservative]]. Until I hear from admins telling me to stop what I have been working diligently on and that they consider it not useful to CP objectives and not fitting the CP audience of conservatives, who are generally not [[hoplophobia|hoplophobic]] as I begin to wonder if you are perhaps certain liberal editors here. But until then, "I'll stick to my guns" -- pun intended. :-)
::I am not biased against CETME. I am suggesting that if you want to write about CETME, you do an adequate job of it. If you don't think it is worthwhile to write about CETME, then don't wikilink to it in your other articles. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:31, 7 January 2015 (EST)

I hope this helps. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:46, 7 January 2015 (EST)
: You advice before on CP unwritten policy was helpful. This not so much. Thank you anyway. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:25, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Time is better spent producing 10 articles of a decent length, than creating 100 snippets as articles. I hope this helps. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:46, 7 January 2015 (EST)

: Again, your opinion. If I do what you want then [[User:AlanE]] will be upset at so many red links. Please see the myriad useful 1 paragraph articles I CP, many of which I have learned from. I will get back to 90-10 rule actual work now. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:25, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::AlanE has clarified his message further [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlanE&action=historysubmit&diff=1129929&oldid=1126708 here]. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:29, 7 January 2015 (EST)

:I have the same concern with the article [[G3]]. It also appears to be a 30 word quotation from Rawles, but the quotation marks are missing. It appeared 5 minutes after TAR's last edit to CETME. Isn't there a good source other than Rawles about this NATO battle rifle? Why was this article not entitled "Heckler and Koch G3"? (For a list of other meanings of G3, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G3) Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 04:01, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:: The gentleman "doth protest too much, methinks" [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::By the way, please look at the history of the G3 article which I didn't create... And you will see I improved it. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:27, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::On Internet [[forum]]s at this point, we have seen the word [[popcorn]] :-) Which by the way, Popcorn is a 24 word article. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:28, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:::Correct, the G3 article did exist before, but you overwrote the meager prior contents replacing it with a new version based on a 30 word quote from SurvivalBlog.
:::I have a concern with the article [[7.62x51mm NATO]]. Why was this article not entitled "7.62x51mm NATO rifle"? Again the quote should be in quotation marks. I think that when [[User:Conservative]] gave you a 2500 length guideline, he did not have in mind that most of the article would be See also, External references and Bibliography. When [[User:AlanE]] was discussing red links, I think that he thought that the red links would be eliminated by writing sound articles, not one sentence articles. Perhaps we should ask him for clarification. Cheers.[[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:18, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::::Micromanagement. Cheers? You must be British? [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 05:28, 7 January 2015 (EST)
If you go to the most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, AOL, Duck Duck Go, etc.) and query various topics, you will see in the top 10 search results decent size articles and not stub articles. Why? Because website visitors like more informative articles and not stub articles. The search engines are giving people what they want. If they didn't give people what they want, they would be out of business.

When the liberal ''LA Times'' gave a review of Conservapedia in its beginning stage, the reporter pointed out that Wikipedia had a lot more articles. So some Conservapedians went on a binge of creating stub articles. I was against this. Stub entries are fine for a dictionary, but not for an encyclopedia. And as I pointed out above, the public prefers more informative articles and not stub articles.

As far as Monday Night quarterbacking of articles in terms of the talk pages, if reasonable objections are raised, that is fine. But if it is largely a matter of liberal bellyaching due to their sacred cows being tipped over, then the author/authors of articles should not be obligated to engage in wheel spinning due to unreasonable liberal opponents of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:01, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:Thank you, Cons. One problem is that we patrol edits, and red flags should go up if there is a pattern of edits which raise reasonable objections. I agree that we are here to better serve our readers and to attract new readers. We are not under pressure to create one sentence articles. We developed our style manual because we are collectively being judged by our readers, who do not know who wrote which article. So, it is up to the patrolers to keep training all editors and push everyone toward compliance with Conservapedia's standards.

:Perhaps Conservapedia needs to establish a two-part strategy of recruiting more editors and then having a formal mentoring program to greet and train them when the new editors arrive. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:08, 7 January 2015 (EST)

== Window of opportunity for editing seems to be closing. What's going on? ==

The past 5 days while attempting to contribute additional information on the series of articles I have contributed on the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals of the Bible I have been startled and dismayed that the window of opportunity to make additional edits has been shortened.

Up to that point I have been able to begin at 08:30 and normally found the cut-off time for editing has been 02:30. Then, when I attempted to page preview about 8 hours work, believing that I would be able to further refine the text, the message that "you are not permitted" appeared about 22:35, 4 hours earlier than what had been normal (and which I had come to expect). I was able to return to the edit page I had been working on and leave it alone all night long until after 08:30, then continued editing it and finally submit it. It had taken a long time to complete. I'm glad it hasn't been altered.

I continued Monday 5th January with a brief period of editing to provide additional information to [[Book of Wisdom]] and successfully submitted it. But when I continued with [[Book of Sirach]] on Tuesday, the cut-off time was unexpectedly earlier at 18:35 hrs, 8 hours earlier than had been normal. So I returned to the edit page as it was and left it alone overnight until this morning with the computer still on. I copied it, then went to today's page, logged in, and replaced its text with the saved edit text pasted onto the page, and this was successful. Then I worked on it some more, adding some useful documentary links and then laboriously copied by hand, keyboarding from a book in the public domain two "Prologues" to the Book of Sirach, one of which is not available online (which is in an antique family Bible on display in my living room), and when I clicked "Preview", the message "you are not permitted" came up, and it was a real unexpected shock. This was at about 11:48 hours, almost '''15''' hours earlier than what had been usual. In attempting to printout the text I had edited (''without using the "copy" tools feature'') I lost about 2 hours work. I got some of it saved that way, but the majority of it was now lost, and I shall have to reconstruct it again later, if I can.

Is this circumstantial, because of the holiday season?, perhaps because most of the administrators are taking a break?, or is it because of cold weather issues with internet and web hardware interlinkages?

It is curious in the context of the above that I was able to successfully preview this query without getting the "you are not permitted" message.

So, What's going on here? Please let me know. I wish you well. ''Pax vobis'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 13:57, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::Contact the owner of the website at [[User talk:Aschlafly]] and briefly as possible explain the situation. In addition, ask for night editing rights. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:03, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:::Thanks, Conservative! I left a brief note with Andrew Schlafly, with convenient link back to this entry. Appreciate your recommendation for request night editing rights. ''Pax vobis''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 11:20, 9 January 2015 (EST)

==Glossary categories==
Conservapedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. There are a number of new categories being created such as: [[:Category:Firearms Glossary‎]], [[:Category:Preparedness Glossary‎]] and [[:Category:Military Glossary‎]] which would be better combined with [[:Category:Firearms]], [[:Category:Survivalism]] and [[:Category:Military‎]] respectively. It is not clear why any particular article would be in the Firearms category or its Glossary counterpart. I wanted to get the views of other editors before I combine them. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:31, 8 January 2015 (EST)

===Response to Wschact's Monday Night Quarterbacking===
What [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] said: (see also [[Category_talk:Firearms_Glossary]])
"Conservapedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Therefore it makes sense to have only one set of categories. All of the articles that would be placed in the "Firearms Glossary" category should be placed in the "Firearms" category. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:25, 8 January 2015 (EST)"

My final response:
Dear [[User:Wschact|Wschact]], I strongly disagree about the Categories I have created. Based on these words of support for my [[Firearms]]-[[Preparedness]] project from [[User:Conservative]]: [[User_talk:TheAmericanRedoubt#User:Conservative_OK_on_the_Addition_of_Preparedness.2FSurvivalism_and_Gun_Articles_on_CP]], I will be creating literally hundreds of articles on the the topic of firearms over the next few months. More than 50 in the next 2 weeks. And MANY of them will appropriately be initially short topics that will categorized under [[:Category:Firearms Glossary]] versus the broader [[:Category:Firearms]]. Otherwise [[:Category:Firearms]] will over time become too large like the [[:Category:History]].

These short articles will include items such as [[recoil compensators]], [[half-cock]], [[headspace]], [[IMR powder]], [[wildcat cartridge]], [[out-of-battery]], [[zero-in]], [[internal ballistics]], [[length of pull]], [[muzzle brake]], [[percussion cap]], [[trunnion]], [[Picatinny rail]], [[varmint rifle]], [[pump-action]], [[lever-action]], [[action (firearms)]], [[safety (firearms)]], [[trigger (firearms)]], [[hammer (firearms)]], [[stock (firearms)]], [[forearm (firearms)]], [[match grade]], [[rate of fire]], [[Red dot sight]], [[sabot]], [[sawed-off shotgun]], [[semi-wadcutter]], [[short-barreled rifle]], [[slamfire]], [[hangfire]], [[spitzer bullet]], [[swage]], [[telescoping stock]], [[hammer bite]], [[slide bite]], [[slide (firearms)]], [[frame (firearms)]], [[receiver (firearms)]], etc, etc. to name a few.

I have put a lot of thought and energy into this project to attract a different audience of conservatives to our beloved Conservapedia. I first learned of Conservapedia from a hyperlink from [[James Wesley Rawles]]. And his popular website ([[The_Survival_Blog#Strong_Advocate_of_Conservapedia_over_Wikipedia]]) with more than 80 million unique visits since July 2005 and more than 320,000 unique visits per week is very happy to more frequently link to us where possible, doing his best to avoid what frequently calls the "[[Wikipedia|LiberalPropagandaPedia]].

[[User:Wschact|Wschact]], regarding the rather long See Also's I created a few thousand edits ago when I was new to Conservapedia editing, please allow me to shorten them for you by creating collapsible bottom of page Navigation Bar templates. Please see: [[Template_talk:Firearms_topics]]] and [[Template_talk:Internet_security_topics]], etc.

{{Template:Firearms_topics}}

----

{{Template:Preparedness_topics}}

[[User:Wschact|Wschact]], perhaps you would please consider working on creating some '''new content''' yourself or on editing existing articles in a field in which you are "subject matter expert" rather than constantly nit-picking the guns, preparedness and computer security fields. Did you notice I didn't say [[Ayurvedic medicine]] or [[Traditional Chinese medicine]]. I have put those [[alternative medicine]] projects which so upset you on hold for a bit in order to wait and see what the CP Admins have to say or not say.

[[User:Wschact|Wschact]], if you kindly would let me focus and get back to lots of editing of the areas in which I have a good amount of knowledge and maybe you could then review my edits in 30 days and I will have a more open mind to your suggestions which at this point are not very constructive.

I think I will go back to the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]] rather than pay to much attention to "[[Liberal whining|squeaky wheel]]" noisy liberal and/or [[RINO]] [[liberal style]] critics here. Not to suggest that you are either of those since I don't know anything about you except for what you write here.

I will not be responding as often to your very frequent comments since it is beginning to take up an inordinate amount of time diplomatically answering then and justifying them compared to [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]].

I will quote [[User:Conservative]] to answer your continued attempted micro-management of so many of my contributions:
"As far as Monday Night quarterbacking of articles in terms of the talk pages, if reasonable objections are raised, that is fine. But if it is largely a matter of liberal bellyaching due to their sacred cows being tipped over, then the author/authors of articles should not be obligated to engage in wheel spinning due to unreasonable liberal opponents of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:01, 7 January 2015 (EST)"

This will be the last I shall write to you on these matters.
Again, I repeat, the gentleman "doth protest too much, methinks".

Why don't you please live the gun stuff to the [[gun enthusiast|"gun nuts"]]. :-)

Good day.
[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:35, 8 January 2015 (EST)
:This is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia as a group. We are writing a fair and factually accurate encyclopedia as a team. Our writing level is targeted to the reading skills and background of a high school age student. While we make a sincere effort not to step on each others toes, we work together and any of us is free to correct each other. Such changes are not to be taken as a personal affont, but rather as a good faith effort to improve the product. To the extent that I and other people have commented on TAR's contributions by name, this was in an effort to mentor a newcomer who still has a lot to learn about Conservapedia's writing style.

:It is too easy to dismiss valid criticism as "noisy liberal and/or RINO" comments. Anyone can see that the criticism has been about a lack of content or inaccurate content rather than the content being insufficiently liberal and/or RINO. It is impossible condemn criticism here as "micromanagement" because Conservapedia strives for accuracy and consistency. Some mistakes are small, but if repeated enough times can create big problems.

:We cannot stop editors from creating short articles, but we hope that the short stub articles will grow into more comprehensive ones. If you believe that an article will never grow beyond a short definition, then do not create a separate article for that subject. Instead, consider creating a single article entitled "Firmarm terminology" or "Firearm glossary".

:Our goal is not "to attract a different audience of conservatives to our beloved Conservapedia." Our goal is to attract the general public here and to provide them with the best possible content. If the content is good, then they will return and we will get more traffic. We also have a goal of attracting more editors, so using pejorative terms like "gun nuts" does not help on that front. We ask that when someone does join our editing team, they check their biases at the door but retain common sense in making this group effort a success. I will welcome the comments of other people on whether we want separate glossary categories. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:56, 8 January 2015 (EST)

==The Liberals smear campaign Won -- I now retire from editing Conservapedia==
I must say that the liberal smear campaign and relentless edits/deletions from 5 very loud CP liberal trolls / RINOs (besides the vociferous [[User:Wschact]], you know who you are and will be happy to know you have won) has been no fun. I am sad to say, it is much worse edit wars and liberal reverts than ''anything'' I contributed over the years to Wikipedia. Sorry [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:Conservative]] and [[User:Jpatt]], but I have lost the enthusiasm to continue contributing to CP in the face of this much liberal opposition. Thank you 3 for what you do for the conservative movement. I strongly suspect that the frequent sock puppet hacker-vandalist accounts were [[User:Wschact]] or one his friends using a VPN since all the vandals edits were directed to things he was revert warring with me over. God bless. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 02:26, 9 January 2015 (EST)

==User:Wschact's Stubborn Hounding: 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work out of 179 edits, 129 concern my edits ==

Between December 16 and January 8, out of 179 edits made by Wschact, 129 concern either Wschact rapidly changing my edits soon after I complete them / reverting them or complaining to the Community/Admins about my contributions. That is to say, 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work. That is a good example of being tenaciously hounded by strong opposition. Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Wschact

I didn't really want to put this part about Wschact on CP Talk pages or Community Portal since I don't want to further alienate him from me or make him more dogged in his pursuit of editing/patrolling/trolling my contributions. But his recent remarks to my "Retirement" posting, made me decide to mention these 72% statistics and to come out of "retirement". [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 19:42, 9 January 2015 (EST)

===Inspired by Karajou and User:Conservative to Not Retire due to User:Wschact' Dogged Hounding===
Dear Admins Karajou and Conservative

My biggest concern, that finally '''temporarily''' "took the wind out of my sails" and prompted me to '''temporarily''' retire as a contributor, is Wschact, who makes my Conservapedia contributions the subject of 72% of his edits over a 24 day period, as I will show below.

My biggest concern isn't SamHB who explained himself well here:http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB#.22Troll.22_Editing_by_User:SamHB_of_Numerous_articles_I_am_Working_on_.2F_Editing_.2F_Contributing, saying that "I promised that I would revert your things only once, and I mean it."

Nor is my concern AlanE's presumptuously slanderous race baiting comment here:
I first said to AlanE: "Please better to stop the "Revert War" (unless it is by an American CP administrator) and instead make comments and suggestions on this talk page for editing the material. "Free state" is a big topic in the American Conservative, Libertarian and Christian circles. The old meaning of Antebellum south is rarely used except among historians. I would be willing to move some of it to an essay, however, the majority of it matches conservative values. Please discuss in a civil way without using words like hideous, offensive, etc like User:SamHB used for the previous revert." TheAmericanRedoubt 02:57, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Alan rudely Ad hominem responded to me:
"Excuse the following...but I am cross, and Sam is I know to be a reasonable and intelligent man - and a friend.... Obviously I can't win against someone who probably sits at his computer for hours on end with an assault rifle beside him with one eye out the window just hoping that some one who is black or jewish or liberal will put a foot onto his property so that he can shoot them. What larks!! (Pip old chap)). I won't go on because I see you are like those I occasionally met in the old days in Outback pubs who felt naked without their firearms and were usually relieved of their ammunition before the publican would serve them a beer. Cheers mate." AlanE 04:06, 17 December 2014 (EST)" Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Free_state
I decided to simply ignore AlanE since that was the last I heard of him.

What finally '''temporarily''' took the remaining "wind out of my sails" is Wschact’s almost month-long dogged efforts:
I assert that between December 16 and January 8, out of 179 edits made by Wschact, 129 concern either Wschact rapidly changing my edits soon after I complete them / reverting them or complaining to the Community/Admins about my contributions. That is to say, 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work. That is a good example of being tenaciously hounded by strong opposition. Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Wschact

Here http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany#Interpretation_of_copyright_policy
Wschact doesn't even know the difference between 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge/ammunition and a "7.62x51mm NATO rifle" and hence wrongly insisting that the Admins move 7.62x51mm NATO to "7.62x51mm NATO rifle". And the so-called copyright issues he brings are been handled by MLA citations/references/bibliography and [[fair use]].

I made more than 1000+ small edits on CP for several months before contributing much of anything original to be sure that I got a feel for the actual format, content, categories, see also's, stubs or lack of stubs, politics, guidelines, etc. I also wanted to make sure that my edits proved to the CP admins that I am sincere and trustworthy, not a troll or parodist. Then in late November when my sabbatical began I begin much more extensive CP contributions. That was when on December 16 I can on the Wschact radar scope.

I was asked by one JoeyJ (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TheAmericanRedoubt&oldid=1130110#Orphaned_Pages) to deorphan pages which I then began to do. But the edits I make to de-ophan them by adding them appropriately to a See Also or a wiki link within the article were getting frequently deleted by Wschact. This happened a lot. He would keep saying I am violating the CP policy.

Over the next few months while I am taking a sabbatical from my work, I have a lot of time/energy/knowledge to contribute to CP generating new content. Alas, at the moment I am feeling too harassed by their constant rapid nit-picking and having to 10/90 Talk Page explain my every step versus doing 90/10 actual article work. I've never experienced this before in an online Wiki or forum community, I am sad to say. Even on Wikipedia, I would get at least a few days to a week to perfect a short article or a contribution to one before the liberal vultures would swoop in to eat it up (if they did even). Because CP is a much smaller community of editors, they give me no time to improve upon my work before they come in and revert/delete. It's truly demoralizing/intimidating for a new editor. I don't know what else to say. I feel CP is an amazing voice for our American conservative movement, but I didn't know it would have so many fast-moving critics/deleters/reverters against anything I contribute in the realm of firearms or survivalism/preparedness articles. Yet they were against much on complementary medicine and amateur radio as well.

It's funny, the ONLY contributions of mine that the liberal/RINO editors didn't touch were the Buddhist articles. I think that is because most liberals like Buddhism. Although Catholic, I formally studied comparative religions and CP's Buddhist and Hindu articles are very slim at the moment, so I have much to add there as well. But again, at the moment, I am becoming "gun shy" with their liberal/RINO sights all aimed at me now, especially on http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal.

[[Persistence]] is a virtue, as Calvin Coolidge said:

:"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.
:Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
:Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
:Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
:The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

Thank you for listening. Any advice or encouragement would be appreciated.

[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 19:42, 9 January 2015 (EST)

:Your sheer volume of edits has the liberals worried. Since they can't take CP down, they need to force out productive members. Improving CP is against their interests. Every edit is a poke in their eye. Stay the course and keep on trucking. Good work!--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 9 January 2015 (EST)

:: Roger that [[User:Jpatt]]! The encouraging words are sincerely appreciated. My sails now have full wind in them again and I added a backup [[generator]] just in case so I can stay the course amidst the gusty liberal winds that try to sink the ship. I feel supported now in adding lots of firearms articles. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 23:25, 9 January 2015 (EST)

:::Lock and load! And keep your powder dry and don't let the liberals rain on it. :) If SamHB behaves rudely, tell Karajou and he will straighten him out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:10, 10 January 2015 (EST)

::::What is this? A mixed metaphor competition? And Cons. If you are going to invoke Oliver Cromwell, it's load and lock. (I struggled against the thought that you might be going off half cocked.) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:56, 10 January 2015 (EST)
::::::''This thread seems to be in two places; here, and in TAR's talk page.''

::JPatt: You have always been fair-minded in your dealings with me, but I think you are falling into a rhetorical trap in your comments above about liberals:

:::Your sheer volume of edits has the liberals worried. Since they can't take CP down, they need to force out productive members. Improving CP is against their interests. Every edit is a poke in their eye.

::The rhetorical trap is conflating anyone who disagrees with oneself as a "liberal". It is a very common fallacy here at CP. What you said about liberals may well be true, but the context suggests that you are applying it to the 5 people that TAR is complaining about. (I assume the 5 are myself, Wschact, AugustO, PhilH, and AlanE.) I don't think the things you said above about liberals apply to all of us. We are not forcing out productive members; in fact, I have just been forced out, complete with extremely explicit block threats (above and below) by Cons. Improving CP is not, and has never been, against my interests.

::I believe that abhorrence of treason is a very conservative value. I abhor treason, and I take accusations that my home state is treasonous and unconstitutional very seriously. Yet this accusation has been put back in, and there is nothing I can do about it except leave. My rude language was because of that abhorrence.

::I believe that CP's presentation on relativity is in good condition, so no further editing on my part will be necessary. I will leave now. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:44, 10 January 2015 (EST)

:::::''Some material here, being about SamHB personally, and various disagreements with him personally, has been moved to his talk page, [[User_talk:SamHB#Material_moved_from_the_Community_Portal]]. It is not relevant to Conservapedia generally. As the person who initiated the use of this page to discuss matters of general interest to the Conservapedia community, I feel a certain responsibility to keep the discussions on topic.'' [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:22, 11 January 2015 (EST)

==Interesting article==
While researching this topic, I came across an interesting article from the Chicago Tribune from 2011 at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-11/health/ct-met-nccam-overview-20111211_1_cancer-treatment-alternative-medicine-breast-cancer-researcher
:In traditional/folk medicine there is a strain of thought based on practicality and treatments working for families/communities/societies over a long time. On the other hand, there is another strain based on New Age impractical ideas and other impractical ideas.

:In Western medicine, there is a problem with greed/fraud and the strength of marketing campaigns/market position (industry leaders with name recognition and a strong brand are hard to combat) winning the day instead of an objective cost/benefit analysis. Plus, the case of Ignaz Semmelweis (he proposed that doctors wash their hands due to its beneficial effects and was met by fierce opposition) shows that errant tradition (we have always done it this way) rather than objective criteria does happen within Western medicine. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:30, 11 January 2015 (EST)

== Subject matter expert in electromagnetism ==

I notice the recent creation of the [[Lenz's Law]] page. This really isn't encyclopedic—people aren't going to come away with the feeling that CP is a source of good information on the topic. I think there may be a connection with the Meissner effect and with "eddy currents". Does anyone know about this?

Is there someone with the knowledge, expertise, wherewithal, and motivation who can put together a good explanation? I think it would make fascinating reading if done well. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:14, 13 January 2015 (EST)
==Response to [[User:Conservative]]'s January 13 question==
[I struck out my Jan 5 sentence above before Cons left his Jan 13 posting immediately above.] Conservapedia faces a number of challenges in attracting readers and maintaining viability (and beyond that thriving). On the one hand, Cons is correct that there have been some vandals and "parodists" like Markman who have wasted our time and chased some valuable editors away. On the other hand, bad writing, inconsistent format, and other technical glitches undermine our credibility and discourage readers from returning. So, what we need (and what I have done) is to work '''here for years''' on cleaning up after vandals as well improving the writing quality and consistency of style. Of course I have also added a ton of content. If Cons wants to identify "enemies of Conservapedia", he should be equally on the lookout for vandals, parodists and poor writing that does not meet our style guide. I agree that generally people should not hover over or smother other editors while they are working. I am giving TAR more space to learn. Yet, because this wiki is a '''group collaboration''', I expect people to come along and edit what I wrote last week, and everyone else here expects that I will edit what they wrote. The best of the public will produce a coherent whole from the collaboration. (By the way, I do not have any "distain" for TAR and respect his wide variety of interests and background.) Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:01, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:Three points: 1) TheAmericanRedoubt said some of your edits related to his were helpful. But the sheer volume of them were uncalled for. 2) Your "mountain man" comment reeks of disdain. There is no hiding it. Best to admit it and move on. The same liberal elitist attitude could be said of your absolutist stance against traditional medicine given that many people of modest means throughout the world depend on it and common things like turmeric/ginger have been scientifically shown to benefit people medicinally without toxic side effects (I recognize traditional medicine has its problems, but so does Western medicine so good judgement needs to be used by consumers. Conservatives believe in giving adult consumers choices. It ultimately comes down to a cost/benefit/toxicity/"willingness to risk" decision. Japanese consumers, who tend to be more health conscious than many cultures, use highly advanced Western medicine and often use traditional medicine too and there life expectancy is 5 years longer than Americans). 3) Some of your reversions were ideologically based and uncalled for. One way or another, this is going to stop. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:21, 13 January 2015 (EST)
::Wschact, it's not your job to edit out conservatism, which is what I and other people here have seen you doing. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:24, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:::Cons: I withdrew the comment at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=1131542&oldid=1131537 22:34 12 January] so let's move on. Let's wait for Andy to decide the medicine question or whether Conservapedia embraces a [[Dystopia]] vision. Vargas: I would never intentionally "edit out conservatism". Perhaps we have different ideas of what good writing requires. I take item #5 of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]] seriously: "We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts." Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:48, 13 January 2015 (EST)
::::Wschact sometimes (not always) has an arrogant attitude hidden under a veneer of politeness. If something falls out of his area of expertise and he is against it, well it has to be reverted. I demonstrated above that his knowledge of economic history and economics is quite limited. In addition, he has a disdain for those outside of cities/suburbia or he never would have used the term "mountain man". I am not saying he cannot change his attitude, but there is definitely a problem. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:58, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:::::Preparedness is not synonymous with dystopian. People can have sizable amounts of precious metals in their portfolios for example, but still own stocks. You can have an emergency kit in your car without thinking that sooner or later you are going to get into a very serious accident. You are setting up a false dichotomy. In addition, it is possible for an encyclopedia to cover survivalism in an objective manner. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:06, 13 January 2015 (EST)
::::::With due respect, the statement in question, which I withdrew hours ago was, "I am not an expert in living as a mountain man in a post-civilization world." It was a statement of self-depreciation and modesty in recognition of my own limitations, not one of arrogance. I do not want to plan for a post-civilization dystopia but rather I want conservative principles applied to American society. I and other conservatives believe in America and its ability to overcome any challenge. A small faction is trying to bet against American society surviving and to profit from its downfall. I sense that you agree with my side of this bet, and you agree that my remarks about dystopia were not directed toward preparedness. (The Scout motto is "Be Prepared.") Let's move on. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 02:18, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:::::::The alternative/traditional medicine decision has already been decided. I suggested that TheAmericanRedoubt compromise by not adding ayurvedic medicine content and he is amenable to this. Second, I already know beforehand that your acts of illegitimate behavior towards TheAmericanRedoubt will cease one way or another. I am hoping that things are done in the most harmonious way possible. Hopefully, you take the hint and act in a more productive manner. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:37, 13 January 2015 (EST)
If memory serves, and it may not, I have the impression from your main page talk comments that you are a liberal/moderate. And VargasMilan indicated that you are attempting to edit out conservatism from Conservapedia. I said my piece. I am also willing to move on. I don't believe in holding grudges. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:46, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:One other matter: Not all Conservapedians are American. Admin Joaquin is Mexican for example. And Conservapedia has content that covers areas outside of the USA. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:01, 13 January 2015 (EST)
::We agree on non-American conservatives, and we agree that Survivalism can be covered objectively on Conservapedia. The reason I focused on the American context above is that society in some foreign countries have indeed collapsed, but that America is exceptional and we should not bet on an American collapse. Also, although I may be more moderate than some people, I am certainly '''not a liberal'''. Perhaps some of my libertarian views might create that mis-impression. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:09, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:Not hoping for America to collapse and it has a lot of tangible/intangible assets. And even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia did not turn into a third world nation. Second, no doubt many dominant players on the world stage who collapsed thought they were exceptional before they fell. Success followed by complacency is a common human failing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:26, 13 January 2015 (EST)

==Temporary 7 Day Ban: WShact again removing Conservative POV material from Survival/Firearm Related Articles==
Dear [[User:Jpatt]] and [[User:Karajou]], I would appreciate your help on addressing Wshact issue again this since [[User:Conservative]] told me to talk to you since he is temporarily busy on off-Wiki related business. Thank you again.

Instead of contributing new material, I again have had to spend significant time restoring the diverse conservative point of view topics/materials that WShact continues to remove/delete/subtly edit out from [[:Category:Survivalism]] and firearms, Second Amendment related articles. [[The Survival Blog]] articles in particular took 30 minutes to restore material deleted by Wshact from his numerous small edits (so they couldn't be easily reverted). I had to spend time removing Wshact's biased (and improperly formatted resulting in a reference error) source/ref from a biased competing commercial website rather than unbiased actual Alexa site reference. http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:The_Survival_Blog#WShact_again_removing_Conservative_POV_material_from_Survival.2FFirearm_Related_Articles
[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:47, 13 January 2015 (EST)

In re-reviewing Wschact's continued harassment of Survivalism-Prepper-Firearms articles under the guise of making lots of small improvements to the article (which cannot be easily reverted). I realized Wshact, under the guise of reorganizing the article and putting it in the active voice instead of passive voice, has again deleted significant conservative point of view content. It was to hard to continue trying to restore the vandalized article. Thus I had to restore my original version of the article.

Dealing with this whole affair of continued harassment has just cost me 1 hour of my time that I had budgeted to spend contributing new firearms content.

In response to Wshact's continued harassment despite repeated warnings, I am temporarily banning him for 7 days. Admins who have been involved in correcting Wshact's aggressive behavior, please correct the ban time if appropriate. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:11, 13 January 2015 (EST)

===My comments===
From what I have seen so far, user Wschact has taken it upon himself to follow TAR on this site, either in removing material previously posted or taking actual control of particular pages away from him. This raises a serious problem as to the subject of collaboration between individuals - which has been stated by Wschact several times that that is what his intention is. What I am seeing instead is a typical tactic used in Wikipedia when an editor takes over someone else's project, then blames the original editor for being uncooperative; tells the the original editor that he cannot "own" the page, but takes control of the page away from him in such a manner that he is the new "owner" of it. That is a tactic which has no business within this website, and it is not going to be tolerated here.

<s>So, what will happen is this: persons who originate/create pages will be allowed to finish them, unmolested. Anyone else who wishes to contribute to the page concerned will ask the creator of the page first; or leave pertinent, additional information on the talk page; or do nothing more than simple grammar/spell check. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:44, 13 January 2015 (EST)</s>

:*Most of us look regularly at [[Special:RecentChanges]] to see where the action is.
:*The number of [[Special:WantedPages]] has increased sharply to 2,500 - mainly due to the actions of "TAR". [[User:Conservative]] wrote on Jan 11: "''I contacted TheAmericanRedoubt. The red link invasion will stop. :) '', but this was just an empty promise, see e.g., [[Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists]] written on Jan 12.
:*"TAR" tends to include both categories and their sub-categories into articles, as well as unnecessary doublings like [[:Category:Conservative Blogs]] and [[:Category:Conservative Bloggers]] (only one of those will ever be appropriate). I've tried to clean-up such instances, but I get [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Wesley_Rawles&curid=64196&diff=1131716&oldid=1131300 reverted].
:*At the moment, there are more then 10 red links to essays at [[Conservapedia:Essays]], announcing future projects of "TAR". Why?
:The points above have nothing to do with the content of "TAR"'s contributions, he is just disrupting the very structure of this wiki. If you have a bull on speed in a china-shop, it doesn't matter much whether he is well-meaning or malevolent.
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:18, 13 January 2015 (EST)

::After some thought, I am rescinding the above. It prevents people from openly cooperating in a voluntary manner, and that's what I'd rather have. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:20, 14 January 2015 (EST)
==== I contacted TheAmericanRedoubt about the red link situation ====
Two things:

1. He is going to be lighter on the red links, but not completely stop. It would require a lot of extra work for him to completely stop.

2. He is going to be a long term editor so the red links will be filled in. He isn't counting on others to fill in the links.

I think this is a reasonable compromise. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:15, 14 January 2015 (EST)

=====TheAmericanRedoubt's Red Link Response During Phone Call with User:Conservative=====
: Thank you [[User:Conservapedia]] for your phone call with me and for your inspiring and unwavering dedication both to Conservapedia and to our conservative movement. I agree with both of these points. Over the next 12 months I promise to completely fill in at least 95% of my red links with actual full fledged detailed articles or at least 2 to 3 paragraph shorter articles only in the cases where a long article is not useful and would be like Wikipedia style excessively detailed unnecessary verbosity. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 14:22, 14 January 2015 (EST)

== Category tag compromise and TheAmericanRedoubt ==

I will agree that TheAmericanRedoubt has been overdoing the category tags. For example, for "police state" he would put a category tag of "internet". Yes, a police state attempts to control the "internet", but that is not how someone would look up an article on "police state".

I told TheAmericanRedoubt to pretend he was playing the game show "Family Feud" with Richard Dawson where people try to come up with a word/phrase that matches a topic/word. Now if he was on that game show and said "Internet" for the topic "Police state" he would lose in that game show every time. The user TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) saw my point and is going to do his category tags differently from now on.

And although I am not a Wikipedia fan, I said as far as the category tags, pretend you are creating a Wikipedia article in most cases.

My request to other editors, please do not be persnickety with TheAmericanRedoubt about the category tags. He promised to do better on the category tags and now sees how he has been overdoing it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:38, 14 January 2015 (EST)

=== TheAmericanRedoubt's Category Response During Phone Call with User:Conservative===
: I agree on the [[police state]] article and quite a few others. Thank you for the mentoring User:Conservative and [[User:Karajou]]. Although I too am not a fan of Wikipedia, as far as the category tags, I will comparatively look at similar articles in Wikipedia to see how many category tags they are using for a given article. User:Conservative and I discussed on the phone the [[:Category:Firearms]] and I told him I will still be using/creating "granular" categories, similar to how Wikipedia does it. For example, today I just created the categories:

: [[:Category:Bolt-action Rifles]] to match my newly created article [[Bolt-action]] which contains new red links that I promise to fill in for all of these new shorter articles on firearms such as [[action (firearms)]], [[bolt (firearms)]], [[breech (firearms)]], [[barrel (firearms)]], [[bolt handle]], [[cheek weld]], [[stock (firearms)|stock]], [[trigger (firearms)]], [[round (firearms)]], [[chamber (firearms)]], [[magazine (firearms)]] [[firing pin]], [[shell (firearms)]], [[accuracy (firearms)]], [[reliability (firearms)]], [[action (firearms)]].

: Over the next 12 months, I will be creating an article for each of the major [[bolt-action]] [[rifle]]s in the [[:Category:Firearms Manufacturers|firearms industry]] such as the [[Remington Model 700]], [[Savage Model 110]], [[Ruger American Rifle]] ([[hunting rifle]]), [[Ruger M77]], [[Ruger Gunsite Scout]], [[Steyr Scout]], [[scout rifle]], [[Barrett M99]] [[.50 BMG]], [[M24 Sniper Weapon System]] and [[M40 rifle]] ([[sniper rifle]]), [[Mosin-Nagant]], [[Winchester Model 70]], [[Mauser]], [[Mauser M 98]], [[M1903 Springfield]], [[Lee-Enfield]], to name just a few. Now you can see how I really am a [[gun enthusiast]]. :-)

: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Bolt-action_Rifles&curid=133817&action=history

: [[:Category:Firearms Components]] - In both of these new categories, I will be creating '''numerous''' articles over the next 12 months, so other editors removing the Category tag or the internal Wiki link brackets from ''any'' existing articles in the [[:Category:Firearms]] or [[:Category:Survivalism]] (like [[bolt-action]]) is just creating lots of unnecessary additional work for me in the near future to have to go back and re-add the categorization and Wiki link brackets and will thus "orphan" my new articles which would have been well integrated into the Wiki link system. Some, but not all of these articles will be part of the new category [[:Category:Firearms Glossary]], [[:Category:Military Glossary]], [[:Category:Preparedness Glossary]]. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Firearm_Actions&curid=133818&action=history

: Fellow editors: Thank you, in advance, for your patience and following of the guidance from [[User:Conservative]] regarding his advice to not be overly "persnickety" / fastidious about my work in this area. I appreciate it. I promise that over the next 12 months I will re-adjust my categorizations on most of the articles I have edited to be similar to the granularity level seen on Wikipedia. This is quite "granular" however. As I discussed on the phone with User:Conservative, it doesn't mean I will be having each article I edit/contribute having only 1 or 2 categories. As evidenced by the [[James Wesley Rawles]] or [[The Survival Blog]] articles, some articles may have many valid, yet granular categorizations.

:[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 14:31, 14 January 2015 (EST)
::On numerous occasions, it has been pointed out that the user:conservative account is accessed by a number of different people. Yet you state that you were in contact with only one person - ''I told '''him''' I will still be using/creating "granular" categories, similar to how Wikipedia does it '' - Are you saying that the user:conseravtive account is in fact only accessed by one person? And that person is male? Your post concerning your ''phone-call'' contradicts many of the claims that the user:conservative account has made... [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:07, 14 January 2015 (EST)
:::In the phone call in question, TAR was told that User: Conservative account consists of more than one editor. Feel free to confirm this matter with TAR (In addition, you can ask Karajou who was informed of this matter also).

:::Second, given the existence of voice changing software and an editor of the User: Conservative account possibly speaking through an agent/friend/family member/etc., the User: Conservative account remains veiled under a fog of mystery. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:40, 14 January 2015 (EST)

:::: ROTFL. :-) When I first talked with the [[User:Conservative]], despite the male voice, due to the sound I suspected the voice did seem a little like it was going through some sort of [[voice distortion box]]. The User:Conservative wouldn't tell me his/her name since he/she said he/she is part of a Conservative group of users and that the current speaker is merely the vocal representative of the diverse members of that secretive group. Despite talking with the User:Conservative, I wasn't able to pierce the veil of secrecy and hence am not able to resolve [[User:AugustO]]'s and [[User:EJamesW]]'s pressing concerns. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 16:48, 14 January 2015 (EST)

A voice distortion box

*[[James Wesley Rawles]] doesn't have a ''valid'' categorization as it entails, e.g. [[:category:Christians]] and [[:category:Christian Authors]], as well as [[:category:Authors]] and [[:category:Science Fiction Authors]]
*I'm willing to cut new editors some slack. However, I expect them to respect the traditions and rules of this site! You should spend some time getting to know your new home before you start redecorating the rooms - and tear down whole structures. It just a question of politeness.
*[[User:Wschact]] seemed to have some valid points - as the section above show. Shouldn't his block be reduced/commuted?
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:51, 14 January 2015 (EST)

===Category:Nuclear Target Structures===
Can someone please tell me how [[France]] - or the [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]] - belong in this category? Can someone please tell me what sense it make to wait for [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] to put every article with the slightest connection to nuclear power (or perhaps the letter "N") into this category? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 15 January 2015 (EST)
:There are any objections to dropping this category? Today, the main threats are to terrrorism targets rather than Soviet intercontinental missiles. So, there is a danger that if we put undue emphasis on Cold War threats, home schooled high school students will over-react. Categories are short hand and do not properly communicate the subtle dimensions for evaluating the "Nuclear Target Structures" designation. I do not object to a stand-alone article on this topic. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:11, 7 February 2015 (EST)

== Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves. ==

[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] writes in his [[Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists]] on [[Charlie Hebdo]] that "''Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves"''. [[User:EJamesW]] asked for a citation for this claim, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:France_Pays_Dearly_-_Gun_Control_Laws_and_Gun_Free_Zones_that_Welcome_Terrorists&diff=1131801&oldid=1131418 I did so too]. Unfortunately, [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] hasn't shared his sources with us yet - and I haven't found any source stating something similar...

If President Obama really said something along this lines, it should make the front-page of Conservapedia!

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:21, 15 January 2015 (EST)

:The arrogant and highly atheistic/secular French and French muslim situation is a volatile mix. The French atheist/muslim situation will probably get worse before it better. There seems to be a feedback loop of discrimination/hatred/violence/non-assimilation going on.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/01/14/terror-in-france-implications-for-muslim-integration/]

:The Ireland/Italian muslim situation seems a lot less volatile. I think the Irish/Italians (who tend to be more religious) are nicer and less arrogant then the atheistic/secularists French.[http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/it-is-frances-arrogant-secularism-that-is-the-truly-intolerant-religion-306959.html] And Ireland's Muslims are more highly educated.[http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/it-is-frances-arrogant-secularism-that-is-the-truly-intolerant-religion-306959.html]

:In addition, judging from his radio mini-debates with theists, the Irish atheist [[Michael Nugent]] seems nicer and less abrasive than many prominent atheists/agnostics (see: [[Atheism and arrogance]]). Research shows that atheists are more charitable when they are around Christians/Christian culture.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ&feature=sub] Maybe atheist become nicer when they are around theists/Christians as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:29, 17 January 2015 (EST)

::All interesting observations, but they have nothing to do with the problem: '''''Please give a source for the claim that Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves.''''' Do you anything about this, User:Conservative? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:28, 17 January 2015 (EST)
:::If TAR did indeed say this, I think he made a mistake. At the same time, Obama is pretty fanatical about not calling Islamic terrorists Muslims. And Islam does have one of the most violent pasts in terms of various religions.
The secular/godless and evolution loving countries of Germany/France/UK who have sub-fertility rates are projected to be overrun by Muslims by 2030.[http://time.com/3670892/muslims-europe-map/]

I do know that a German Christian denomination that adheres to creationism is growing.

I think this is due to businesses having labor shortages and needing workers and the respective countries immigration policies and the countries wanting to support pensioners, but I could be mistaken.

In Switzerland, which is one of the most biblical creation loving countries of Europe and has more restrictive immigration policies, the proliferation of problem causing Muslims by 2030 is not projected to be an issue. Ireland does not appear to be projected to have a problem either (Perhaps it is because they are more religious than most Europe. The fertility rate of Ireland is 2.01 births per woman).

Of course, the projections of Muslims overrunning Germany/UK/France has the militant evolutionists/atheists/agnostics/secularists upset. For example, Richard Dawkins frequently mentions Muslims on his Twitter feed. If only these countries were more Christianity/creationism loving and had more children. All this unpleasantness with radical Muslims causing significant problems in their countries could be avoided.

On December 23, 2012, Professor [[Eric Kaufmann]] who teaches at Birbeck College, University of London wrote:

“I argue that 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious.

On the other hand, the secular West and East Asia has very low fertility and a rapidly aging population. The demographic disparity between the religious, growing global South and the aging, secular global North will peak around 2050. In the coming decades, the developed world's demand for workers to pay its pensions and work in its service sector will soar alongside the booming supply of young people in the third world. Ergo, we can expect significant immigration to the secular West which will import religious revival on the back of ethnic change. In addition, those with religious beliefs tend to have higher birth rates than the secular population, with fundamentalists having far larger families. The epicentre of these trends will be in immigration gateway cities like New York (a third white), Amsterdam (half Dutch), Los Angeles (28% white), and London, 45% white British."[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/04/97-of-worlds-population-growth-is.html]

Of course, this all bad news for evolutionists/atheists/agnostics. I am hoping that theological conservative and biblical Christianity ultimately prevails in Europe in the 21st century. A lot is dependent on evangelism and policies regarding immigration. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:13, 17 January 2015 (EST)
:In addition, in Switzerland, they have generous gun laws and a gun culture (and low gun fatality rates), so citizens are better able to protect themselves against radical muslims. They are not so dependent on police/SWAT response times. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:25, 17 January 2015 (EST)

== Spamming links to external sites ==

"Spamming links to external sites" once was a blockable offense. So, what is Conservapedia's current policy regarding the new [[User:OGSMEDIA]] (get it: OGS Media) advertising the site http://offgridsurvival.com/, where all kinds of outdoor equipment is advertised and sold? (See: http://offgridsurvival.com/store/ ) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:17, 16 January 2015 (EST)

==Hottest year ever!==
The drive-by media does this "hottest-year ever" hooey almost every year, although this year they seem to be laying it on especially thick. The most accurate available temperature record is the UAH data based on satellite readings.[http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/12/03/no-record-temperatures-according-to-satellites/] By this standard, 2014 was only the seventh warmest year on record. (1998 was the warmest.) It will be months before the surface temperature record for 2014 is complete. NASA is just guesstimating at this point. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 06:00, 17 January 2015 (EST)
:[http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Screen_shot_2015-01-15_at_8.04.49_PM.png Here] is the global temperature record since 1979 based on satellite data. In the last 35 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.2 C. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 06:21, 18 January 2015 (EST)

== Template:Outdated ==
When I peruse [[Special:Random]], I often encounter articles displaying information which is quite out of date (e.g, [[Stewart Bradley]] or [[Anne Arundel County, MD]]). Sometimes I'm able to update it, but at other times, it isn't in my field of special knowledge (or interest). I hope that I haven't overstepped my bounds, but
#I created the [[:Category:Outdated Articles]] for such pages
#I made the [[Template:Outdated]]: this will put a small warning on top of a page and put the page in the category. See [[Anne Arundel County, MD]] for an example.
I'd appreciate if someone would check the template and approve of it. Thanks --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:25, 18 January 2015 (EST)

== User: TheAmericanRedoubt ==

I received some communication from TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR). He is tackling an off wiki project right now. I believe he will be editing later this year. That is all the information I have right now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:56, 4 February 2015 (EST)

:*It's not the first time that [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] took off for a considerable amount of time: after making hundreds of edits until mid-July 2014, he seized editing for three months.
:*I hope no one expects us to cope with eye-sores like [[Preparedness]] (Conservapedia's article with the most categories) for the next three months!
:*I won't comb through the articles to which [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] contributed, but should I encounter something like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Orange_%28color%29&oldid=1127987 this], e.g., via [[Special:Random]], I will take action.
:*Thanks for unblocking [[User:Wschact]]!
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:53, 4 February 2015 (EST)

::I think we would all be in a better position to make decisions about what to do with TAR's material if we knew his actual intent. We're all relieved, of course, that the "Ayurvedic medicine", "Vata", "Dosha", "Kapha" stuff has been removed, but it would be good to make a decision about a few other things. I'm sure we're all in agreement that [[water]] doesn't really have a noteworthy relationship with survivalism. But there are many other irrelevant categories and "see also"'s that need to be addressed, as well as the implication that Andy's, Cons's, and my home states are treasonous.

::So I would suggest that we get TAR to tells us his intentions directly, rather than taking the word of someone who is known to have peculiar fantasies about his alter egos. I fully believe that Cons and TAR are different people, but it would be good if TAR were able to communicate other than through Cons. It's a little too much like Clark Kent's uncanny ability to summon Superman.

::@TAR: I realize you may be busy with other things, but it should be possible for you to post a really quick note without getting distracted. If you don't want to communicate in this public forum, could you please send me an email at sam4557@gmail.com?

::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:42, 4 February 2015 (EST)
:::Sometimes volunteers "bite off more than they can chew". This happens a lot, because the higher priorities of life obligations get in the way of a volunteer's best intentions. That is why projects like Conservapedia are team efforts -- so that others can pick up the slack when any volunteer has to step back. TAR volunteered to take existing content from certain sources and to convert it into the proper form for Conservapedia articles. 1) Some of his conversions needed more work on the Manual of Style front. 2) Some of his anticipated article subjects are red links, but TAR has not have a chance to bring over the content to actually write the article. 3) TAR made red links for a number of essays, which have not yet been written or adapted from the other website. 4) TAR started a large number of new categories before he appreciated the tree structure of categories and those categories need to be repositioned corrected. I estimate that it would take about a year of full time work to complete TAR's ambitious plan.
:::Since TAR is unavailable for a while, the entire team needs to work out a plan for addressing all four areas. While I am stepping back to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, I would encourage the team to create a check list of items that need to be addressed. Once the plan is mapped out and approved, I would volunteer to do my share, if that was the consensus. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:28, 4 February 2015 (EST)
=== What I don't want to happen ===

I believe that 3 of the primary reasons why TAR rubbed Wschact the wrong way and caused him to act inappropriately in some ways (both myself and VargasMilan believe this happened):

1. Alternative medicine issue - This issue has been resolved for the time being. Personally, I think that both Western World medicine and alternative medicine both have a lot of quackery within them and that an evidence based approach is best (there has been a lot of medical science fraud in recent years [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/science-has-lost-its-way.html][http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-intrinsic-unreliability-of-science.html]). To a certain extent, Billy Bones in the classic work ''Treasure Island'' was right: Doctors is all swabs, Jim! The Japanese, who live longer/healthier than the people who live in many countries of the Western World, use both systems of health care.

2. Survivalism - One of the reasons why I think this rubs Wsacht (who is a liberal) the wrong way is that much of the recent popularity of survivalism within some quarters of conservatism/libertarianism has the assumption that the economic system fashioned by liberals is economically unsound/unsustainable.

The claim of the unsoundness of liberal economics usually focuses on these factors: High amounts of sovereign debt in the world (The USA has 17 trillion dollars of federal government debt, etc. etc.), the failure of Keynesian economics, money that is not backed by a hard asset(s) (Gold or a basket of commodities), high amounts of money printing, the Soviet empire and various Latin American countries having their economies collapsing due to communism/socialism, etc., etc. I really think this irritates Wsacht.

Personally, I would first point out that liberal economists by in large did not predict the 2007/2008 crisis. Second, given the 2007/2008 crisis and the fact that some of the factors that caused it have never been resolved, I think the best approach is to follow the advice given by financial planners and have AT LEAST 6 months of wages saved up in some fashion where the wealth is readily available.

Also, some people believe that another 1930s like depression or worse is around the corner so they would advise having much more saved up and to take other measures such as growing your own food and storing food, etc. etc. I guess time will tell, but this is not impossible. The Western World and the world at large has gone through some periods of economic/political instability from time to time.

For the record, TAR takes the view of hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

3. His staunch Pro Second Ammendment views.

I have asked Karajou to make sure that Wsacht does not mess with TAR's material and create a lot of unnecessary, extra work for TAR due to Wsacht disagreeing with TARs political/economic views. I don't think CP liberals should dictate the ideology at CP so it conforms with liberalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:31, 5 February 2015 (EST)
:Thank you for sharing your concerns in an open candid way, and I will respond with equal candor.
:1. We are close to agreement here, but minor editing is necessary to bring some articles up to Manual of Style standards and the category tree structure needs repair.
:2. If Cons or TAR want to write essays expressing personal views on survivalism or giving advice, I will defend their right to do so. Similarly, if we take a team approach to writing objective, consensus articles on survivalism, Conservapedia will benefit as well. The conservative movement has a wide spectrum of view as do the survivalists. There are some survivalists who advocate immediate action due to the imminent collapse of Western civilization. Some of these advocate succession of "Cascadia" from the United States, and others advocate an separate all-white nation in the Pacific Northwest. Those views are beyond accepted conservative thought, because conservatives seek to improve society and the social order rather than to destroy it. Articles discussing preparedness for natural disasters or emergencies would help Conservapedia. I assume that they would comply with current Conservapedia policy that does not allow for advertisements or how-to manual articles. So, I think we are very close to an agreement here.
:3. The Second Amendment has been a part of the Constitution for 200 years, and I have not seen anyone on Conservapedia attack it. However, materials added to existing articles should be relevant, well-sourced and comply with the Manual of Style. One does not advocate for the Second Amendment by adding a category to every page on Conservapedia. If the person covered by a biography article favors gun rights, then add a sentence to the article preferably with a footnote. Same holds for gun rights opponents. If an article is about a brand of rifle, put "rifle" in the title. If the article is about just ammunition, make that clear as well. If TAR wants to write an article about a gun company, I suggest he use [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Gun_Company the Wikipedia article on Ithaca Gun Company] as a model. I have no objection to TAR moving over a lot of detailed articles providing reference materials on guns, so long as they are accurate and comply with the Manual of Style. I welcome people writing about things that interest them, including guns.
:So, I think we are mostly in agreement. Karajou, Cons and I have all advised TAR to focus on writing longer articles rather than just one or two sentences followed by a lot of "See also" links and category lists. I am not objecting to the subjects TAR has chosen, but rather the way TAR adds "See also" and categories into what appear to me to be unrelated articles. Possibly TAR may see a relationship that I can't, but that means that he should add a sentence or paragraph explaining to the reader those implications and relationships.
:I would welcome TAR back with the hope that he can clean up his many edits from December and January. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:21, 5 February 2015 (EST)
::TAR was under the impression that category tags generate a good amount of web traffic to articles. I showed him that the category tags effect on web traffic to articles is negligible. So I think the "Battle of the Category Tags" is pretty much over. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:15, 5 February 2015 (EST)
:::Good news! [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:20, 5 February 2015 (EST)
::::Also, a former Aussie admin, PhilipRayment, disagreed with Andy about gun control. If memory serves, and it may not, this may have been the final straw that caused Mr. Rayment to stop editing CP and launch his own wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 5 February 2015 (EST)
:::::I believe I am agreement with Andy about gun rights/gun control. I understand that there are a number of spin-off wikis running under Media-Wiki software. So, this raises two questions: 1) What can be done to recruit, train and retain competent editors here? 2) How quickly can we repair our wiki so as to avoid being penalized by search engines for our current profile that could be misinterpreted as a link-farm and also to avoid losing credibility with our readers? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:46, 5 February 2015 (EST)

== Merge candidates ==

Could someone please help me to work off all the [[:Category:Merge candidates|Merge candidates]]?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 12:42, 5 February 2015 (EST)
:Since a proper merger would involve merging the change histories, I believe that only an administrator can do it properly. Am I wrong? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 13:28, 5 February 2015 (EST)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2015-02-08T04:02:52Z

Wschact: /* Growing Conservapedia's conservative readership and editor base */ needed for proposed page

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>

''This page contains some material that has been moved from [[Talk:Main_Page]]. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.''

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

==Restoring User Pages==

I wonder if you [I was referring to User:Conservative in the original context] would be be so kind as to restore the following user and user-talk pages. Most of these people were long-time respected sysops and administrators, as I'm sure you, being a long-time respected sysop and administrator yourself, well know. Many of our important articles were written by these people. Current users may want to know something about the people that went before them and built Conservapedia. We should show some respect for our history and our founding fathers/mothers.
*[[User:Jallen]]
*[[User:Tash]]
*[[User:Foxtrot]]
*[[User:Ymmotrojam]]
*[[User:DeanS]]
*[[User:TimS]]
*[[User:DanH]]
*[[User:Deborah]]
*[[User:BethanyS]]
*[[User:WilliamBeason]]

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:33, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

:Your suggestion is a reasonable one. I was not in favor of deleting user pages. But once deleted, I don't think it would be time well spent to restore the pages. Time moves on, and time could be better spent by improving substantive entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

::I can see that all the active users are pretty busy, and are probably disinclined to do this. So how about letting me do it? I'm willing to restore those pages myself. You would have to give me the appropriate temporary rights, which might be "undelete" rights, or maybe full administrator rights, I don't know how this works.

::I'm sure you know, from our many communications, both public and private, that I can be trusted not to harm Conservapedia in any way. During any period in which I have extra rights, I will refrain from annoying, harassing, irritating, teasing, insulting, or otherwise getting under the skin of any other user. I will not react to any taunts. I will not abuse the rights in any way. (Though if my rights include blocking, and I see any vandals come to town, I will of course take action.)

::You didn't want the pages deleted? We can fix that. What say you? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:48, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

:There's an extremely troubling aspect to all this. You say you weren't in favor of deleting the pages, and yet, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeyJ&diff=1100430&oldid=1100429 here], Cons says that the owner of the web site was in favor of the deletion. Was Cons lying? Also, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeyJ&diff=1101617&oldid=1100630 here], Cons seems to indicate that he was in communication with you on the subject of giving JoeyJ deletion powers. These powers are not taken lightly. In fact, JoeyJ is the only non-admin who has them. So it looks as though you gave JoeyJ the deletion powers '''knowing full well''' that he would use those powers to delete user pages. What is going on? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:05, 14 October 2014 (EDT)

== God delusion ==

I finished reading the Prof. Dawkin's book. I have to admit that it has shaken my religious foundations... I sometimes wonder whether that has made me an Agnostic now. It has made me question a lot of my upbringing. I was a good catholic girl. I wonder what my mom will say
--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 12:44, 15 November 2014 (EST)
:Richard Dawkins did not research or fact check his book very well and it has a number of errors in it as can be seen in this PDF version of [http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf The Irrational Atheist].

:Second, how strong were your foundations before you read the book? How did you build your foundation?

:In the physical life, if you are flabby, don't get enough sleep, etc., it provides an opportunity for disease to enter. The same is true in a person's spiritual life. How familiar are you with the classic [[Arguments for the existence of God|defenses of the existence of God]]? How familiar are you with the various evidences for Christianity? See: [[Christian apologetics websites|Evidence for Christianity]] Did you ever repent of your sins and dedicate your life to following Jesus Christ? How often were you reading your Bible? How often were you praying? What are the most serious arguments against agnosticism? What are the most serious arguments against atheism. See: [[Rebuttals to atheist arguments]].

:Also, Jesus promises that those who repented of their sins and accept Jesus as their Savior and Lord will have communion with Him and will receive the Holy Spirit who will guide them. Did you ever know God or were you just engaging in religious rituals? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:07, 16 November 2014 (EST)

::[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/richard.dawkins.has.had.his.day.says.ravi.zacharias/43042.htm Richard Dawkins has had his day, says Ravi Zacharias] -'' Christianity Today'', November 15, 2014 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:04, 17 November 2014 (EST)

:::@Maria O'Connor: I'm really sorry that you have been abused so badly at Conservapedia. I want you to know that there are quite a number of decent and well-intentioned people here. You should ignore the abusers, and feel welcome to make contributions. We particularly need people who are knowledgeable in matters of science. If you can contribute in this area, dig in! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:22, 20 November 2014 (EST)

::Sam, you can contribute constructively to Conservapedia, or you can pick fights on the Main Page talk page. You cannot do both. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:16, 21 November 2014 (EST)

:::'''Of course''' Sam can contribute constructively to Conservapedia whilst disagreeing with certain other editors. He's been doing it for years..... and more strength to his arm. There are not enough Sams these days. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:36, 21 November 2014 (EST)

==Subject Matter Experts==
I recently had to deal with a case of someone making an edit to a chemistry article (with a note that he has a chemistry degree, which of course we can't verify, but it very well may be true) that was reverted. It's true that his use of "subjective" and "objective" could give the wrong impression to non-experts, and I have cleaned it up. But it just needed to be cleaned up. (The cleanup that someone did afterwards was ridiculous.) '''This person was blocked''', apparently just because of that edit. This should not have happened. Quite a number of good contributors, and potential good contributors—we'll never know—have been reverted and blocked because the people with blocking powers did not know how to evaluate the edits.
Now Conservapedia often has people come here and make stupid/parody/vandalism edits. But it is monitored constantly by the sysops. It is not necessary for people to be trigger-happy. Except of course for clear vandalism.
I would suggest a page, probably in the Conservapedia namespace rather than "mainspace", listing subject matter experts who can make expert analyses of these things. The list should be publicized to all sysops. Contributors can volunteer as experts in various subjects. And sysops could hold off on reverting questionable edits until an expert opinion is rendered. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:45, 28 November 2014 (EST)

=====Best Troll Detection of the Public=====

:You have no proof that '''the person who was blocked''' was merely a Subject Matter Expert and not a '''troll''' as well. This ought to be dealt with by the Best Troll Detection of the Public. Trolling techniques include emphasizing words (when the logic of argument doesn't require it) to trample over anticipated reasonable opposition to one's argument with raw emotion as well as arguing about things on the Main Page talk page that don't appear on the Main Page. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 10:55, 29 November 2014 (EST)
I can assure you that, in my 7 years here, I have developed a good sense for the kinds of vandals, trolls, parodists, sycophants, "mall cops", and other unsavory personalities that we have. I also notice other fascinating types of people, like those who complain about posting to this page not on the topic of improving the main page content while making quite a few such postings themselves (though, in fairness, they also make on-topic postings, which I rarely do), people who [[User_talk:SamHB#Spammer|did not realize that they had been given blocking powers until I told them]], and people who use [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page&diff=1110822&oldid=1110821 spectacularly recondite sentences] while attacking other contributors. You see, I've been around for a while.

On the matter of making posts to this page that are not directly on the topic of improving the content of the main page, I'm sure you know that, for several years, this page has been used for a discussion of CP in general, and that everyone, including Andy and the other admins, is OK with that. A more natural place for such discussion might have been a general discussion page such as [[Conservapedia:Desk]], but, as you can see, it has rarely been used of late. There is actually a (an?) historical reason, from a few years back, for this. I won't bore everyone with the details, but you can email me if you are interested.

Regarding my "subject matter experts" comment above, I wasn't asking for people who are good at detecting trolls. We already have plenty of people (including myself) who are good at this, and plenty of people (including you) who are good at dealing with them. We probably already have the "Best Troll Detection of the Public". I was requesting "subject matter experts", which we don't really have very many of, or don't know who they are on various topics, and requesting that subject matter expertise be used in deciding whether to revert an edit.

In the case of the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Chemical_compound&diff=1118592&oldid=1118584 molar mass] edit, I was well aware that this person might be a troll—his use of the recondite (there's that word again) terms "subjective" and "objective" in a description of quantitative chemical analysis was a bit suspicious—these are quasi-philosophical terms that might be considered provocative on a wiki like this. But he also knew what molar mass means. His change was a vast improvement over the "fuel quantity" phrase. The article just needed to have the "subjective" and "objective" words taken out, which I have done. The person did know his subject matter. There was no urgency in reverting his edit.

A suggestion, Vargas: Let's both try to be nice. You do good work when you're not talking about "withering patrician disdain". We can both do better than fight with each other.

Maybe I should have spent the day shopping instead of this :-) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:02, 1 December 2014 (EST)

:I will not disregard Andy's express instructions at the top of the page! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:12, 2 December 2014 (EST)

::Fair enough. I will try to abide by that policy also. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:11, 6 December 2014 (EST)
:::I would be interested to hear what Andy thinks of the "subject matter expert" approach. Wikipedia generally hates experts and does everything to drive them away as editors. Many of the early CP articles were written by home-schooled students. We then had Ed Poor spending years curating a large number of articles. A few other editors undertook work in particular areaa of expertise such as AlanE and BHathorn. I suspect that Andy has his own lists of experts in the back of his mind, if not written down. The problem is that everyone believes that they are an expert while management may not agree with that assessment. So, we have to see whether this proposal is compatible with the "best of the public" concept. Thanks for raising it. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:16, 7 December 2014 (EST)

== Growing Conservapedia's conservative readership and editor base ==

Now that Conservapedia's Twitter link on the main page, two things:

1. We could organize our wiki editors to create/expand conservative articles in order to feature them on the Twitter feed.

2. Twitter is popular among conservatives. This book shows people how to attract 200 Twitter fans every single day: http://www.amazon.com/Twitter-Followers-Step---Step-guaranteed-ebook/dp/B00KEX694O/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1417623658&sr=8-3&keywords=twitter+marketing The book is only $1.00 and it should be easy to implement. If it was implemented, the Twitter account would go from 10,000 Twitter fans/followers to 83,000 fans/followers in one year.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:30, 3 December 2014 (EST)
:Has anyone considered taking out some modest ($50-$100) number of Facebook advertising? We could use it to drive traffic to the site and to recruit new editors. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)
::Wschact, create a web page called [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]] which I will feature on the main page. I can also talk to Andy about various ways to drive traffic to the page like online advertising, etc.

::It will not be Facebook advertising because Andy dislikes Facebook. Of course, if you want to take out a Facebook advert to have it go to [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]], you could certainly do so.

::Regardless, the main page will give the page [[Conservapedia: New editors wanted]] some traffic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:34, 15 December 2014 (EST)
:::Good idea. 1) Do we have photos of Andy sitting around a computer with a bunch of his students when they were working on editing CP? How about a screen capture of Andy being interviewed with Stephen Colbert? I believe that photos are a powerful way to deliver a message. 2) Do we have any facts that we can use to convey the importance of Conservapedia's mission? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:02, 7 February 2015 (EST)

== Make the username policy more clear ==

:Copied on over from [[Help talk:How To Create a Conservapedia Account]]

I think it should be made clear that the username '''must''' include your real name, as opposed to ''recommending'' your real name; perhaps there could be a help page on Conservapedia's username policy. A few users have been blocked for violating an otherwise nonexistent policy (and also advised to create an account with a real name even though their account creation is disabled for two years). A clear username policy would probably be beneficial for Conservapedia. -- [[User:DanielJackson|DanielJackson]] 10:46, 6 December 2014 (EST)

== Conservative's "Message Area" ==

I seem to be unable to edit it, despite wanting to discuss something with him. As such I put out a general request for a way to contact him or for him to unlock his message area. Hopefully I'm not missing something really obvious! [[User:Nhodgson|Nhodgson]] 20:18, 6 December 2014 (EST)

:You would do well to just ignore him. There's really nothing that you could discuss with him. He is notoriously secretive, seeming to believe that other people go along with his games, and he often locks his own talk page, and the talk pages of his "pet" articles. He seems to expect other people to go along with his fantasy that he might be multiple people. Just ignore him. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:37, 6 December 2014 (EST)
::If we could talk to him, we might tell him that his reversion of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abraham_Lincoln&curid=3942&diff=1121083&oldid=1084045 this] on purely political grounds was ludicrous and shows a serious failure to observe what is going on. That edit was more than just a minor thing about whether Lincoln was a "classical liberal" or a "post New Deal progressive"—it was blatant and outrageous vandalism, about which most admins are very vigilant. The user ("TheonlySIL", whatever that means) should be blocked permanently. Perhaps some other admin will notice. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:48, 6 December 2014 (EST)
Setting aside SamHB's axe to grind because I/we are pro-biblical creationism and anti-Darwinism/liberal Christianity, my/our talk page has just been unlocked.

By the way SamHB, what do you think about the data contained in this article: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] ? Can you refute it? It does not appear so! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 7 December 2014 (EST)
:Haven't read it. But thanks for unlocking your talk page, Could you keep it that way, please? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:52, 11 December 2014 (EST)
::SamHB, may lock it again if I/we become extremely busy for an extended period or for other reasons which I/we prefer not to discuss. The talk pages of articles I/we created/contributed can certainly be used. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:59, 12 December 2014 (EST)

== Categories ==

There are two categories that are treating the same topic: [[:Category:Best of Conservapedia]] and [[:Category:Featured articles]]. How do they differ from each other and should they be merged?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 14:00, 12 December 2014 (EST)
:My guess is that when authors of articles wanted to get extra views for their articles that they spent a lot of time on, they gave their articles these category labels. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:52, 12 December 2014 (EST)
:So should these categories be deleted?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 16:01, 12 December 2014 (EST)
::While I have the greatest respect for Cons's diligence in spending a lot of time on her articles, and in getting them recognized (all her past SEO talk, for example), I notice that she does not put them into the the "best of CP" category. So I suspect that even she doesn't think the category is worth much. It does not seem to be noticed much. I just removed two obvious vanity/silliness things from it. Only three things remain. But their authors did put a lot of effort into them, and two of them are "flagship articles" by Andy. So I would consult with him on this. He probably wants a better way to promote the CBP and the Conservative words articles. In fact he has a better way: they are on the main page. So maybe you should ask him whether the "best of CP" category is worth keeping. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:23, 13 December 2014 (EST)
:::SamHB, no true analyst would pretend to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.

:::But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine [[Sarah Palin]] has more [[machismo]] than all [[Liberal Christianity|liberal "Christians"]] combined!

:::By the way, have you read the [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] article yet? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:15, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::::Nope. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:58, 21 December 2014 (EST)

==Purpose of this page==
This page provides a forum for editors to discuss matters related to CP and its policies. Please do not use it as a sandbox for drafting article. You can create your own sandbox by making a subpage of your user page. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:43, 13 December 2014 (EST)
:You're right. I was in a hurry before. Haste makes waste. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:17, 13 December 2014 (EST)
::There was no need to be hasty. You, of all people, must have known that it wouldn't be lost. Take a deep breath before editing.
::Speaking of careless editing, I'm pleased that you correctly used "you're" above, though it took another edit, at 10:17 yesterday, to fix it. Haste makes waste. But your recent edit to the bottom of TAR's talk page has that mistake. You're in need of more care in editing. Take a deep breath (and get some sleep!) now and then. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
:::@TAR: I've taken out the rest of your stuff. You can move it to your talk page if you like. You can get it out of the page history, of course; nothing is ever lost unless an admin explicitly vapes it, which I don't think is going to happen. You do not need to worry about vandalism; it's easy to revert. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 11:31, 14 December 2014 (EST)
::::@SamHB, thanks, I didn't know I could make a sandbox page beneath my username page that won't be indexed. I will do that from now on for articles I am working on. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 20:11, 14 December 2014 (EST)
:::::There's a quick-and-easy trick to doing it, that I guess I ought to explain, though you might already know it. To create a new page subordinate to your user page, talk page, whatever, edit the user/talk page, and insert something like
:::::<nowiki>[[User talk:TheAmericanRedoubt/sandbox99|My spiffy subpage]]</nowiki>, and save it. When you look at it, it will be a redlink. Click on it, and you will get something like "this page doesn't exist. If you want to create it, enter the text below." Or something like that. Then paste in you new stuff. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:25, 14 December 2014 (EST)

== Deleting material from talk pages, or, even worse, deleting the page outright ==

Talk page material should not be deleted unless it is truly libelous or detrimental. Talk pages should be an ongoing journal of discussion of the corresponding project page. There is nothing wrong with a talk page being very short, and it is perfectly acceptable, albeit unusual, for an article page's author to say something on the talk page.

I recently had to re-create [[Talk:IP_camera]] to make a comment on the article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:05, 15 December 2014 (EST)
:Is there any way to recover the earlier material. Perhaps Andy or an admin could review the situation? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:50, 18 December 2014 (EST)

----

== Two millionth page view for the "Counterexamples to Relativity" page ==

The [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has just gotten its two millionth hit. It is one of Conservapedia's best-known pages.

It seems that this page is very famous all over the internet. A Google search of Conservapedia+Relativity gets about 8000 hits. (Your mileage may vary; the test was done several months ago.) I didn't look at all of them, but I looked at the first 100, other than the CP article itself. Two were completely neutral and matter-of-fact, one was an item on ask.com that was a discussion of what "theory" means in a scientific sense, and was neutral. The other 97 were all derisive, mocking, contemptuous, and sarcastic.

Now I know that principled people are not deterred by popular opinion. But people might want to ask themselves whether the page has convinced '''anyone''' that Relativity is wrong. Or, more generally, whether it has accomplished anywhere near what its goals were. People might also want to ask themselves whether the counterexamples are objectively correct, and whether Relativity is objectively wrong. Now a lot of the discussion at CP has been about '''what people think about Relativity'''—for example, discussion of Laurence Tribe, and Barack Obama, and the folks that designed the GPS system, and the folks that operate that system, and so on. I'd like to get completely away from consideration of what people think about Relativity. Vox Populi and all that. I'd like to propose 3 questions about '''objective, observable facts,''' and ask the senior admins here to explain them without reference to people's opinions. These are matters of ''fact'' and ''incontrovertible observation''.

#It is known that the perihelion of Mercury precesses, beyond Newtonian calculations, by an amount of about 43 arcseconds per (Earth) century. Without getting bogged down into quibbling over thousandths of an arcsecond, and just using the accepted figure of 43 arcseconds, why do you think this is so? Now there has been extensive discussion at Conservapedia over the possibility that the exponent in the "inverse square law" is not exactly 2. People have argued over whether or not that satisfies some principle of theoretical elegance, or makes integration easier, or whatever. I'm not interested in any of that. What I am interested in is that ''it doesn't work''. That theory was proposed by Hall and Newcomb about 100 years ago, and quickly discarded, because it predicts a completely wrong precession for the Moon. So, why do you think this precession occurs? Do you have some theory of gravity that correctly predicts the precession of Mercury, other planets, the Moon, and Earth satellites?
#:
#It is known that the received frequency of GPS satellite clock signals is about 0.44 parts per trillion faster than the frequency at which the signals were transmitted from the satellite. This discrepancy is well known, and there is circuitry in the satellites to compensate for it. Minuscule as this discrepancy is, compensating for it is essential to the correct operation of the system. Without getting into what people believed or were thinking about when the system was designed, or what people believe or think about when they upload correction parameters, why does this discrepancy exist?
#:
#It is known that the mass of a Radium-226 atom (including the electrons--it makes no difference in the final outcome) is 226.025403 amu. When it undergoes alpha decay, it turns into an atom of Radon-222 (222.017571 amu) and an atom of Helium (4.002603 amu). This constitutes a loss of .005229 amu. Why is that? Is the law of conservation of mass not correct?

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:18, 17 December 2014 (EST)

:RESPONSE:

::#The precession of the perihelion of Mercury '''''disproves''''' Relativity. People stopped reporting the discrepancy as technology provided greater precision; yet Relativists still insist that this proves their theory when the actual data disproves it. Newtonians are honest about the issue. Why can't liberal Relativists publicly admit that the data disproves their theory? Every scientist knows that if he questions or criticizes Relativity, then he disqualifies himself from ever winning a Nobel Prize (see, e.g., Robert Dicke), obtaining a doctorate, or receiving any research funding.
::#There are a variety of possible explanations for the GPS discrepancy, starting with the obvious plausibility that the laws of physics are not invariant at every point in the universe. An honest, open-minded discussion of the issue would likely yield some valuable insights.
::#There is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy when something decays. It certainly does not prove Relativity.

::Liberals make false statements about science all the time. Jimmy Carter became president by claiming that oil would run out in 35 years. There is nothing new about liberals misusing science to advance liberal goals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 17 December 2014 (EST)

:::"''There is nothing startling about an emission or loss of energy when something decays. It certainly does not prove Relativity. ''" - So, you do accept the equivalence of mass and energy, as SamHB was talking about the loss of mass! That's good news... Or maybe, you want to rephrase your point #3. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:55, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::It requires an enormous leap of [[faith]], far more than is suggested by the [[Bible]], to go from what I said to the silly, illogical ''E=mc2'' equation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:::::Does it really? SamHB described a process where '''mass''' disappears - you answered that ''there is nothing startling about an emission or loss of '''energy'''''. This gives the impression that you think of mass and energy as somewhat interchangeable. I know that you don't think so, that's why I asked for you to ''"rephrase your point #3"''. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:26, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::::When something decays to a lower energy state it can emit energy. That is not relativity, that is not E=mc2, and that is not "mass-energy equivalence."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:53, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:::::::Agreed - but you are talking about '''energy'''. The question is where is the '''mass''' of .005229 amu? (Take a look [[Talk:E=mc²#A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft and Walton|here]]...)--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:56, 21 December 2014 (EST)

::::::::You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:51, 21 December 2014 (EST)

I had not intended for this to re-open the entire discussion, including the Cockcroft-Walton experiment. Aside from pointing out the 2 millionth view, the goal was to ask 3 '''very narrowly drawn''' questions. So narrowly drawn that they '''were not about relativity!'''. Not directly, anyway. They were about 3 observable phenomena, and the intent was to ask for explanations, relativity or otherwise, about them. For the second and third questions, Andy sort of did give explanations, though they were totally unsatisfactory by the standards of contemporary science.

I specifically asked for explanations that were indpependent of people's opinions, beliefs, or behavior. I guessed that Andy would either ignore the questions, or give off-topic answers. I got the latter. I got comments about relativity, honesty of "Newtonians", "relativists", liberalism, Nobel prizes, doctorates, research funding, Robert Dicke, Jimmy Carter, oil, and discrepancies with modern measuring technology. (Really? Are you saying that the anomalous precession ''does not occur''? It's been observed since 1843. Are you saying that modern measurements show that the precession is zero, and that Leverrier was seeing something that isn't there?).

Let me restate the questions in their simplest possible form. Note that I am not asking about relativity.
#Anomalous precession. Why does it occur?
#:
#Time dilation. Why does it occur?
#:
#Non-conservation of mass. Why does it occur?

Andy did give a sort of explanation for the 2nd and 3rd of these: "The laws of physics are not invariant at every point" and "There is nothing startling [about this]".

Here is why those answers are completely unsatisfactory. Suppose that Johannes Kepler, when presented with Tycho Brahe's exhaustive data on planetary motion, including the puzzling retrograde motion of Mars, Jupier, and Saturn, had simply said "Well, I guess that, at some points in the Solar System, at some times, some planets go backward for a while." Or "There's nothing startling about this, Mars sometimes just goes backwards." He would simply be abandoning science to the capriciousness of nature. He didn't do that. He was a '''SCIENTIST'''. He looked for an ''explanation''. He and Isaac Newton worked out a formulation that explained it. They didn't just say that the laws of nature are just something random at various places in the solar system, they came up with a physical law that was valid (relative to the measurements of the day) ''at all places and times in the Solar System''.

The time dilation in the Earth's gravitational field is not just something random. It is known, and explained, with great precision. You can set your clock by it. (Literally!) To not be startled, or at least intrigued, by the time dilation, when time can be measured, and found not to dilate, between two points that are at the same altitude, shows a serious lack of scientific curiosity. Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?

The same thing goes for the mass discrepancy. Conservation of mass had been known, with extreme precision, by 1900. Scientists were in fact startled and intrigued by its non-conservation. By the way, it can be measured with greater accuracy now than 82 years ago, and it still holds, or do you deny that it happens? Can you cite modern precise measurements that show that the discrepancy is zero? Can you come up with a theory that explains this phenomenon quantitatively?

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:58, 21 December 2014 (EST)

:I did specifically respond to your three points, and then days went by without a reply from you. Again, the anomalous precession disproves Relativity just as it conflicts with one model of Newtonian gravity in the solar system. Why is there an anomalous precession? The Newtonian model can be tweaked to explain it; Relativity cannot. An honest discussion by scientists of the data would advance the understanding, rather than scientists pretending that the precession proves Relativity (it doesn't).

:Second, time dilation is not directly shown by anything, and certainly not by GPS. The slight variations can be explained by classical physics, or by recognizing that physical laws are probably not invariant across the universe.

:Third, the evidence for non-conservation of mass is almost non-existent, with the leading experiment more than 80 years out of date. But I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved, and Newtonian physics does not depend on it. [[Quantum mechanics]] may have the potential -- if pursued with an open mind -- to shed light on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:16, 22 December 2014 (EST)

::I'm not interested in what the anomalous precession proves or doesn't prove, or what scientists pretend that it proves or doesn't prove. I want to know why it occurs. The Newtonian model can be tweaked to explain it? Can you say what the tweak is? I hope it's not the Hall-Newcomb exponent tweak that was proved to be incorrect almost immediately after it was proposed. Do you have another tweak in mind?

::Time dilation is most definitely shown, both by GPS, and by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959. This can be explained by classical physics? Really? Can you give us details? Can you give us a Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist type of explanation, that goes beyond the cop-out of saying that the laws of physics are simply different in different parts of the universe? "Different parts of the universe" is a far bigger chunk of real estate than is needed to show the effect. The Pound-Rebka experiment involved different parts of the ''same building'', and GPS exhibits the discrepancy between different parts of medium Earth orbit. We should have a pretty good handle on how physics works in the vicinity of the Earth. Newton's law of gravitation worked over the whole solar system.

::Evidence for non-conservation of mass is not "almost non-existent"; it is ubiquitous. The specific case of Radium alpha decay can be found on the periodic table charts hanging in high-school science classrooms. "I don't think mass is necessarily always conserved"—well at least you qualified it with "necessarily always", but can you be more specific? To a degree that Johannes-Kepler-the-scientist would respect? You are quite right in that Newtonian physics does not depend on it, but that's not what I was asking.

::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:38, 22 December 2014 (EST)

:::Andy: ''"You rely on primitive technology used in an 82-year-old experiment. The technology is far better now, and the claim of mass-energy equivalence cannot be verified."'' No, the experiment is routinely performed in courses on modern physics around the world, using modern technology. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:37, 22 December 2014 (EST)

::::On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data. Some objected to anything other than an exponent of precisely -2 for the force, because that muddies up the math, but that is a silly objection. The reality, however, is that anyone who pursues this approach is deemed an enemy of Relativity and won't get another research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize. Nothing but radio silence by the Relativity promoters about that obvious reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:01, 22 December 2014 (EST)

:::::''"On the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, tweaking the Newtonian model almost certainly can fit the data."'' That's just a canard - and you know it, Andy: yes, the exponent of Newton's law of gravity can be tweaked (or error terms added), but this results in a model which doesn't fit all the other planets. That's known since Simon Newcomb's days - and [[User:SamHB]] elaborated on this '''[[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|nearly five years ago]]'''! The first time you came up with this idea, you could have pretended to be ignorant on this subject. But you repeat it over and over again, without having done the calculations, or looking up why physicists discarded the idea a hundred years ago! That's worse than ignorance, that's willful ignorance.
:::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:36, 28 December 2014 (EST)

Let's not be too hasty with judgements about ignorance, willful or otherwise. Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this (and the other two phenomena). We're making good progress by drawing the questions very narrowly.

I believe that Andy has indeed read the relevant items, like [[Debate:What is the exponent of r in Newtonian gravity?|this page]] from nearly five years ago, and [[Relativity#Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity|this section]], with its table of precessions of the planets. (I did not put in the phrase "fail to", by the way.)

So let's go over the situation again, extremely carefully. The bulk of the table was from me, though the all-important final column was added by [[User:Jloveday]], using some experimental data that he dug up. I'm not in full agreement with the way he rounded the data, but the effect is clear. Even though getting good error bounds on the minuscule precession of planets beyond Mercury is very difficult, one can easily see, from the last few columns, that General Relativity tracks the observed precession very well, while the Newcomb-Hall tweak of 2.000000157 tracks it extremely poorly. Except for Mercury, of course, since the exponent was tweaked specifically for that planet.

So, Andy: What is the tweak to Newtonian mechanics that explains the precession for all the planets? And, while we're at it, can you give a satisfactory explanation for the other two phenomena, time dilation and mass non-conservation?

Andy also says: "Some objected to anything other than an exponent of precisely -2 for the force, because that muddies up the math, but that is a silly objection." I agree, it's silly. Though I am a little curious about who these "some" are. Can you cite something on the subject? Perhaps one of your physics textbooks?

Also: "The reality, however, is that anyone who pursues this approach is deemed an enemy of Relativity and won't get another research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize." As I said earlier, I'm not interested in the personalities; I just want to know why you think the precession occurs. (Actually, that's not true. I ''am'' deeply interested in the history of science and technology. But not right now. We can discuss that some other time.) So I'll make you an offer: If you get turned down for a research grant, doctorate, or Nobel prize over this, I'll stick up for you. I'll cite the spirited debate you and I have been having over the last several years as evidence that you've thought deeply about these issues. Though I don't think I have much influence over funding agencies or Nobel committees. :-)

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:12, 29 December 2014 (EST)

==Categories==
I generally have a "live and let live" attitude towards the edits of others on CP, and don't want to criticize any particular editor. However, CP has experienced over time that editors come here from Wikipedia, where there are millions of articles and a very high number of Categories. Because CP is much smaller, we have opted for fewer categories, Over the past day, someone has created a bunch of new categories like [[:Category:Conservative Authors]]. [[:Category:Christian Authors]], etc. Such narrow new categories will make a lot more work for everyone and may discourage editors from categorizing their articles. Perhaps Andy and management could please take a look? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:58, 18 December 2014 (EST)
:The relevant provision of [[Conservapedia:Quick reference]] says: "'''Creating new "Categories"''' While this is sometimes needed, before undertaking larger projects that will have ramifications for many existing articles, please contact one of the Administrators on their talk page, and inform them of your idea."

== To my liberal, sissy boy, atheist critics of guns in Texas! ==

Gentlemen, consider this picture of [http://www.andrewtonnphoto.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=796 Amish women shooting rifles]. When is the last time you heard of Amish women going on shooting rampages? :)

Amish women do not watch violent video games or watch television shows and/or movies with gratuitous violence! See [[Hollywood values]]. And unlike Muslims, the only beheadings Amish women read about is David beheading Goliath (and we know Goliath deserved it for defying the armies of the living God!).

Amish women are peaceful creationists and not violent evolutionists (see: [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]] and [[World War I and Darwinism]] and [[Evolutionary racism]]),

Amish women are loyal wives and are less likely to have their husbands go on jealous/violent rampages (see: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]). And Amish men have submissive wives and do not endlessly quarrel with stubborn, feminist wives! And irreligious men are more likely beat their wives/girlfriends than religious men (see: [[Irreligion and domestic violence]]).

Gentlemen, it is the dysfunctional liberals and liberal influence that causes much of the violence in Texas. No true conservative goes on a gun rampage! When is the last time you heard of a gun rampage occurring due to a student in a Bible believing Christian school? Never, my liberal, atheist friends? If only Texas wasn't creating so many jobs and a magnet to unemployed and undisciplined liberals fleeing their liberal welfare states!

And remember this, guns are an insurance policy for rogue states. Surely, you have read about such states (see: [[Atheism and Mass Murder]] and [[Evolutionary racism|Evolution and Nazi Germany]]).

Gentlemen, I hope this clarifies matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:47, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::By the way, don't even think about saying that the Amish are pacifists and would not kill in self-defense.

::Would an Amish man use violence to protect his wife? Did David eat the show bread?[http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/438/how-does-jesus-argument-from-david-and-the-show-bread-work] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:00, 17 December 2014 (EST)
:::Thank you for giving up your precious time to add these insights to the talk page, Conservative. The world would be a better place if more wives followed your example. [[User:JSamson|JSamson]] 17:25, 17 December 2014 (EST)
::::No true skeptic pretends to know the gender/genders of the editor(s) of the User: Conservative account. Solve the mystery of who/whom edited the [[Atheist actions against homosexuals]] article and you will earn the right to declare the gender/genders using the User: Conservative account to edit.

::::But it is a moot point anyways as the feminine [[Sarah Palin]] has more [[machismo]] than all liberal atheists combined! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:45, 17 December 2014 (EST)
:::::I thought there was to be no further additions from the User: conservative account on the talk page? Perhaps one of the members did not get the memo? -[[User:JaysonK|JaysonK]] 13:51, 18 December 2014 (EST)
::::::Buckling down on time management. Plan to post less on talk pages. Revised plans about talk pages. Will post on talk pages when it is related to article/wiki improvement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:54, 18 December 2014 (EST)

== References ==

<references/>

== A project for active editors to collaborate on ==

Would you anyone like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.

The topic could be decided by the editors participating.

If you are interested, please leave comments below. I suggest picking a leader/leaders for the project or least assign people for various tasks associated with the project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:50, 25 December 2014 (EST)

:I would be happy to help, but my time is limited.[[User:FOIA|FOIA]] 22:06, 25 December 2014 (EST)

::Merry Christmas Cons, and thanks for the thought. I think, however, that I would tend to become a "Devil's Advocate" in any collaboration I can envisage. The token liberal so to speak (and I say that with no malice.) I will need to know more. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:21, 25 December 2014 (EST)
:::AlanE, it doesn't have to be a political project. It can be on a non-political topic. I will let whoever participates decide on the topic and whether or not it will be a political project.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:44, 25 December 2014 (EST)
:::::If AlanE and [[FOIA]] and anyone else who joins wants to decide on a topic tomorrow, the project can start right away. It can be announced on the main page also.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:33, 25 December 2014 (EST)

: I'd be happy to join in and help in any way I can. Merry Christmas. I have been and will mostly focus on the articles [[List of military tactics]] and [[List of military strategies and concepts]]. Long life the Republic! [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 01:33, 26 December 2014 (EST)

:Your invitation was an honor, and I thank you for your confidence. I will be happy to help. As soon as I finish my current "Bible" project, I will look more closely at what you have here and see what I can do. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 19:00, 26 December 2014 (EST)
::Sounds great. Thanks for tackling the project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:16, 27 December 2014 (EST)
=== Ideas for potential articles ===

Political:

*[[Republican beliefs]]

*[[21st Century Republican Party]]

*[[Differences between Republicans and Democrats]]

*[[Social conservatism]] (article needs to be improved)

*<s>[[Islamic terrorism]] (article needs to be improved)</s>

*[[Political fundraising]]

*[[Kim Jong-un]] (article needs to be improved)

*[[Tiananmen Square massacre]] (article needs to be improved)

Less political:

*[[Modern slavery]]

*[[Republican presidents]]

*[[List of military tactics]]

*<s>[[List of military strategies and concepts]]</s>

*[[Socio-cultural indoctrination]]

*[[Rugged individualism vs Christian community (body of Christ)]]

Non-political:

*[[Dog training]]

*[[Chess strategy]]

*[[Marathon]] (needs to be expanded)

*[[Tourism]] (needs to be expanded)

Feel free to add article ideas [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:32, 26 December 2014 (EST)

== Do we really have so few responsible editors ..... ==

that obsessed individuals can materially change the tone and direction of Conservapedia with no one to apply the brakes.? Remember when this was supposed to be a resource for home-school students? A place where they could look up "vibration", for example, and get a concise definition of what it is, at their level, without going off into mystical medical cults? Remember when [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI this] was a good description of Conservapedia's vision and goals?

What happened? We now have just a tiny number of people turning the place into a survivalist blog, and an herbal medicine blog, or whatever, with hardly anyone to apply editorial direction. This wiki needs supervision.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 18:30, 2 January 2015 (EST)

:Things like [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] look very troubling indeed! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:58, 3 January 2015 (EST)
:: I agree with you there AugustO, I would say the content in those articles would be more at home on hippypedia or alternaticemedicinepedia than on conservapedia. Remember, conservatives like to have things backed up by facts, not nonsensical anecdotes that are the backbone of alternative medicine. [[User:PhilH|PhilH]] 02:15, 3 January 2015 (EST)
:::Despite all the blurbs for Ayurvedic medicine in inappropriate places, [[Ayurvedic medicine]] itself remains a red link. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 17:57, 4 January 2015 (EST)

==Response to [[User:SamHB]], [[User:PhilH]] and [[User:AugustO]] Regarding Ayurvedic - Chinese - Western Herbal Medicine on Conservapedia==

I am reposting-quoting here [[User:AugustO]]'s post on [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Ayurvedic_medicine]] in order to see why I am making such a detailed point-by-point response.

"You know me as conservative on social or fiscal issues, but my conservatism reaches its zenith on medicine. I am very dedicated to Western medicine, and run away from "new age" or other fringe medicine approaches. Andy, you have to draw a line here on whether Conservapedia has the expertise and resources to cover Ayurvedic medicine properly. I doubt that we do and should stay away from it completely. Please decide and tell [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] you decision. Many thanks for all that you do for the Conservative movement. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:42, 2 January 2015 (EST)
:[[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] is like an advert for alternative medicine: it has 110 subcategories and is itself in 26 categories:
::[[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Tibetan Medicine]]|[[:Category:Complementary Medicine]]|[[:Category:Medicine]]|[[:Category:Health Care]]|[[:Category:Traditional Chinese Medicine]]|[[:Category:Naturopathic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Herbalism]]|[[:Category:Medicinal Plants]]|[[:Category:Herbs]]|[[:Category:Spices]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Traditional Chinese Medicine]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Ayurvedic Medicine]]|[[:Category:Plants used in Western Herbal Medicine]]|[[:Category:Herbalists‎]]|[[:Category:Health]]|[[:Category:Survivalism]]|[[:Category:India]]|[[:Category:Tibet]]|[[:Category:Nepal]]|[[:Category:Mongolia]]|[[:Category:Burma]]|[[:Category:Thailand]]|[[:Category:Sri Lanka]]|[[:Category:Asia]]|[[:Category:Southeast Asia]]|
:That could be a kind of record! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:04, 3 January 2015 (EST)

===Response to [[User:Wschact]] and [[User:AugustO]] Regarding Ayurvedic - Chinese - Western Herbal Medicine on Conservapedia ===
:: Happy New Year [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:Wschact]], [[User:AugustO]], [[User:Conservapedia]], and [[User:Karajou]]

Thank you for your patience with this detailed point-by-point response.

Like you [[User:Wschact]], I too am a steadfast conservative, but on much more than just social and fiscal issues, as my thousands of conservative point-of-view Conservapedia edits can attest to (Please see my [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] for more information). Also like you [[User:Wschact]], I too am very dedicated to Western medicine and work together with a medical doctor with a busy private practice office in a large hospital setting where he and I integrate both modern pharmaceutical based treatment and the use of custom made Ayurvedic-Chinese-Western herbal formulas, nutrition (based on Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine concepts) and acupuncture. He supervises my practice in that setting. Like you [[User:Wschact]], both he and I also run away from the myriad "new age" medicine approaches. However, Ayurvedic medicine, Chinese medicine - Acupuncture and Western herbal medicine are not "new age". Ayurveda and Chinese medicine - Acupuncture have been in continuous use since at least 250 B.C. according to archaeological evidence and extant classic medical texts in both Chinese characters, Tibetan and Sanskrit (which I can read by the way in Devanagari script).

Conservapedia does indeed have the expertise and resources to cover Ayurvedic medicine and Chinese medicine - acupuncture properly since I am contributing as a dedicated regular editor and have joined the [[Wikiproject:Medicine]] to lend my ongoing support editing/categorizing ALL articles in the realm of medicine / anatomy in addition to my other subject matter expertise areas on my User Page / Talk Page.

[[User:PhilH]] has said there is no clinical evidence to support complementary medicine. Not according to the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Institutes of Health who funds clinical trials on herbal medicines effectiveness, not according to medical doctors in America who integrate modern medicine with complementary medicine, not according to numerous conservatives who rely on complementary medicine including Western herbalism, Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda and Acupuncture. Just the fact that there is licensing for acupuncture in most of the U.S. states (majority of states require the licensing examination or certification, and several states allow oriental medicine practitioners to be "primary care providers" for legal and insurance purposes; nineteen states specifically include Chinese herbology instead of just acupuncture). For naturopathic medicine 17 states, five Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia, and the US territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands all have laws regulating naturopathic doctors (See map http://aanmc.org/images/LicensureMapBig.jpg -- even very conservative states such as my home state of Idaho in the [[American Redoubt]], along with Montana and Utah license naturopathy).

All of this attests to complementary medicine's broader acceptance, not to mention the size of the herbal market in the U.S. economy: For herbal medicine "overall sales reached $5.6 billion in 2012" "rising from $4.2 billion in 2000" (http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Markets/Herbal-supplement-sales-rose-5.5-in-US-in-2012-ABC-says)

There are many conservatives blogs and forums that I follow that have regular articles on complementary medicine and herb usage. Complementary/alternative medicine is not some liberal, hippie or New Age thing. It is even paid for by many insurance companies now. There is worker's comp coverage for it in certain U.S. states.

Regarding evidence in my articles, I will indeed be submitting footnoted hyperlinked clinical evidence from MedLine / PubMed.

Regarding the [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] having lots of sub-categories: There are many sub-categories in the Ayurvedic medicine category since it is a broad science including many diverse health and disease topics and since I am a very detail oriented person as you can see with my contributions for the firearms categorizations (which formerly were all lumped into just the Category of "Guns"). I am using that [[:Category:Ayurvedic Medicine]] and its temporarily numerous subcategories as a way of '''temporarily''' getting a broad view and tracking ability of ALL of the medicine-anatomy categories and articles in order to update them all over the coming months. I promise that I will pare that category down in the next 60 days to something smaller once I have updated-edited-expanded '''ALL''' of the medicine/anatomy related articles to follow a consistent yet detailed categorization scheme. I always start first with detailed Wiki categories in order to flesh out the scope-breadth-depth and a logical structure for the articles I will submit. I am doing the same detailed categorization for Firearms and other areas.

[[User:Conservative]] has been "mentoring" me as to what I should and shouldn't post. I have been following this for guidance as well: [[Conservapedia:Editorial_authority]]. I also received advice from [[User:Karajou]] on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 23:15:17 by e-mail (conservapedia AT zoho.com) who said, "Try your hand at writing complete articles. Conservapedia is not just something containing conservative thought; it is also intended to be a family encyclopedia, so it has to have info on planes, trains, automobiles, animals, sports teams, camera systems, or whatever else comes to mind. So, if you happen to be an expert on - say, rowboats - write an article on rowboats. Karajou".

Thus, following Karajou's advice above and oversight from [[User:Conservative]], I am writing "whatever comes to mind" on what I "happen to be an expert on". Thus, I have be developing a lot of detailed articles and their categorizations for my 6 areas of specialization (in order of my depth of subject matter expertise): 1. Medicine, 2. Computer networks (17 years professional experience), 3. [[Preparedness]]-Survivalism, 4. [[Firearm]]s, 5. [[Permaculture]] [[gardening]], 6. [[Radio communication technologies]] - [[Amateur radio]]. Being a staunch American conservative libertarian "prepper" [[gun enthusiast|"gun nut"]], I obviously write/edit from that perspective.

For these and many other reasons, I don't see a reason for Conservapedia to stay away from complementary medicine completely as you suggest [[User:Wschact]]. Thus, I will continue to contribute such works to Conservapedia until I am told to stop by any of the CP Administrators such as [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:Conservative]], or user [[User:Karajou]].

Thank you to you all for your work for our Conservative movement. Godspeed. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:57, 3 January 2015 (EST)

=="[[Troll]]" Editing by [[User:SamHB]] of Numerous articles I am Working on / Editing / Contributing ==

[[User:SamHB]], First you accuse me of plagiarizing, then you delete my citation correcting your speedy deletion template notice. Are you "[[Troll]]ing" perhaps ("[[Troll|users who purposely make disruptive edits are considered trolls]]") like your friends [[User:PhilH]] and this other friend of yours who made the comment on [[Talk:Free_state]]?

[[User:SamHB]], Please follow these Guidelines rather than making disruptive edits to further your agenda: [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]]

[[User:SamHB]], Looking at your contribution here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SamHB

[[User:SamHB]], I see that the last time you actually contributed any kind new article other than a Talk Page was here 2 years and 6 months ago:
18:54, 1 June 2013 (diff | hist) New! Propositional Calculus ‎ (A start. Ed, it's time for you to step up to the plate (See? I do know a few metaphores, though I'm not a TopDog!) and fill out this article.)

Looking at your contribution logs, a large amount of your recent edits in the last 30 days have been reverting my edits.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tinospora_cordifolia&action=history:
08:11, 4 January 2015 SamHB (Talk | contribs | block) (7,439 bytes) (Do not "spam" links to extrenal commercial websites. People are routinely banned for that.) (undo)

17:07, 2 January 2015 SamHB (Talk | contribs | block) (6,798 bytes) (If you really think blatantly plagiarized material should stay, please post a note to the community portal explaining this.) (undo)

[[User:SamHB]], It seems you are not listening to my previous Talk page on these articles. This is the second time I am telling you this. Please kindly listen this time and stop [[troll]] editing.

[[User:SamHB]], these links you deleted are ''''not'''' Spam links to external sites. It is a temporary citation for a quote I made to start the rough draft of the article -- the "ref" is to a respected and authoritative source of information on this herb; just as IBM would be an authoritative and respected cite regarding IBM Mainframe computers. Once I type in quotes and/or paraphrase summaries from some of my numerous Ayurvedic herb books listed here [[Tinospora_cordifolia#External_Links]], I will cite them as well to flesh out the article.

Formerly you were here on this very article [[Tinospora cordifolia]] accusing me of plagiarizing by not citing my 1 paragraph quote and nominated the article for deletion. Again, SamHB, please respect as I said before on my user talk page (perhaps you can read it) that I will be completing these articles in the next five days and let me do the editing on my article that I started, otherwise it slows me down to have to constantly go back and check the history of the pager to see if someone is "helping out".

While you can perhaps please consider contributing some new actual articles of your own in your own area of expertise such as math rather than editing one I am in the middle of working on. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 10:41, 4 January 2015 (EST)

-----

== This Site is Being Hijacked ==

There is no more pleasant way to put that.

This is a continuation of what I wrote above about "Do we really have so few responsible editors". The problem is extremely serious. Ultimately, it is about there being so few people who are responsible, level-headed, and able to put reasonable amounts of time into this, that one person can overwhelm everyone and turn Conservapedia into something far removed from its original goal. The original goal, in case people have forgotten, was a site that home-school students (and others, of course) can use as a general reference source, on a wide variety of topics, without bias from the liberals elsewhere on the Internet.

But [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] is single-handedly steering the site into a very different and troubling direction. Multiple directions, actually. How is he able to do this? '''Because his editing is fanatical, intense, and obsessive, and there aren't enough level-headed editors around who have the time and energy to put the brakes on.'''

He is turning this into a blog on survivalism, one very particular "Vata/Dosha/Ayurvedic" type of nontraditional medicine, and many other things. There is nothing wrong with articles on these topics, but he is overwhelming Conservapedia with his obsessive editing.

He has put dozens and dozens of references to his views on survivalism into a huge number of articles for which such references are totally inappropriate. He seems to think that we should all drop out of society, cash in everything we have into "tangibles" (bullets, beans, batteries, whatever) and move to "redoubt states" like Idaho to spend the rest of our days behind some barricades doing .... I don't know.

His steering of CP into his chosen direction is made all the worse by his fanatical cross-referencing and categorizing. This has put his writings "in your face" when people go to normal topics. For example:

*[[vibration]] used to be a short article explaining what wibration is—a rapid periodic undulating motion. TAR put it into the "VATA" category. When one looks around in same, one finds some new-age touchy-feely nonsense about psychological perceptions of vibration. He polluted [[Fashion industry values]] in the same way.

:: Dear [[User:SamHB|SamHB]], I will be adding some explanation to [[Fashion industry values]] and to my [[vata]] article to show that according to Ayurvedic medicine, patients who are "[[vata]]" disturbed or of a vata constitution have a very strong documented tendency to be part of much of the Fashion industry values, particularly [[anorexia nervosa]], serious [[drug abuse]], extreme [[promiscuity]], unfettered cosmetic surgery, severe [[depression]] along with an obsession for fashion.
One of my family members is a psychologist of 24 years who also knows Ayurveda and who has seen fashion industry values addictions among countless "vata" disturbed patients, but not among [[pitta]] or [[kapha]] patients who are more stable and not usually addicted to these same things. Sam, I shall be showing [[vibration]] to show a similar connection to the [[:Category:Vata]] both in Ayurveda, Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine. Perhaps SamHB it is best you stick with writing '''new''' useful articles on mathematics and calculus.
::Perhaps Sam you may want to considering following the wise advice of conservative [[User:VargasMilan]]: "Withholding judgment for now is good".
::Please be patient while I work on expanding articles and writing new content. Thank you. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:49, 5 January 2015 (EST)

*Similar irrelevant edits to [[Empirical science]], [[Natural Law]], [[Scientific observation]], [[Color]], [[Hopelessness]], [[Hearing_(sense)]], and [[Salt]].
:: Sam, in due time I shall expand these articles as well to show my reasoning. But for now I will follow my favorite CP Rule ([[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]]) and get back to work writing '''new''' content and will follow VargasMilan's advice below and try to not urgently "feel pressured to complete all the red links and for-now-obscure connections" "just because some people don't like" me "trying to be an effective voice for conservatism, and so they unfairly single" me "out." [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:26, 5 January 2015 (EST)

*Similar survivalist edits to [[Ruthenium]], [[Transformer]] (the electrical device), and [[Wire]] (the electrical conductor).
:: Dear [[User:SamHB|SamHB]], I corrected my accidental cut and paste of the Category:Survivalism on [[Ruthenium]] done when I first created the [[:Category:Precious Metals]] (
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Precious_Metals&action=history) on Dec. 4. Thanks for catching them SamB.
::I expanded the one sentence stub for transformer to include more content and formatting including its reason for being part of [[:Category:Survivalism]].
::Regarding the article [[Wire]] - was an article on expanded to include the electrical connector (it primary sense), since it formerly only described some Rock band Album (see
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wire&action=historysubmit&diff=1123057&oldid=1102092)
:: SamB, I think I will get back to making constructive edits and creating new content rather than hanging out on Talk pages. Good day. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:34, 5 January 2015 (EST)

*He has written extensively about [[amateur radio]], which, as an extra-class licensed ham, I think is fine. But the implication is that hams are just supposed to do this so they can communicate with each other "off the grid" in their "redoubts". I can assure everyone that the vast majority of hams (even those in call sign area 7) are fully engaged in society. We take emergency preparedness very seriously, of course, and have a big annual contest on this topic every year, but this is always done in cooperation with existing local, state, and federal emergency organizations. We have sub-organizations (ARES and RACES) dealing with this. We are very much on the grid and in society, and I object to the implication that we are not.
*His [[IP camera]] article, to pick just one of dozens of examples, links to [[Survivalist retreat]]. This is absurd.

In addition to his fanatical edits to Conservapedia articles that, by themselves, materially alter this site's direction, this huge web of interconnected categories and "see also"s makes it impossible for readers to escape his actions. This is significantly worse than what [[User:Conservative]] has been doing because, in the latter case, one simply needs to ignore any article with "hot button" phrases like "obesity", "evolutionism", "creationism", "atheism", "ponies", "walrus slides", and "long-haired creationist ladies". It's much much harder to escape from [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]]'s behavior.

I urge the administrators to put a stop to this. The rest of us simply can't do it.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:08, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:SamHB, I did a Google search of instances of the phrase "long-haired" on Conservapedia and none of the instances were done by the User: Conservative account. Are you jealous because you suspect that an editor of the User: Conservative account has a long-haired maiden as a sweetheart and you do not? :)

:::Try [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/120#please_make_a_cost.2Fbenefit_analysis_in_terms_of_human_welfare]]. It has "long haired, sweet and gentle Christian lady wife", no hyphen. Sorry. Anyway, I'm glad that at least one of you (male, I hope!) has "a long-haired maiden as a sweetheart". [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 16:53, 4 January 2015 (EST)

:Second, the odds of you being listened to by Aschlafly in terms of suggestions/complaints, etc. would go dramatically up if you created more content. Right now, I think the odds are pretty much zero given your level of content creation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:21, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:::I agree that the odds are nearly zero, but not for the reason you give. My history as a constructive contributor of long standing is well known to Andy. But thanks for your words of encouragement. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 16:53, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:: Quote Right now, I think the odds are pretty much zero given your level of content creation. Doesn't mean SamHB is not right though. The edits from the redoubt are so obviously either parody or highly biased POV pushing that it is difficult to argue otherwise. Woo is not encyclopedic, no matter who peddles the woo. Now I leave both redoubt and the collective known as User:Conservative to indulge in last wordism. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:35, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:::Oh, and if the collective editors of the User:conservative account have a long haired maiden as a sweetheart then I would question how multiple people having the same sweetheart is in any way Christian? Seems more liberal hippy type behaviour to me. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 4 January 2015 (EST)
::::DavidSpenceer, you may believe that deceitful accusations based on altering the meaning of other people's words is clever. It is not. And it makes the accuser look bad. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 4 January 2015 (EST)
:::::That is not what I was doing and you know it. Luke 4:23 Now, as I said I will leave you and redoubt to indulge in last wordism at this point.[[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 16:17, 4 January 2015 (EST)
DavidSpencer, I think posting long screeds to a person who is known to preferring brevity and doing it in a context that has an effective success rate is zero is irrational. But hey, that's just me! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 4 January 2015 (EST)

Is there a specific objection to a specific edit? I looked at [[transformer]], for example, and did not see anything objectionable about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 4 January 2015 (EST)

:I believe the objection was to the addition of the Survivalism category. If transformers are important to Survivalism, then it would be difficult to name a practical object that doesn't deserve inclusion in that category. [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] 00:09, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:: I updated the [[Transformer#Transformers_During_an_EMP_or_CME|transformer]] article to reflect why I included it in the [[:Category:Survivalism]]. Thank you for pointing it out. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 01:54, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:: Thanks [[User:AlexanderS|AlexanderS]] for your observations. Each item I put in the [[:Category:Survivalism]] will have expanded, footnoted content added to the article to justify its inclusion in this broad Survivalism category. For now, please be patient with it. Unless [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] objects to the content. I will be, in due time, reasonably justifying it with actual expanded content that respects copyright. Please see: [[Talk:Fair_use#Authorization_by_NYT_Best-Selling_Conservative_Christian_Preparedness_Author_James_Wesley_Rawles_to_use_.22up_to_3_Quotes_of_800_Words_Each.22_of_his_Writings_per_CP_Article]]. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:26, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:::SamHB and AlexanderS are worried that there are 404 articles and 125 subcategories in [[:Category:Survivalism]] now. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:35, 5 January 2015 (EST)

I am sure that SamHB has a better list, but you can review the user TAR contrib log for yourself:

A. Categories on Redirect Pages (he has promised to stop, but has not fixed):
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nonviolence&diff=prev&oldid=1128854 diff]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Unfree_state&diff=prev&oldid=1129151 Unfree state redirect categories subject of an edit war with SamHB, when nobody will ever see the redirect page]
B. Excessive See Alsos:
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=28_U.S.C._%C2%A7_453&action=historysubmit&diff=1128848&oldid=910327 what does 28 U.S.C. 453 have to do with the "Oath of the Hindu Physician"?]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Basil&diff=prev&oldid=1128985 Basil]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Priest&diff=prev&oldid=1128857 Priest]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pathology&action=historysubmit&diff=1128356&oldid=908582 Pathology] - also odd categories
C. Copy and Paste:
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tinospora_cordifolia&diff=next&oldid=1128194 SamHB called for a speedy delete] but this is obviously now a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tinospora_cordifolia&action=historysubmit&diff=1128974&oldid=1128895 derivative work with minor rephrasing]
*[[M.D._Creekmore]] from [http://www.thesurvivalistblog.net/about3/]
D. Odd new categories:
* [[:Category:Breathing]] - now 5 martial arts articles have been added but the see also and subcategories don't match the martial arts.
* [[:Category:Respiratory System]] - a bit of back and forth between TAR and SamHB - the 12 articles in this category don't match the ideas added by TAR.
E. Adding novel categories to long-standing articles:
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Vibration&action=historysubmit&diff=1127925&oldid=519263 Category Vata to Vibration]
* Due to TAR's massive efforts, there are now 404 articles in [[:Category:Survivalism]] as well as 125 subcategories, including [[:Category:Fruits]]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Inspiration&curid=117861&diff=1129179&oldid=945211 Category Breathing to Inspiration]
F. Sloppy linking:
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Free_States_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=1124521 see also reference to "Cumberland Redoubt" is linked to a CP article about a geographical portion of England, which was not what TAR intended]

G. Unilaterally modifying our legal disclaimer framework
* {{Tl|Medical Notice}} - unlike our general legal disclaimer, TAR's wording implicitly promises that CP articles will be reviewed by experts in the future and that CP will implement a certification program to show which articles have past a review. It implies that a nurse or herbalist have as much expertise as a doctor. A lot more discussion and review should occur before this template is put into article space. TAR has already deployed it at: [[Medication]], [[:Category:Food as Medicine]], [[Ocimum sanctum]], [[Withania somnifera]], [[Embilica officinalis]], and [[Tinospora cordifolia]].
::: I have modified my rough draft [[Template:Medical Notice]] to be more generic. I have now linked the template clearly to the official CP legal disclaimer ([[Conservapedia:General_disclaimer]]). Please feel free to edit the template. But I do think we need a specific medical disclaimer template like the rough draft one I created. This is why I attached it to my several rough drafts he astutely cited above. Please see [[Template_talk:Medical_Notice]] [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:56, 5 January 2015 (EST)
::::With utmost respect, {{Tl|Medical Notice}} should not be put into article space as a "rough draft". Create a page at [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt/Medical Notice]] for the rough draft and then invite other people to edit it with you. Once there is agreement and editors who are lawyers have had a chance to review it, then we will have the go ahead to add {{Tl|Medical Notice}} into articles. Also, interweaving this discussion in the middle of my earlier posting msy confuse other readers. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:30, 5 January 2015 (EST)

I don't want to come across as negative, but there have been a lot of edits from TAR without people taking the time to train him properly. We need you to set the standard so that the end product will meet our consensus expectations. Many thanks! [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:05, 5 January 2015 (EST)

Please see my response to TAR's questions about categories [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category_talk%3AExercise&action=historysubmit&diff=1129321&oldid=1129307 here].

==Withholding judgment for now is good==

The American Redoubt's proving the relevance of [[Transformer]] to survivalism as we speak. I don't agree with every cross-reference he added, but I don't want him to feel pressured to complete all the red links and for-now-obscure connections he made immediately just because some people don't like him trying to be an effective voice for conservatism, and so they unfairly single him out. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:55, 5 January 2015 (EST)

:::Thank you VargasMilan for your kind and inspiring words amidst the loud noise and shock coming from the transformer. :) I will follow your advice and focus on the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]] [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:56, 5 January 2015 (EST)

::I think that if you read User talk:TAR, you will see that everyone is trying to be respectful and constructive. I have also left my comments on the recent [[Transformer]] edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Transformer&oldid=1129177 here]. (His additions go to the question of grid reliability, not the question of whether someone '''should''' go off the grid.) The problem is that CP has a traditional view of conservatism. We need Andy to tell us where to go on non-Western medicine and survivalism. In general, I know a lot about law and social order and the electric industry. <s>I am not an expert in living as a mountain man in a post-civilization world.</s> I am not an expert in non-Western medicine. So, if we go in those new avenues, I would step back from the project. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 02:32, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:::Each time you commented about The American Redoubt's present shortcomings in completeness, you reproduced the section title "This Site Is Being Hijacked" in the edit summary. For someone who claims to know so much about transformers, you didn't seem to realize that you could have been administering to The American Redoubt quite a shock! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:47, 5 January 2015 (EST)
::::I did not name that discussion heading, but that is where Andy asked for specific links. Please look at the user talk page. I believe we must be positive and encouraging to new editors, but we have asked Andy for guidance for five days now. This is like Humpty Dumpty - each hour of indecision creates more and more clean up work. Everyone involved has been very polite, but TAR is pressing ahead full steam rather than consulting and soliciting feedback in an incremental, consensus building way. It is too bad that the Style Manual is protected. Otherwise, I would add further guidance about "see also" lists and categories. Many people come here after using Wikipedia, so they understand the concepts, but TAR is going off in his own direction. Similarly, the Style Manual needs to be clarified on what content should go on a category page and that categories should not be assigned to a redirect page. Thanks! [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:19, 5 January 2015 (EST)
The [[Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages|Manual of style]] page is now unprotected. After reasonable changes have been made to Manual of Style (which are not overly restrictive), ask an Admin to protect the page again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:31, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:I'm done. Please look it over and protect. Many thanks. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:04, 5 January 2015 (EST)
::The edits looked practical. I protected the article again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:24, 5 January 2015 (EST)
::: Looks great [[User:Wschact]]. Thanks for putting it in writing for newer editors who don't know the unwritten policies of the past. I will do my best to follow it. See my responses to your appreciated and polite mentoring over at [[Category_talk:Exercise]]. It's great Wschact that you are pleasantly civil and don't use words like "Rubbish!" and "Hideous!" as you delete my edits without even a Talk Page comment like a certain Expat American from the liberal bastion of Massachusetts. :-) [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]]
::::People are telegraphic and brief in edit summaries. SamHB and others all want CP to be a good resource, and for editors to work well together. The problem is that some people amp up their word choice when they feel that they are being ignored. You cannot finish CP in one day, so don't feel as if we are putting pressure on you. Just focus on one or two things at a time and give people an idea of where you are trying to go. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 17:02, 5 January 2015 (EST)
:::::The abolitionist [[Harriet Tubman]] declared: "I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if they only knew they were slaves." If only SamHB would be open-minded enough to recognize the truth of TheAmericanRedoubt's [[Essay:Free States Movement|essay on unfree states]]. Then he could escape the taxation scourge and big government scourge of Massachusetts that are robbing him of his economic freedom and other liberties! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:41, 5 January 2015 (EST)
Wschact, your "mountain man"/"outside my expertise"/"I'll have to step away from the project" comment is not conducive to building an encyclopedia.

Encyclopedias are broad based reference works. They don't solely cover urban living for example and can cover such topics as eskimos, Middle Eastern and African nomadic life, Australian aboriginal life, anarchy in Somalia, etc. If we wanted a project which solely covered your expertise such as law and social order in first world countries or the electric industry, it would stop being an encyclopedia.

If someone wants to create a wiki called UrbanWhiteLiberalElitePedia.org, I have no problem with that, but it will not be a very encyclopedic work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 12 January 2015 (EST)

On January 12, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] left a message on my talk page about a sentence that I posted above on 02:32, 5 January 2015 (EST). Basically, I argue that being a Conservative means working within society to build a social structure that promotes individual freedom and liberty while using government in a prudent fashion when necessary. I feel that certain extreme people are trying to scare prospective followers into leaving society '''now''' to live alone in a lightly populated area outside of the fabric of society. (This is a separate question from being prepared should society fail due to some crisis or catastrophe.) A conservative perspective should help us learn how to live together with wisdom, rather than endorse a viewpoint that assumes that society will fall apart completely very soon. So, I enthusiastically endorse covering '''all''' human knowledge including mountains, eskimo culture, and even guns. However, under Conservapedia Commandment #5, those article should be written without bias, including bias that advocates that people should leave society '''now''' to anticipate the imminent collapse of American society. I am sorry if my remarks were not clear. I know we both believe in Conservapedia Commandment #5 and don't see any difference in our policy objective. I am putting my energy into building a better encyclopedia within a constantly improving American society, rather than advocating a withdrawal from society based on the assumption that American society will fail soon. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:36, 12 January 2015 (EST)
:Did the 1929 Great Depression in the USA happen unexpectedly to many people? Did many people experience great hardship during the Great Depression? Has the US government, which is 13 trillion dollars in debt and engaged in a lot of money printing, nullified the business cycle and immune from the laws of economics? Are there reputable economists who believe that very seriously harmful, black swan events can still happen to modern economies?[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703791804575439562361453200][http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/01/08/how-falling-oil-prices-makes-a-black-swan-event-more-likely/] Did liberal economist community predict the 2007 economic crisis or did the conservative [[Austrian School of Economics|Austrian school of economics]] much better predict it?[http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMAM1_96GSc] Which liberal economics department at a major university predicted the 2007 economic downturn and made a public announcement beforehand? Is the correct answer none of them did? Are many Austrian economists predicting an extremely serious economic downturn? Are there respected financial analysts (often from the Austrian school) with strong track records predicting an extremely serious US economic downturn?[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e8GMfjgE58]

:Does Conservapedia have a worldwide audience? Is English fluency common in the world? Are most Christian conservatives outside the [[Western World]] (see: [[Global Christianity]])? Are conditions often difficult in developing countries where many Christian conservatives live and would survival skills be useful to these people?

:Are you saying that the devout Christians who witnessed the fall of the Roman Empire were not Christian conservatives? Are you saying that the devout Christians who witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union and experienced significant hardship were not Christian conservatives (when the fall of the Soviet Union occurred some people could not get their insulin, etc. etc.)?

:Would the people of New Orleans who experienced Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath have been better of if they had some survival skills or were they better off relying on big government? Were the [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/lingering_lakeeffect_snow_questions.html 13 people of the 2014 NY State blizzard] who were stranded on the NY State thruway who died better off relying on the liberal Cuomo administration's judgment on when the thruways should be kept open and not shut down for safety reasons or would they have been better off having some survival skills and preparation (weather radio, arctic sleeping bad in their car trunk, etc. etc.)?

:Could survival skills have been helpful to the people who died in the Ferguson riots?

:If one person read about some survival skills from a Conservapedia article and saved their life as a result, would it have been worth it? :)

:There is more in heaven and earth, Wschact, than is dreamt of in your liberal, urbanite/suburban philosophy. :)

:"Be prepared." - USA Boy Scout Motto

:"But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come." - The Apostle Paul

:The 4 Gs: God, gold, guns and a getaway plan! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:17, 12 January 2015 (EST)

::will the users of the conservative account continue to not use the show preview button? Will Karajou and Andy continue to ignore user requests with comment? Will the users of the conservative account continue to berate other users for having multiple people using one account? Will the users of the conservative account continue to pretend that Karajou and Andy actually speak to them? -[[User:RalphWi|RalphWi]] 00:14, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:::The users of the User: Conservative have never pesterfested anyone at CP! A user of the User: Conservative account got RobSmith banned for pesterfesting among other sins. If he hadn't pesterfested, he might still be an Admin.

:::Will the liberal, urbanite/suburban, pesterfester Wsachat be next to get the axe or will he take the hint and stop pesterfesting TheAmericanRedoubt? A user of the User: Conservative account knows that some of Wschat's pesterfesting is ideologically driven and uncalled for. In addition, his liberalism and ignorance of history/economics driven disdain for TheAmericanRedoubt (which inspired his "mountain man" cultural/economics myopia) caused him to have a less than a cooperative spirit. This must change and will not be tolerated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:32, 13 January 2015 (EST)

==Quality over speed==
I realize that [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] has a lot of energy and wants to add a lot of material to Conservapedia. However, we value quality over speed. For example, today we have a brand new article [[CETME‎]]. It appeared nine minutes after TAR's edit to a different article. If I understand correctly, this article is a 45 word cut and paste from the "Survivor Blog" (according to footnote 1). The article then has a See also section and Further reading section to two of James Wesley Rawles books. The new article gives the overall impression that if you want to know about a Spanish manufacturer of army rifles, Rawles is the expert. I find that difficult to believe.

: Dear [[User:Wschact]], you may find that hard to believe, because you haven't read those books. I have read at least 15 minutes per day of his SurvivalBlog articles daily for about 6 years. That's more than 500 hours more of reading of just his Survival Blog which contains a LOT of firearms articles. I read/listen to about 1.5 hours a day from about 5 other firearms and survival blogs/podcasts. I can safely say that he, [[Jack Spirko]] and [[Boston T. Party]] are indeed respected firearms people. Have you read those two books? I have, several times for the 2009 one. Mr. Rawles is indeed an "expert" on them, as much as anyone else I have read writing generally about firearms. I will add additional material at a later date from [[Boston T. Party]]'s [[Boston's Gun Bible]].
:I think we have a 90/10 issue here and I am starting to spend as much time defending my edits/articles as I am making edits.
:I have been working on these offline in MS Word as you suggested and pasting them onto CP. You asked me to do that rather than write it online as lots of drafts. There is not a lot to say about these things unless you are a [[gun enthusiast|"gut nut"]] like me. I am writing them for a basic audience like a new gun owner, not a highly technical one and not with huge amounts of extraneous details like Wikipedia. The gentleman "doth protest too much, methinks" [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

I would suggest that an editor should take more than 11 minutes to write a new CP article.
: See above response. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

When I write an article, I look for two or more independent, reliable sources.
: I did and do. Have you read my sources? I have. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

I then write the article using my own words because I don't want Conservapedia to necessarily or inadvertently adopt some other person's views as its own.
: No, they will adopt your views. I am relying on words from respected sources with permission. Would you like to e-mail him yourself to verify the permission? [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::Perhaps you should look for newspaper or magazine articles about CETME. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:31, 7 January 2015 (EST)

James Rawles' views on CETME are irrelevant, because there is no indication that he has given thought or study to this topic.
: I don't think you are qualified to make such a statement and are showing your bias now. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::With utmost respect, the topic is a Spanish gun manufacturer. Mr. Rawles may know a few of the products, but what does he know about the overall company and its history, structure, capabilities and ownership? How many CETME‎ factories did he visit or employees did he interview? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:31, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Further, when Rawles writes about some CETME products, it is incidental to his writing about survivalism and any article based on his writings will over-emphasize the relationship between those products and survivalism.
: Or not. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

If I were to write an article about a company, I would include where the company is located, how it got started and its subsequent history, its products and how those products have been received in the market place. Ownership and structure can also be important.
: Not for this article. Maybe for IBM, or Microsoft, but not CETME. I think you should go talk to a qualified "[[gun enthusiast|gun guy]]"[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:: I accept that a computer enthusiast would write about IBM or Microsoft and that a gun enthusiast will write about CETME. But a good article about ''any'' company would contain the items I listed above. Look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Gun_Company the Wikipedia article covering the Ithaca Gun Company]. It was probably written by a gun enthusiast, but it covered the company. Could you please write articles like that when you start articles about companies? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:38, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Writing a CP article takes more than 11 minutes and takes a bit of thought about the article's subject.
: I spend more time than that. Ibid [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

This is because CP's audience is different than the audience of the Survivor Blog, and a good author should ask himself "What would a CP user want to know about this subject?"
: I do. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Time is better spent producing 10 articles of a decent length, than creating 100 snippets as articles.
: Your opinion. There are thousands of very short one sentence place holder articles on CP. They serve a valid useful purpose. I have now spent more time defending my edits then is interesting for me. So I will continue doing what I am doing in terms of topics and current quality of work and time spent unless I am told to do otherwise by [[User:Aschlafly‎]], [[User:Karajou]], [[User:Conservative]]. Until I hear from admins telling me to stop what I have been working diligently on and that they consider it not useful to CP objectives and not fitting the CP audience of conservatives, who are generally not [[hoplophobia|hoplophobic]] as I begin to wonder if you are perhaps certain liberal editors here. But until then, "I'll stick to my guns" -- pun intended. :-)
::I am not biased against CETME. I am suggesting that if you want to write about CETME, you do an adequate job of it. If you don't think it is worthwhile to write about CETME, then don't wikilink to it in your other articles. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:31, 7 January 2015 (EST)

I hope this helps. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:46, 7 January 2015 (EST)
: You advice before on CP unwritten policy was helpful. This not so much. Thank you anyway. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:25, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Time is better spent producing 10 articles of a decent length, than creating 100 snippets as articles. I hope this helps. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:46, 7 January 2015 (EST)

: Again, your opinion. If I do what you want then [[User:AlanE]] will be upset at so many red links. Please see the myriad useful 1 paragraph articles I CP, many of which I have learned from. I will get back to 90-10 rule actual work now. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:25, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::AlanE has clarified his message further [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlanE&action=historysubmit&diff=1129929&oldid=1126708 here]. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 15:29, 7 January 2015 (EST)

:I have the same concern with the article [[G3]]. It also appears to be a 30 word quotation from Rawles, but the quotation marks are missing. It appeared 5 minutes after TAR's last edit to CETME. Isn't there a good source other than Rawles about this NATO battle rifle? Why was this article not entitled "Heckler and Koch G3"? (For a list of other meanings of G3, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G3) Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 04:01, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:: The gentleman "doth protest too much, methinks" [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:16, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::By the way, please look at the history of the G3 article which I didn't create... And you will see I improved it. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:27, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::On Internet [[forum]]s at this point, we have seen the word [[popcorn]] :-) Which by the way, Popcorn is a 24 word article. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 04:28, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:::Correct, the G3 article did exist before, but you overwrote the meager prior contents replacing it with a new version based on a 30 word quote from SurvivalBlog.
:::I have a concern with the article [[7.62x51mm NATO]]. Why was this article not entitled "7.62x51mm NATO rifle"? Again the quote should be in quotation marks. I think that when [[User:Conservative]] gave you a 2500 length guideline, he did not have in mind that most of the article would be See also, External references and Bibliography. When [[User:AlanE]] was discussing red links, I think that he thought that the red links would be eliminated by writing sound articles, not one sentence articles. Perhaps we should ask him for clarification. Cheers.[[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:18, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::::Micromanagement. Cheers? You must be British? [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 05:28, 7 January 2015 (EST)
If you go to the most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, AOL, Duck Duck Go, etc.) and query various topics, you will see in the top 10 search results decent size articles and not stub articles. Why? Because website visitors like more informative articles and not stub articles. The search engines are giving people what they want. If they didn't give people what they want, they would be out of business.

When the liberal ''LA Times'' gave a review of Conservapedia in its beginning stage, the reporter pointed out that Wikipedia had a lot more articles. So some Conservapedians went on a binge of creating stub articles. I was against this. Stub entries are fine for a dictionary, but not for an encyclopedia. And as I pointed out above, the public prefers more informative articles and not stub articles.

As far as Monday Night quarterbacking of articles in terms of the talk pages, if reasonable objections are raised, that is fine. But if it is largely a matter of liberal bellyaching due to their sacred cows being tipped over, then the author/authors of articles should not be obligated to engage in wheel spinning due to unreasonable liberal opponents of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:01, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:Thank you, Cons. One problem is that we patrol edits, and red flags should go up if there is a pattern of edits which raise reasonable objections. I agree that we are here to better serve our readers and to attract new readers. We are not under pressure to create one sentence articles. We developed our style manual because we are collectively being judged by our readers, who do not know who wrote which article. So, it is up to the patrolers to keep training all editors and push everyone toward compliance with Conservapedia's standards.

:Perhaps Conservapedia needs to establish a two-part strategy of recruiting more editors and then having a formal mentoring program to greet and train them when the new editors arrive. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:08, 7 January 2015 (EST)

== Window of opportunity for editing seems to be closing. What's going on? ==

The past 5 days while attempting to contribute additional information on the series of articles I have contributed on the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals of the Bible I have been startled and dismayed that the window of opportunity to make additional edits has been shortened.

Up to that point I have been able to begin at 08:30 and normally found the cut-off time for editing has been 02:30. Then, when I attempted to page preview about 8 hours work, believing that I would be able to further refine the text, the message that "you are not permitted" appeared about 22:35, 4 hours earlier than what had been normal (and which I had come to expect). I was able to return to the edit page I had been working on and leave it alone all night long until after 08:30, then continued editing it and finally submit it. It had taken a long time to complete. I'm glad it hasn't been altered.

I continued Monday 5th January with a brief period of editing to provide additional information to [[Book of Wisdom]] and successfully submitted it. But when I continued with [[Book of Sirach]] on Tuesday, the cut-off time was unexpectedly earlier at 18:35 hrs, 8 hours earlier than had been normal. So I returned to the edit page as it was and left it alone overnight until this morning with the computer still on. I copied it, then went to today's page, logged in, and replaced its text with the saved edit text pasted onto the page, and this was successful. Then I worked on it some more, adding some useful documentary links and then laboriously copied by hand, keyboarding from a book in the public domain two "Prologues" to the Book of Sirach, one of which is not available online (which is in an antique family Bible on display in my living room), and when I clicked "Preview", the message "you are not permitted" came up, and it was a real unexpected shock. This was at about 11:48 hours, almost '''15''' hours earlier than what had been usual. In attempting to printout the text I had edited (''without using the "copy" tools feature'') I lost about 2 hours work. I got some of it saved that way, but the majority of it was now lost, and I shall have to reconstruct it again later, if I can.

Is this circumstantial, because of the holiday season?, perhaps because most of the administrators are taking a break?, or is it because of cold weather issues with internet and web hardware interlinkages?

It is curious in the context of the above that I was able to successfully preview this query without getting the "you are not permitted" message.

So, What's going on here? Please let me know. I wish you well. ''Pax vobis'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 13:57, 7 January 2015 (EST)
::Contact the owner of the website at [[User talk:Aschlafly]] and briefly as possible explain the situation. In addition, ask for night editing rights. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:03, 7 January 2015 (EST)
:::Thanks, Conservative! I left a brief note with Andrew Schlafly, with convenient link back to this entry. Appreciate your recommendation for request night editing rights. ''Pax vobis''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 11:20, 9 January 2015 (EST)

==Glossary categories==
Conservapedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. There are a number of new categories being created such as: [[:Category:Firearms Glossary‎]], [[:Category:Preparedness Glossary‎]] and [[:Category:Military Glossary‎]] which would be better combined with [[:Category:Firearms]], [[:Category:Survivalism]] and [[:Category:Military‎]] respectively. It is not clear why any particular article would be in the Firearms category or its Glossary counterpart. I wanted to get the views of other editors before I combine them. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:31, 8 January 2015 (EST)

===Response to Wschact's Monday Night Quarterbacking===
What [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] said: (see also [[Category_talk:Firearms_Glossary]])
"Conservapedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Therefore it makes sense to have only one set of categories. All of the articles that would be placed in the "Firearms Glossary" category should be placed in the "Firearms" category. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:25, 8 January 2015 (EST)"

My final response:
Dear [[User:Wschact|Wschact]], I strongly disagree about the Categories I have created. Based on these words of support for my [[Firearms]]-[[Preparedness]] project from [[User:Conservative]]: [[User_talk:TheAmericanRedoubt#User:Conservative_OK_on_the_Addition_of_Preparedness.2FSurvivalism_and_Gun_Articles_on_CP]], I will be creating literally hundreds of articles on the the topic of firearms over the next few months. More than 50 in the next 2 weeks. And MANY of them will appropriately be initially short topics that will categorized under [[:Category:Firearms Glossary]] versus the broader [[:Category:Firearms]]. Otherwise [[:Category:Firearms]] will over time become too large like the [[:Category:History]].

These short articles will include items such as [[recoil compensators]], [[half-cock]], [[headspace]], [[IMR powder]], [[wildcat cartridge]], [[out-of-battery]], [[zero-in]], [[internal ballistics]], [[length of pull]], [[muzzle brake]], [[percussion cap]], [[trunnion]], [[Picatinny rail]], [[varmint rifle]], [[pump-action]], [[lever-action]], [[action (firearms)]], [[safety (firearms)]], [[trigger (firearms)]], [[hammer (firearms)]], [[stock (firearms)]], [[forearm (firearms)]], [[match grade]], [[rate of fire]], [[Red dot sight]], [[sabot]], [[sawed-off shotgun]], [[semi-wadcutter]], [[short-barreled rifle]], [[slamfire]], [[hangfire]], [[spitzer bullet]], [[swage]], [[telescoping stock]], [[hammer bite]], [[slide bite]], [[slide (firearms)]], [[frame (firearms)]], [[receiver (firearms)]], etc, etc. to name a few.

I have put a lot of thought and energy into this project to attract a different audience of conservatives to our beloved Conservapedia. I first learned of Conservapedia from a hyperlink from [[James Wesley Rawles]]. And his popular website ([[The_Survival_Blog#Strong_Advocate_of_Conservapedia_over_Wikipedia]]) with more than 80 million unique visits since July 2005 and more than 320,000 unique visits per week is very happy to more frequently link to us where possible, doing his best to avoid what frequently calls the "[[Wikipedia|LiberalPropagandaPedia]].

[[User:Wschact|Wschact]], regarding the rather long See Also's I created a few thousand edits ago when I was new to Conservapedia editing, please allow me to shorten them for you by creating collapsible bottom of page Navigation Bar templates. Please see: [[Template_talk:Firearms_topics]]] and [[Template_talk:Internet_security_topics]], etc.

{{Template:Firearms_topics}}

----

{{Template:Preparedness_topics}}

[[User:Wschact|Wschact]], perhaps you would please consider working on creating some '''new content''' yourself or on editing existing articles in a field in which you are "subject matter expert" rather than constantly nit-picking the guns, preparedness and computer security fields. Did you notice I didn't say [[Ayurvedic medicine]] or [[Traditional Chinese medicine]]. I have put those [[alternative medicine]] projects which so upset you on hold for a bit in order to wait and see what the CP Admins have to say or not say.

[[User:Wschact|Wschact]], if you kindly would let me focus and get back to lots of editing of the areas in which I have a good amount of knowledge and maybe you could then review my edits in 30 days and I will have a more open mind to your suggestions which at this point are not very constructive.

I think I will go back to the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]] rather than pay to much attention to "[[Liberal whining|squeaky wheel]]" noisy liberal and/or [[RINO]] [[liberal style]] critics here. Not to suggest that you are either of those since I don't know anything about you except for what you write here.

I will not be responding as often to your very frequent comments since it is beginning to take up an inordinate amount of time diplomatically answering then and justifying them compared to [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule]].

I will quote [[User:Conservative]] to answer your continued attempted micro-management of so many of my contributions:
"As far as Monday Night quarterbacking of articles in terms of the talk pages, if reasonable objections are raised, that is fine. But if it is largely a matter of liberal bellyaching due to their sacred cows being tipped over, then the author/authors of articles should not be obligated to engage in wheel spinning due to unreasonable liberal opponents of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:01, 7 January 2015 (EST)"

This will be the last I shall write to you on these matters.
Again, I repeat, the gentleman "doth protest too much, methinks".

Why don't you please live the gun stuff to the [[gun enthusiast|"gun nuts"]]. :-)

Good day.
[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:35, 8 January 2015 (EST)
:This is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia as a group. We are writing a fair and factually accurate encyclopedia as a team. Our writing level is targeted to the reading skills and background of a high school age student. While we make a sincere effort not to step on each others toes, we work together and any of us is free to correct each other. Such changes are not to be taken as a personal affont, but rather as a good faith effort to improve the product. To the extent that I and other people have commented on TAR's contributions by name, this was in an effort to mentor a newcomer who still has a lot to learn about Conservapedia's writing style.

:It is too easy to dismiss valid criticism as "noisy liberal and/or RINO" comments. Anyone can see that the criticism has been about a lack of content or inaccurate content rather than the content being insufficiently liberal and/or RINO. It is impossible condemn criticism here as "micromanagement" because Conservapedia strives for accuracy and consistency. Some mistakes are small, but if repeated enough times can create big problems.

:We cannot stop editors from creating short articles, but we hope that the short stub articles will grow into more comprehensive ones. If you believe that an article will never grow beyond a short definition, then do not create a separate article for that subject. Instead, consider creating a single article entitled "Firmarm terminology" or "Firearm glossary".

:Our goal is not "to attract a different audience of conservatives to our beloved Conservapedia." Our goal is to attract the general public here and to provide them with the best possible content. If the content is good, then they will return and we will get more traffic. We also have a goal of attracting more editors, so using pejorative terms like "gun nuts" does not help on that front. We ask that when someone does join our editing team, they check their biases at the door but retain common sense in making this group effort a success. I will welcome the comments of other people on whether we want separate glossary categories. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:56, 8 January 2015 (EST)

==The Liberals smear campaign Won -- I now retire from editing Conservapedia==
I must say that the liberal smear campaign and relentless edits/deletions from 5 very loud CP liberal trolls / RINOs (besides the vociferous [[User:Wschact]], you know who you are and will be happy to know you have won) has been no fun. I am sad to say, it is much worse edit wars and liberal reverts than ''anything'' I contributed over the years to Wikipedia. Sorry [[User:Aschlafly]], [[User:Conservative]] and [[User:Jpatt]], but I have lost the enthusiasm to continue contributing to CP in the face of this much liberal opposition. Thank you 3 for what you do for the conservative movement. I strongly suspect that the frequent sock puppet hacker-vandalist accounts were [[User:Wschact]] or one his friends using a VPN since all the vandals edits were directed to things he was revert warring with me over. God bless. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 02:26, 9 January 2015 (EST)

==User:Wschact's Stubborn Hounding: 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work out of 179 edits, 129 concern my edits ==

Between December 16 and January 8, out of 179 edits made by Wschact, 129 concern either Wschact rapidly changing my edits soon after I complete them / reverting them or complaining to the Community/Admins about my contributions. That is to say, 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work. That is a good example of being tenaciously hounded by strong opposition. Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Wschact

I didn't really want to put this part about Wschact on CP Talk pages or Community Portal since I don't want to further alienate him from me or make him more dogged in his pursuit of editing/patrolling/trolling my contributions. But his recent remarks to my "Retirement" posting, made me decide to mention these 72% statistics and to come out of "retirement". [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 19:42, 9 January 2015 (EST)

===Inspired by Karajou and User:Conservative to Not Retire due to User:Wschact' Dogged Hounding===
Dear Admins Karajou and Conservative

My biggest concern, that finally '''temporarily''' "took the wind out of my sails" and prompted me to '''temporarily''' retire as a contributor, is Wschact, who makes my Conservapedia contributions the subject of 72% of his edits over a 24 day period, as I will show below.

My biggest concern isn't SamHB who explained himself well here:http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB#.22Troll.22_Editing_by_User:SamHB_of_Numerous_articles_I_am_Working_on_.2F_Editing_.2F_Contributing, saying that "I promised that I would revert your things only once, and I mean it."

Nor is my concern AlanE's presumptuously slanderous race baiting comment here:
I first said to AlanE: "Please better to stop the "Revert War" (unless it is by an American CP administrator) and instead make comments and suggestions on this talk page for editing the material. "Free state" is a big topic in the American Conservative, Libertarian and Christian circles. The old meaning of Antebellum south is rarely used except among historians. I would be willing to move some of it to an essay, however, the majority of it matches conservative values. Please discuss in a civil way without using words like hideous, offensive, etc like User:SamHB used for the previous revert." TheAmericanRedoubt 02:57, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Alan rudely Ad hominem responded to me:
"Excuse the following...but I am cross, and Sam is I know to be a reasonable and intelligent man - and a friend.... Obviously I can't win against someone who probably sits at his computer for hours on end with an assault rifle beside him with one eye out the window just hoping that some one who is black or jewish or liberal will put a foot onto his property so that he can shoot them. What larks!! (Pip old chap)). I won't go on because I see you are like those I occasionally met in the old days in Outback pubs who felt naked without their firearms and were usually relieved of their ammunition before the publican would serve them a beer. Cheers mate." AlanE 04:06, 17 December 2014 (EST)" Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Free_state
I decided to simply ignore AlanE since that was the last I heard of him.

What finally '''temporarily''' took the remaining "wind out of my sails" is Wschact’s almost month-long dogged efforts:
I assert that between December 16 and January 8, out of 179 edits made by Wschact, 129 concern either Wschact rapidly changing my edits soon after I complete them / reverting them or complaining to the Community/Admins about my contributions. That is to say, 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work. That is a good example of being tenaciously hounded by strong opposition. Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Wschact

Here http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany#Interpretation_of_copyright_policy
Wschact doesn't even know the difference between 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge/ammunition and a "7.62x51mm NATO rifle" and hence wrongly insisting that the Admins move 7.62x51mm NATO to "7.62x51mm NATO rifle". And the so-called copyright issues he brings are been handled by MLA citations/references/bibliography and [[fair use]].

I made more than 1000+ small edits on CP for several months before contributing much of anything original to be sure that I got a feel for the actual format, content, categories, see also's, stubs or lack of stubs, politics, guidelines, etc. I also wanted to make sure that my edits proved to the CP admins that I am sincere and trustworthy, not a troll or parodist. Then in late November when my sabbatical began I begin much more extensive CP contributions. That was when on December 16 I can on the Wschact radar scope.

I was asked by one JoeyJ (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TheAmericanRedoubt&oldid=1130110#Orphaned_Pages) to deorphan pages which I then began to do. But the edits I make to de-ophan them by adding them appropriately to a See Also or a wiki link within the article were getting frequently deleted by Wschact. This happened a lot. He would keep saying I am violating the CP policy.

Over the next few months while I am taking a sabbatical from my work, I have a lot of time/energy/knowledge to contribute to CP generating new content. Alas, at the moment I am feeling too harassed by their constant rapid nit-picking and having to 10/90 Talk Page explain my every step versus doing 90/10 actual article work. I've never experienced this before in an online Wiki or forum community, I am sad to say. Even on Wikipedia, I would get at least a few days to a week to perfect a short article or a contribution to one before the liberal vultures would swoop in to eat it up (if they did even). Because CP is a much smaller community of editors, they give me no time to improve upon my work before they come in and revert/delete. It's truly demoralizing/intimidating for a new editor. I don't know what else to say. I feel CP is an amazing voice for our American conservative movement, but I didn't know it would have so many fast-moving critics/deleters/reverters against anything I contribute in the realm of firearms or survivalism/preparedness articles. Yet they were against much on complementary medicine and amateur radio as well.

It's funny, the ONLY contributions of mine that the liberal/RINO editors didn't touch were the Buddhist articles. I think that is because most liberals like Buddhism. Although Catholic, I formally studied comparative religions and CP's Buddhist and Hindu articles are very slim at the moment, so I have much to add there as well. But again, at the moment, I am becoming "gun shy" with their liberal/RINO sights all aimed at me now, especially on http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal.

[[Persistence]] is a virtue, as Calvin Coolidge said:

:"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.
:Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
:Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
:Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
:The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

Thank you for listening. Any advice or encouragement would be appreciated.

[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 19:42, 9 January 2015 (EST)

:Your sheer volume of edits has the liberals worried. Since they can't take CP down, they need to force out productive members. Improving CP is against their interests. Every edit is a poke in their eye. Stay the course and keep on trucking. Good work!--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:52, 9 January 2015 (EST)

:: Roger that [[User:Jpatt]]! The encouraging words are sincerely appreciated. My sails now have full wind in them again and I added a backup [[generator]] just in case so I can stay the course amidst the gusty liberal winds that try to sink the ship. I feel supported now in adding lots of firearms articles. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 23:25, 9 January 2015 (EST)

:::Lock and load! And keep your powder dry and don't let the liberals rain on it. :) If SamHB behaves rudely, tell Karajou and he will straighten him out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:10, 10 January 2015 (EST)

::::What is this? A mixed metaphor competition? And Cons. If you are going to invoke Oliver Cromwell, it's load and lock. (I struggled against the thought that you might be going off half cocked.) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:56, 10 January 2015 (EST)
::::::''This thread seems to be in two places; here, and in TAR's talk page.''

::JPatt: You have always been fair-minded in your dealings with me, but I think you are falling into a rhetorical trap in your comments above about liberals:

:::Your sheer volume of edits has the liberals worried. Since they can't take CP down, they need to force out productive members. Improving CP is against their interests. Every edit is a poke in their eye.

::The rhetorical trap is conflating anyone who disagrees with oneself as a "liberal". It is a very common fallacy here at CP. What you said about liberals may well be true, but the context suggests that you are applying it to the 5 people that TAR is complaining about. (I assume the 5 are myself, Wschact, AugustO, PhilH, and AlanE.) I don't think the things you said above about liberals apply to all of us. We are not forcing out productive members; in fact, I have just been forced out, complete with extremely explicit block threats (above and below) by Cons. Improving CP is not, and has never been, against my interests.

::I believe that abhorrence of treason is a very conservative value. I abhor treason, and I take accusations that my home state is treasonous and unconstitutional very seriously. Yet this accusation has been put back in, and there is nothing I can do about it except leave. My rude language was because of that abhorrence.

::I believe that CP's presentation on relativity is in good condition, so no further editing on my part will be necessary. I will leave now. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 13:44, 10 January 2015 (EST)

:::::''Some material here, being about SamHB personally, and various disagreements with him personally, has been moved to his talk page, [[User_talk:SamHB#Material_moved_from_the_Community_Portal]]. It is not relevant to Conservapedia generally. As the person who initiated the use of this page to discuss matters of general interest to the Conservapedia community, I feel a certain responsibility to keep the discussions on topic.'' [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 14:22, 11 January 2015 (EST)

==Interesting article==
While researching this topic, I came across an interesting article from the Chicago Tribune from 2011 at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-11/health/ct-met-nccam-overview-20111211_1_cancer-treatment-alternative-medicine-breast-cancer-researcher
:In traditional/folk medicine there is a strain of thought based on practicality and treatments working for families/communities/societies over a long time. On the other hand, there is another strain based on New Age impractical ideas and other impractical ideas.

:In Western medicine, there is a problem with greed/fraud and the strength of marketing campaigns/market position (industry leaders with name recognition and a strong brand are hard to combat) winning the day instead of an objective cost/benefit analysis. Plus, the case of Ignaz Semmelweis (he proposed that doctors wash their hands due to its beneficial effects and was met by fierce opposition) shows that errant tradition (we have always done it this way) rather than objective criteria does happen within Western medicine. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:30, 11 January 2015 (EST)

== Subject matter expert in electromagnetism ==

I notice the recent creation of the [[Lenz's Law]] page. This really isn't encyclopedic—people aren't going to come away with the feeling that CP is a source of good information on the topic. I think there may be a connection with the Meissner effect and with "eddy currents". Does anyone know about this?

Is there someone with the knowledge, expertise, wherewithal, and motivation who can put together a good explanation? I think it would make fascinating reading if done well. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:14, 13 January 2015 (EST)
==Response to [[User:Conservative]]'s January 13 question==
[I struck out my Jan 5 sentence above before Cons left his Jan 13 posting immediately above.] Conservapedia faces a number of challenges in attracting readers and maintaining viability (and beyond that thriving). On the one hand, Cons is correct that there have been some vandals and "parodists" like Markman who have wasted our time and chased some valuable editors away. On the other hand, bad writing, inconsistent format, and other technical glitches undermine our credibility and discourage readers from returning. So, what we need (and what I have done) is to work '''here for years''' on cleaning up after vandals as well improving the writing quality and consistency of style. Of course I have also added a ton of content. If Cons wants to identify "enemies of Conservapedia", he should be equally on the lookout for vandals, parodists and poor writing that does not meet our style guide. I agree that generally people should not hover over or smother other editors while they are working. I am giving TAR more space to learn. Yet, because this wiki is a '''group collaboration''', I expect people to come along and edit what I wrote last week, and everyone else here expects that I will edit what they wrote. The best of the public will produce a coherent whole from the collaboration. (By the way, I do not have any "distain" for TAR and respect his wide variety of interests and background.) Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:01, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:Three points: 1) TheAmericanRedoubt said some of your edits related to his were helpful. But the sheer volume of them were uncalled for. 2) Your "mountain man" comment reeks of disdain. There is no hiding it. Best to admit it and move on. The same liberal elitist attitude could be said of your absolutist stance against traditional medicine given that many people of modest means throughout the world depend on it and common things like turmeric/ginger have been scientifically shown to benefit people medicinally without toxic side effects (I recognize traditional medicine has its problems, but so does Western medicine so good judgement needs to be used by consumers. Conservatives believe in giving adult consumers choices. It ultimately comes down to a cost/benefit/toxicity/"willingness to risk" decision. Japanese consumers, who tend to be more health conscious than many cultures, use highly advanced Western medicine and often use traditional medicine too and there life expectancy is 5 years longer than Americans). 3) Some of your reversions were ideologically based and uncalled for. One way or another, this is going to stop. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:21, 13 January 2015 (EST)
::Wschact, it's not your job to edit out conservatism, which is what I and other people here have seen you doing. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:24, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:::Cons: I withdrew the comment at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=1131542&oldid=1131537 22:34 12 January] so let's move on. Let's wait for Andy to decide the medicine question or whether Conservapedia embraces a [[Dystopia]] vision. Vargas: I would never intentionally "edit out conservatism". Perhaps we have different ideas of what good writing requires. I take item #5 of [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]] seriously: "We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts." Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:48, 13 January 2015 (EST)
::::Wschact sometimes (not always) has an arrogant attitude hidden under a veneer of politeness. If something falls out of his area of expertise and he is against it, well it has to be reverted. I demonstrated above that his knowledge of economic history and economics is quite limited. In addition, he has a disdain for those outside of cities/suburbia or he never would have used the term "mountain man". I am not saying he cannot change his attitude, but there is definitely a problem. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:58, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:::::Preparedness is not synonymous with dystopian. People can have sizable amounts of precious metals in their portfolios for example, but still own stocks. You can have an emergency kit in your car without thinking that sooner or later you are going to get into a very serious accident. You are setting up a false dichotomy. In addition, it is possible for an encyclopedia to cover survivalism in an objective manner. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:06, 13 January 2015 (EST)
::::::With due respect, the statement in question, which I withdrew hours ago was, "I am not an expert in living as a mountain man in a post-civilization world." It was a statement of self-depreciation and modesty in recognition of my own limitations, not one of arrogance. I do not want to plan for a post-civilization dystopia but rather I want conservative principles applied to American society. I and other conservatives believe in America and its ability to overcome any challenge. A small faction is trying to bet against American society surviving and to profit from its downfall. I sense that you agree with my side of this bet, and you agree that my remarks about dystopia were not directed toward preparedness. (The Scout motto is "Be Prepared.") Let's move on. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 02:18, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:::::::The alternative/traditional medicine decision has already been decided. I suggested that TheAmericanRedoubt compromise by not adding ayurvedic medicine content and he is amenable to this. Second, I already know beforehand that your acts of illegitimate behavior towards TheAmericanRedoubt will cease one way or another. I am hoping that things are done in the most harmonious way possible. Hopefully, you take the hint and act in a more productive manner. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:37, 13 January 2015 (EST)
If memory serves, and it may not, I have the impression from your main page talk comments that you are a liberal/moderate. And VargasMilan indicated that you are attempting to edit out conservatism from Conservapedia. I said my piece. I am also willing to move on. I don't believe in holding grudges. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:46, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:One other matter: Not all Conservapedians are American. Admin Joaquin is Mexican for example. And Conservapedia has content that covers areas outside of the USA. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:01, 13 January 2015 (EST)
::We agree on non-American conservatives, and we agree that Survivalism can be covered objectively on Conservapedia. The reason I focused on the American context above is that society in some foreign countries have indeed collapsed, but that America is exceptional and we should not bet on an American collapse. Also, although I may be more moderate than some people, I am certainly '''not a liberal'''. Perhaps some of my libertarian views might create that mis-impression. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:09, 13 January 2015 (EST)
:Not hoping for America to collapse and it has a lot of tangible/intangible assets. And even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia did not turn into a third world nation. Second, no doubt many dominant players on the world stage who collapsed thought they were exceptional before they fell. Success followed by complacency is a common human failing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:26, 13 January 2015 (EST)

==Temporary 7 Day Ban: WShact again removing Conservative POV material from Survival/Firearm Related Articles==
Dear [[User:Jpatt]] and [[User:Karajou]], I would appreciate your help on addressing Wshact issue again this since [[User:Conservative]] told me to talk to you since he is temporarily busy on off-Wiki related business. Thank you again.

Instead of contributing new material, I again have had to spend significant time restoring the diverse conservative point of view topics/materials that WShact continues to remove/delete/subtly edit out from [[:Category:Survivalism]] and firearms, Second Amendment related articles. [[The Survival Blog]] articles in particular took 30 minutes to restore material deleted by Wshact from his numerous small edits (so they couldn't be easily reverted). I had to spend time removing Wshact's biased (and improperly formatted resulting in a reference error) source/ref from a biased competing commercial website rather than unbiased actual Alexa site reference. http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:The_Survival_Blog#WShact_again_removing_Conservative_POV_material_from_Survival.2FFirearm_Related_Articles
[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 06:47, 13 January 2015 (EST)

In re-reviewing Wschact's continued harassment of Survivalism-Prepper-Firearms articles under the guise of making lots of small improvements to the article (which cannot be easily reverted). I realized Wshact, under the guise of reorganizing the article and putting it in the active voice instead of passive voice, has again deleted significant conservative point of view content. It was to hard to continue trying to restore the vandalized article. Thus I had to restore my original version of the article.

Dealing with this whole affair of continued harassment has just cost me 1 hour of my time that I had budgeted to spend contributing new firearms content.

In response to Wshact's continued harassment despite repeated warnings, I am temporarily banning him for 7 days. Admins who have been involved in correcting Wshact's aggressive behavior, please correct the ban time if appropriate. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 07:11, 13 January 2015 (EST)

===My comments===
From what I have seen so far, user Wschact has taken it upon himself to follow TAR on this site, either in removing material previously posted or taking actual control of particular pages away from him. This raises a serious problem as to the subject of collaboration between individuals - which has been stated by Wschact several times that that is what his intention is. What I am seeing instead is a typical tactic used in Wikipedia when an editor takes over someone else's project, then blames the original editor for being uncooperative; tells the the original editor that he cannot "own" the page, but takes control of the page away from him in such a manner that he is the new "owner" of it. That is a tactic which has no business within this website, and it is not going to be tolerated here.

<s>So, what will happen is this: persons who originate/create pages will be allowed to finish them, unmolested. Anyone else who wishes to contribute to the page concerned will ask the creator of the page first; or leave pertinent, additional information on the talk page; or do nothing more than simple grammar/spell check. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:44, 13 January 2015 (EST)</s>

:*Most of us look regularly at [[Special:RecentChanges]] to see where the action is.
:*The number of [[Special:WantedPages]] has increased sharply to 2,500 - mainly due to the actions of "TAR". [[User:Conservative]] wrote on Jan 11: "''I contacted TheAmericanRedoubt. The red link invasion will stop. :) '', but this was just an empty promise, see e.g., [[Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists]] written on Jan 12.
:*"TAR" tends to include both categories and their sub-categories into articles, as well as unnecessary doublings like [[:Category:Conservative Blogs]] and [[:Category:Conservative Bloggers]] (only one of those will ever be appropriate). I've tried to clean-up such instances, but I get [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=James_Wesley_Rawles&curid=64196&diff=1131716&oldid=1131300 reverted].
:*At the moment, there are more then 10 red links to essays at [[Conservapedia:Essays]], announcing future projects of "TAR". Why?
:The points above have nothing to do with the content of "TAR"'s contributions, he is just disrupting the very structure of this wiki. If you have a bull on speed in a china-shop, it doesn't matter much whether he is well-meaning or malevolent.
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:18, 13 January 2015 (EST)

::After some thought, I am rescinding the above. It prevents people from openly cooperating in a voluntary manner, and that's what I'd rather have. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:20, 14 January 2015 (EST)
==== I contacted TheAmericanRedoubt about the red link situation ====
Two things:

1. He is going to be lighter on the red links, but not completely stop. It would require a lot of extra work for him to completely stop.

2. He is going to be a long term editor so the red links will be filled in. He isn't counting on others to fill in the links.

I think this is a reasonable compromise. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:15, 14 January 2015 (EST)

=====TheAmericanRedoubt's Red Link Response During Phone Call with User:Conservative=====
: Thank you [[User:Conservapedia]] for your phone call with me and for your inspiring and unwavering dedication both to Conservapedia and to our conservative movement. I agree with both of these points. Over the next 12 months I promise to completely fill in at least 95% of my red links with actual full fledged detailed articles or at least 2 to 3 paragraph shorter articles only in the cases where a long article is not useful and would be like Wikipedia style excessively detailed unnecessary verbosity. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 14:22, 14 January 2015 (EST)

== Category tag compromise and TheAmericanRedoubt ==

I will agree that TheAmericanRedoubt has been overdoing the category tags. For example, for "police state" he would put a category tag of "internet". Yes, a police state attempts to control the "internet", but that is not how someone would look up an article on "police state".

I told TheAmericanRedoubt to pretend he was playing the game show "Family Feud" with Richard Dawson where people try to come up with a word/phrase that matches a topic/word. Now if he was on that game show and said "Internet" for the topic "Police state" he would lose in that game show every time. The user TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) saw my point and is going to do his category tags differently from now on.

And although I am not a Wikipedia fan, I said as far as the category tags, pretend you are creating a Wikipedia article in most cases.

My request to other editors, please do not be persnickety with TheAmericanRedoubt about the category tags. He promised to do better on the category tags and now sees how he has been overdoing it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:38, 14 January 2015 (EST)

=== TheAmericanRedoubt's Category Response During Phone Call with User:Conservative===
: I agree on the [[police state]] article and quite a few others. Thank you for the mentoring User:Conservative and [[User:Karajou]]. Although I too am not a fan of Wikipedia, as far as the category tags, I will comparatively look at similar articles in Wikipedia to see how many category tags they are using for a given article. User:Conservative and I discussed on the phone the [[:Category:Firearms]] and I told him I will still be using/creating "granular" categories, similar to how Wikipedia does it. For example, today I just created the categories:

: [[:Category:Bolt-action Rifles]] to match my newly created article [[Bolt-action]] which contains new red links that I promise to fill in for all of these new shorter articles on firearms such as [[action (firearms)]], [[bolt (firearms)]], [[breech (firearms)]], [[barrel (firearms)]], [[bolt handle]], [[cheek weld]], [[stock (firearms)|stock]], [[trigger (firearms)]], [[round (firearms)]], [[chamber (firearms)]], [[magazine (firearms)]] [[firing pin]], [[shell (firearms)]], [[accuracy (firearms)]], [[reliability (firearms)]], [[action (firearms)]].

: Over the next 12 months, I will be creating an article for each of the major [[bolt-action]] [[rifle]]s in the [[:Category:Firearms Manufacturers|firearms industry]] such as the [[Remington Model 700]], [[Savage Model 110]], [[Ruger American Rifle]] ([[hunting rifle]]), [[Ruger M77]], [[Ruger Gunsite Scout]], [[Steyr Scout]], [[scout rifle]], [[Barrett M99]] [[.50 BMG]], [[M24 Sniper Weapon System]] and [[M40 rifle]] ([[sniper rifle]]), [[Mosin-Nagant]], [[Winchester Model 70]], [[Mauser]], [[Mauser M 98]], [[M1903 Springfield]], [[Lee-Enfield]], to name just a few. Now you can see how I really am a [[gun enthusiast]]. :-)

: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Bolt-action_Rifles&curid=133817&action=history

: [[:Category:Firearms Components]] - In both of these new categories, I will be creating '''numerous''' articles over the next 12 months, so other editors removing the Category tag or the internal Wiki link brackets from ''any'' existing articles in the [[:Category:Firearms]] or [[:Category:Survivalism]] (like [[bolt-action]]) is just creating lots of unnecessary additional work for me in the near future to have to go back and re-add the categorization and Wiki link brackets and will thus "orphan" my new articles which would have been well integrated into the Wiki link system. Some, but not all of these articles will be part of the new category [[:Category:Firearms Glossary]], [[:Category:Military Glossary]], [[:Category:Preparedness Glossary]]. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Firearm_Actions&curid=133818&action=history

: Fellow editors: Thank you, in advance, for your patience and following of the guidance from [[User:Conservative]] regarding his advice to not be overly "persnickety" / fastidious about my work in this area. I appreciate it. I promise that over the next 12 months I will re-adjust my categorizations on most of the articles I have edited to be similar to the granularity level seen on Wikipedia. This is quite "granular" however. As I discussed on the phone with User:Conservative, it doesn't mean I will be having each article I edit/contribute having only 1 or 2 categories. As evidenced by the [[James Wesley Rawles]] or [[The Survival Blog]] articles, some articles may have many valid, yet granular categorizations.

:[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 14:31, 14 January 2015 (EST)
::On numerous occasions, it has been pointed out that the user:conservative account is accessed by a number of different people. Yet you state that you were in contact with only one person - ''I told '''him''' I will still be using/creating "granular" categories, similar to how Wikipedia does it '' - Are you saying that the user:conseravtive account is in fact only accessed by one person? And that person is male? Your post concerning your ''phone-call'' contradicts many of the claims that the user:conservative account has made... [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:07, 14 January 2015 (EST)
:::In the phone call in question, TAR was told that User: Conservative account consists of more than one editor. Feel free to confirm this matter with TAR (In addition, you can ask Karajou who was informed of this matter also).

:::Second, given the existence of voice changing software and an editor of the User: Conservative account possibly speaking through an agent/friend/family member/etc., the User: Conservative account remains veiled under a fog of mystery. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:40, 14 January 2015 (EST)

:::: ROTFL. :-) When I first talked with the [[User:Conservative]], despite the male voice, due to the sound I suspected the voice did seem a little like it was going through some sort of [[voice distortion box]]. The User:Conservative wouldn't tell me his/her name since he/she said he/she is part of a Conservative group of users and that the current speaker is merely the vocal representative of the diverse members of that secretive group. Despite talking with the User:Conservative, I wasn't able to pierce the veil of secrecy and hence am not able to resolve [[User:AugustO]]'s and [[User:EJamesW]]'s pressing concerns. [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 16:48, 14 January 2015 (EST)

A voice distortion box

*[[James Wesley Rawles]] doesn't have a ''valid'' categorization as it entails, e.g. [[:category:Christians]] and [[:category:Christian Authors]], as well as [[:category:Authors]] and [[:category:Science Fiction Authors]]
*I'm willing to cut new editors some slack. However, I expect them to respect the traditions and rules of this site! You should spend some time getting to know your new home before you start redecorating the rooms - and tear down whole structures. It just a question of politeness.
*[[User:Wschact]] seemed to have some valid points - as the section above show. Shouldn't his block be reduced/commuted?
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:51, 14 January 2015 (EST)

===Category:Nuclear Target Structures===
Can someone please tell me how [[France]] - or the [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]] - belong in this category? Can someone please tell me what sense it make to wait for [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] to put every article with the slightest connection to nuclear power (or perhaps the letter "N") into this category? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:07, 15 January 2015 (EST)

== Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves. ==

[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] writes in his [[Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists]] on [[Charlie Hebdo]] that "''Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves"''. [[User:EJamesW]] asked for a citation for this claim, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:France_Pays_Dearly_-_Gun_Control_Laws_and_Gun_Free_Zones_that_Welcome_Terrorists&diff=1131801&oldid=1131418 I did so too]. Unfortunately, [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] hasn't shared his sources with us yet - and I haven't found any source stating something similar...

If President Obama really said something along this lines, it should make the front-page of Conservapedia!

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:21, 15 January 2015 (EST)

:The arrogant and highly atheistic/secular French and French muslim situation is a volatile mix. The French atheist/muslim situation will probably get worse before it better. There seems to be a feedback loop of discrimination/hatred/violence/non-assimilation going on.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/01/14/terror-in-france-implications-for-muslim-integration/]

:The Ireland/Italian muslim situation seems a lot less volatile. I think the Irish/Italians (who tend to be more religious) are nicer and less arrogant then the atheistic/secularists French.[http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/it-is-frances-arrogant-secularism-that-is-the-truly-intolerant-religion-306959.html] And Ireland's Muslims are more highly educated.[http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/it-is-frances-arrogant-secularism-that-is-the-truly-intolerant-religion-306959.html]

:In addition, judging from his radio mini-debates with theists, the Irish atheist [[Michael Nugent]] seems nicer and less abrasive than many prominent atheists/agnostics (see: [[Atheism and arrogance]]). Research shows that atheists are more charitable when they are around Christians/Christian culture.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ&feature=sub] Maybe atheist become nicer when they are around theists/Christians as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:29, 17 January 2015 (EST)

::All interesting observations, but they have nothing to do with the problem: '''''Please give a source for the claim that Obama says the newspaper exercised bad judgment and brought this upon themselves.''''' Do you anything about this, User:Conservative? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:28, 17 January 2015 (EST)
:::If TAR did indeed say this, I think he made a mistake. At the same time, Obama is pretty fanatical about not calling Islamic terrorists Muslims. And Islam does have one of the most violent pasts in terms of various religions.
The secular/godless and evolution loving countries of Germany/France/UK who have sub-fertility rates are projected to be overrun by Muslims by 2030.[http://time.com/3670892/muslims-europe-map/]

I do know that a German Christian denomination that adheres to creationism is growing.

I think this is due to businesses having labor shortages and needing workers and the respective countries immigration policies and the countries wanting to support pensioners, but I could be mistaken.

In Switzerland, which is one of the most biblical creation loving countries of Europe and has more restrictive immigration policies, the proliferation of problem causing Muslims by 2030 is not projected to be an issue. Ireland does not appear to be projected to have a problem either (Perhaps it is because they are more religious than most Europe. The fertility rate of Ireland is 2.01 births per woman).

Of course, the projections of Muslims overrunning Germany/UK/France has the militant evolutionists/atheists/agnostics/secularists upset. For example, Richard Dawkins frequently mentions Muslims on his Twitter feed. If only these countries were more Christianity/creationism loving and had more children. All this unpleasantness with radical Muslims causing significant problems in their countries could be avoided.

On December 23, 2012, Professor [[Eric Kaufmann]] who teaches at Birbeck College, University of London wrote:

“I argue that 97% of the world's population growth is taking place in the developing world, where 95% of people are religious.

On the other hand, the secular West and East Asia has very low fertility and a rapidly aging population. The demographic disparity between the religious, growing global South and the aging, secular global North will peak around 2050. In the coming decades, the developed world's demand for workers to pay its pensions and work in its service sector will soar alongside the booming supply of young people in the third world. Ergo, we can expect significant immigration to the secular West which will import religious revival on the back of ethnic change. In addition, those with religious beliefs tend to have higher birth rates than the secular population, with fundamentalists having far larger families. The epicentre of these trends will be in immigration gateway cities like New York (a third white), Amsterdam (half Dutch), Los Angeles (28% white), and London, 45% white British."[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/04/97-of-worlds-population-growth-is.html]

Of course, this all bad news for evolutionists/atheists/agnostics. I am hoping that theological conservative and biblical Christianity ultimately prevails in Europe in the 21st century. A lot is dependent on evangelism and policies regarding immigration. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:13, 17 January 2015 (EST)
:In addition, in Switzerland, they have generous gun laws and a gun culture (and low gun fatality rates), so citizens are better able to protect themselves against radical muslims. They are not so dependent on police/SWAT response times. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:25, 17 January 2015 (EST)

== Spamming links to external sites ==

"Spamming links to external sites" once was a blockable offense. So, what is Conservapedia's current policy regarding the new [[User:OGSMEDIA]] (get it: OGS Media) advertising the site http://offgridsurvival.com/, where all kinds of outdoor equipment is advertised and sold? (See: http://offgridsurvival.com/store/ ) --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:17, 16 January 2015 (EST)

==Hottest year ever!==
The drive-by media does this "hottest-year ever" hooey almost every year, although this year they seem to be laying it on especially thick. The most accurate available temperature record is the UAH data based on satellite readings.[http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/12/03/no-record-temperatures-according-to-satellites/] By this standard, 2014 was only the seventh warmest year on record. (1998 was the warmest.) It will be months before the surface temperature record for 2014 is complete. NASA is just guesstimating at this point. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 06:00, 17 January 2015 (EST)
:[http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Screen_shot_2015-01-15_at_8.04.49_PM.png Here] is the global temperature record since 1979 based on satellite data. In the last 35 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.2 C. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 06:21, 18 January 2015 (EST)

== Template:Outdated ==
When I peruse [[Special:Random]], I often encounter articles displaying information which is quite out of date (e.g, [[Stewart Bradley]] or [[Anne Arundel County, MD]]). Sometimes I'm able to update it, but at other times, it isn't in my field of special knowledge (or interest). I hope that I haven't overstepped my bounds, but
#I created the [[:Category:Outdated Articles]] for such pages
#I made the [[Template:Outdated]]: this will put a small warning on top of a page and put the page in the category. See [[Anne Arundel County, MD]] for an example.
I'd appreciate if someone would check the template and approve of it. Thanks --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:25, 18 January 2015 (EST)

== User: TheAmericanRedoubt ==

I received some communication from TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR). He is tackling an off wiki project right now. I believe he will be editing later this year. That is all the information I have right now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:56, 4 February 2015 (EST)

:*It's not the first time that [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] took off for a considerable amount of time: after making hundreds of edits until mid-July 2014, he seized editing for three months.
:*I hope no one expects us to cope with eye-sores like [[Preparedness]] (Conservapedia's article with the most categories) for the next three months!
:*I won't comb through the articles to which [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt]] contributed, but should I encounter something like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Orange_%28color%29&oldid=1127987 this], e.g., via [[Special:Random]], I will take action.
:*Thanks for unblocking [[User:Wschact]]!
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:53, 4 February 2015 (EST)

::I think we would all be in a better position to make decisions about what to do with TAR's material if we knew his actual intent. We're all relieved, of course, that the "Ayurvedic medicine", "Vata", "Dosha", "Kapha" stuff has been removed, but it would be good to make a decision about a few other things. I'm sure we're all in agreement that [[water]] doesn't really have a noteworthy relationship with survivalism. But there are many other irrelevant categories and "see also"'s that need to be addressed, as well as the implication that Andy's, Cons's, and my home states are treasonous.

::So I would suggest that we get TAR to tells us his intentions directly, rather than taking the word of someone who is known to have peculiar fantasies about his alter egos. I fully believe that Cons and TAR are different people, but it would be good if TAR were able to communicate other than through Cons. It's a little too much like Clark Kent's uncanny ability to summon Superman.

::@TAR: I realize you may be busy with other things, but it should be possible for you to post a really quick note without getting distracted. If you don't want to communicate in this public forum, could you please send me an email at sam4557@gmail.com?

::[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:42, 4 February 2015 (EST)
:::Sometimes volunteers "bite off more than they can chew". This happens a lot, because the higher priorities of life obligations get in the way of a volunteer's best intentions. That is why projects like Conservapedia are team efforts -- so that others can pick up the slack when any volunteer has to step back. TAR volunteered to take existing content from certain sources and to convert it into the proper form for Conservapedia articles. 1) Some of his conversions needed more work on the Manual of Style front. 2) Some of his anticipated article subjects are red links, but TAR has not have a chance to bring over the content to actually write the article. 3) TAR made red links for a number of essays, which have not yet been written or adapted from the other website. 4) TAR started a large number of new categories before he appreciated the tree structure of categories and those categories need to be repositioned corrected. I estimate that it would take about a year of full time work to complete TAR's ambitious plan.
:::Since TAR is unavailable for a while, the entire team needs to work out a plan for addressing all four areas. While I am stepping back to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, I would encourage the team to create a check list of items that need to be addressed. Once the plan is mapped out and approved, I would volunteer to do my share, if that was the consensus. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:28, 4 February 2015 (EST)
=== What I don't want to happen ===

I believe that 3 of the primary reasons why TAR rubbed Wschact the wrong way and caused him to act inappropriately in some ways (both myself and VargasMilan believe this happened):

1. Alternative medicine issue - This issue has been resolved for the time being. Personally, I think that both Western World medicine and alternative medicine both have a lot of quackery within them and that an evidence based approach is best (there has been a lot of medical science fraud in recent years [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/science-has-lost-its-way.html][http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-intrinsic-unreliability-of-science.html]). To a certain extent, Billy Bones in the classic work ''Treasure Island'' was right: Doctors is all swabs, Jim! The Japanese, who live longer/healthier than the people who live in many countries of the Western World, use both systems of health care.

2. Survivalism - One of the reasons why I think this rubs Wsacht (who is a liberal) the wrong way is that much of the recent popularity of survivalism within some quarters of conservatism/libertarianism has the assumption that the economic system fashioned by liberals is economically unsound/unsustainable.

The claim of the unsoundness of liberal economics usually focuses on these factors: High amounts of sovereign debt in the world (The USA has 17 trillion dollars of federal government debt, etc. etc.), the failure of Keynesian economics, money that is not backed by a hard asset(s) (Gold or a basket of commodities), high amounts of money printing, the Soviet empire and various Latin American countries having their economies collapsing due to communism/socialism, etc., etc. I really think this irritates Wsacht.

Personally, I would first point out that liberal economists by in large did not predict the 2007/2008 crisis. Second, given the 2007/2008 crisis and the fact that some of the factors that caused it have never been resolved, I think the best approach is to follow the advice given by financial planners and have AT LEAST 6 months of wages saved up in some fashion where the wealth is readily available.

Also, some people believe that another 1930s like depression or worse is around the corner so they would advise having much more saved up and to take other measures such as growing your own food and storing food, etc. etc. I guess time will tell, but this is not impossible. The Western World and the world at large has gone through some periods of economic/political instability from time to time.

For the record, TAR takes the view of hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

3. His staunch Pro Second Ammendment views.

I have asked Karajou to make sure that Wsacht does not mess with TAR's material and create a lot of unnecessary, extra work for TAR due to Wsacht disagreeing with TARs political/economic views. I don't think CP liberals should dictate the ideology at CP so it conforms with liberalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:31, 5 February 2015 (EST)
:Thank you for sharing your concerns in an open candid way, and I will respond with equal candor.
:1. We are close to agreement here, but minor editing is necessary to bring some articles up to Manual of Style standards and the category tree structure needs repair.
:2. If Cons or TAR want to write essays expressing personal views on survivalism or giving advice, I will defend their right to do so. Similarly, if we take a team approach to writing objective, consensus articles on survivalism, Conservapedia will benefit as well. The conservative movement has a wide spectrum of view as do the survivalists. There are some survivalists who advocate immediate action due to the imminent collapse of Western civilization. Some of these advocate succession of "Cascadia" from the United States, and others advocate an separate all-white nation in the Pacific Northwest. Those views are beyond accepted conservative thought, because conservatives seek to improve society and the social order rather than to destroy it. Articles discussing preparedness for natural disasters or emergencies would help Conservapedia. I assume that they would comply with current Conservapedia policy that does not allow for advertisements or how-to manual articles. So, I think we are very close to an agreement here.
:3. The Second Amendment has been a part of the Constitution for 200 years, and I have not seen anyone on Conservapedia attack it. However, materials added to existing articles should be relevant, well-sourced and comply with the Manual of Style. One does not advocate for the Second Amendment by adding a category to every page on Conservapedia. If the person covered by a biography article favors gun rights, then add a sentence to the article preferably with a footnote. Same holds for gun rights opponents. If an article is about a brand of rifle, put "rifle" in the title. If the article is about just ammunition, make that clear as well. If TAR wants to write an article about a gun company, I suggest he use [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Gun_Company the Wikipedia article on Ithaca Gun Company] as a model. I have no objection to TAR moving over a lot of detailed articles providing reference materials on guns, so long as they are accurate and comply with the Manual of Style. I welcome people writing about things that interest them, including guns.
:So, I think we are mostly in agreement. Karajou, Cons and I have all advised TAR to focus on writing longer articles rather than just one or two sentences followed by a lot of "See also" links and category lists. I am not objecting to the subjects TAR has chosen, but rather the way TAR adds "See also" and categories into what appear to me to be unrelated articles. Possibly TAR may see a relationship that I can't, but that means that he should add a sentence or paragraph explaining to the reader those implications and relationships.
:I would welcome TAR back with the hope that he can clean up his many edits from December and January. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:21, 5 February 2015 (EST)
::TAR was under the impression that category tags generate a good amount of web traffic to articles. I showed him that the category tags effect on web traffic to articles is negligible. So I think the "Battle of the Category Tags" is pretty much over. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:15, 5 February 2015 (EST)
:::Good news! [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:20, 5 February 2015 (EST)
::::Also, a former Aussie admin, PhilipRayment, disagreed with Andy about gun control. If memory serves, and it may not, this may have been the final straw that caused Mr. Rayment to stop editing CP and launch his own wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 5 February 2015 (EST)
:::::I believe I am agreement with Andy about gun rights/gun control. I understand that there are a number of spin-off wikis running under Media-Wiki software. So, this raises two questions: 1) What can be done to recruit, train and retain competent editors here? 2) How quickly can we repair our wiki so as to avoid being penalized by search engines for our current profile that could be misinterpreted as a link-farm and also to avoid losing credibility with our readers? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:46, 5 February 2015 (EST)

== Merge candidates ==

Could someone please help me to work off all the [[:Category:Merge candidates|Merge candidates]]?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 12:42, 5 February 2015 (EST)
:Since a proper merger would involve merging the change histories, I believe that only an administrator can do it properly. Am I wrong? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 13:28, 5 February 2015 (EST)

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2015-02-07T22:58:28Z

Wschact: /* What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs? */ need to add up to 100%

Conservative principles are based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 20%: did not hear about conservative principles until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 10%: genuinely lack of desire to find the truth, and instead desire attention, praise by liberal teachers, getting along by going along, and not standing up to liberal bullies
:* 10%: refuse to forgive themselves and let go of their past mistakes and image
:* 10%: believe myths created around government programs like the "New Deal" that liberal policies create jobs instead of destroying them and depriving people of liberty through government control.
:* 10%: fooled by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: feel that they deserve to make more money than they do, as in public school teachers and university professors, and refuse to rise above self-interest
:* 10%: harbor a grudge against a conservative, typically a parent but sometimes an ex-spouse, and refuse to forgive or rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas
:* 5%: are susceptible to marketing and suggestion to an overlarge degree.

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and realizing how destructive liberal values are to many of them
:* 15%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 10%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values, as in losing a loved one to crime caused by pornography, drug addiction, gambling, etc.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as youth was wrong
:* 5%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: a genuine divine experience that can not be explained.
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a truthful course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>
:* 10%: other.

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television programs posing as comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[The Simpsons]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[James Maxwell]]. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—[[liberal]] historians and [[liberal]] scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)
:*Elementary through high school textbooks having appalling and reprehensible omissions on the basic facts of American life (religion, marriage, politics, and business)<ref> ''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X, (this book contains the results of a federally funded research project analyzing children's textbooks) </ref>
:*For decades Universities have discriminated against hiring conservatives, especially social conservatives and religious believers.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=zGOuAAAACAAJ A Student's Guide to Religious Studies], D. G. Hart, ISI Books, 2005, ISBN 1932236589, 9781932236583, 108 pages; see page 38 and note on page 107. </ref> This has resulted in most college graduates being exposed to liberals prejudiced against conservatives and conservative thought. These graduates become the teachers and other professionals who are unwitting soldiers in liberalism's battle against a Christian Reformed, Roman-Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox, obedient-to-God reality.

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no school-sponsored prayer)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most universities and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Talk:Idaho

2015-02-07T22:55:51Z

Wschact: need to keep boosterism under control

We need to remove the editorializing, including words like "sadly". We need to present the facts and then let the reader decide whether he or she will like the state and want to move there. If we don't keep boosterism out of Conservapedia, then every article will be written as "My state is the best state." or "buy my product" or "visit my tourist attraction." [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 17:55, 7 February 2015 (EST)

Second Amendment

2015-02-07T22:45:12Z

Wschact: /* Chronological History */ missed one

''See also [[gun control]]''.

The '''{{PAGENAME}}''' to the [[United States Constitution]] states:<ref>This is the most-often quoted form of this Amendment, but note later in this entry the significant objection to including three commas rather than just one.</ref>
{{cquote|'''A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'''}}

== Individual or Collective Right? ==
For several decades, the lower federal courts had interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting merely a collective right of state militias.<ref>http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35finalpartone.htm</ref> However, the [[U.S Supreme Court]] has always called it an individual right. The 2008 Supreme Court decision of [[District of Columbia v. Heller]] ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

==Where the Second Amendment comes from==
In 1786, the [[United States]] existed as a loose national [[government]] under the [[Articles of Confederation]]. This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a Federal military response to an armed uprising in western [[Massachusetts]] known as [[Shays' Rebellion]].

In 1787, to address these weaknesses, the [[Constitutional Convention]] was held with the idea of amending the Articles. When the convention ended with a proposed [[Constitution]], those who debated the ratification of the Constitution divided into two camps; the [[Federalist]]s (who supported ratification of the Constitution) and the [[Anti-Federalists]] (who opposed it).

Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared a standing army that could eventually endanger [[democracy]] and [[civil liberties]]. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise they insured that a [[Bill of Rights]] would be made, which would provide constitutional guarantees against taking away certain rights.

One of those rights was the right to bear arms. This was intended to prevent the Federal Government from taking away the ability of the states to raise an army and defend itself and arguably to prevent them from taking away from individuals the ability to bear arms.

==Comments==
The meaning of this amendment is controversial with respect to [[gun control]] and what type of weapons are covered.
===Individual right===
The [[National Rifle Association]], which supports gun rights, has a stone plaque in front of its headquarters bearing the words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." By dropping the "militia" phrase, the slogan advocates that the Second Amendment should mean that individual citizens have the right to own and use guns.

American law has always said that the militia includes ordinary private citizens, and gun rights advocates say that the amendment means individuals have the right to own and use guns. Gun control advocates began in the late 20th century to say it means only that there is only some sort of collective or state-controlled right.

[[Supreme Court]] opinions have all been consistent with the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, but the lower court opinions are mixed.

As of 2007, people argue about the meaning of the Second Amendment, but there is no definitive answer. The latest ruling is ''Parker v District of Columbia'', in which the DC Circuit court of appeals ruled on March 9, 2007 that the [[Washington, D.C.|DC]] gun ban violated individual rights under the Second Amendment.

===The One Comma vs. The Three Comma Debate===

'''''A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''''''''''

Quoted from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm

Down to the Last Second (Amendment)

Participants in the various debates on firearms, crime, and constitutional law may have noticed that the Second Amendment is often quoted differently by those involved. The two main variations differ in punctuation — specifically, in the number of commas used to separate those twenty-seven words. But which is the correct one? The answer to this question must be found in official records from the early days of the republic when the Bill of Rights was sent by the First Congress to the states for ratification. Therefore, a look into the progression of this declaratory and restrictive clause from its inception to its final form is in order.

Before beginning, one must note that common nouns, like "state" and "people," were often capitalized in official and unofficial documents of the era. Also, an obsolete formation of the letter s used to indicate the long s sound was in common usage. The long 's' is subject to confusion with the lower case 'f', therefore, Congress" is sometimes spelled as "Congrefs," as is the case in the parchment copy of the Bill of Rights displayed by the National Archives. The quotations listed here are accurate. With the exception of the omission of quotations marks, versions of what is now known as the Second Amendment in boldface appear with the exact spelling, capitalization, and punctuation as the cited originals.

===Chronological History===

During ratification debates on the Constitution in the state conventions, several states proposed amendments to that charter. Anti-Federalist opposition to ratification was particularly strong in the key states of New York and Virginia, and one of their main grievances was that the Constitution lacked a declaration of rights. During the ratification process, Federalist James Madison became a champion of such a declaration, and so it fell to him, as a member of the 1st Congress, to write one. On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced his declaration of rights on the floor of the House. One of its articles read:

{{cquote|The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.<ref>Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison, June 8, 1789. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.htm, 16 January 2000.</ref>}}

On July 21, John Vining of Delaware was appointed to chair a select committee of eleven to review, and make a report on, the subject of amendments to the Constitution. Each committeeman represented one of the eleven states (Rhode Island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution at that time), with James Madison representing Virginia. Unfortunately, no record of the committee's proceedings is known to exist. Seven days later, Vining duly issued the report, one of the amendments reading:

{{cquote|A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.<ref>Amendments Reported by the Select Committee. July 28, 1789. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_scom.htm, 16 January 2000.</ref>}}

In debates on the House floor, some congressmen, notably [[Elbridge Gerry]] of Massachusetts and Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania, objected to the conscientious objector clause in the fifth article. They expressed concerns that a future Congress might declare the people "religiously scrupulous" in a bid to disarm them, and that such persons could not be called up for military duty. However, motions to strike the clause were not carried. On August 21, the House enumerated the Amendments as modified, with the fifth article listed as follows:

{{cquote|5. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.<ref>U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 August 1789.</ref>}}

Finally, on August 24, the House of Representatives passed its proposals for amendments to the Constitution and sent them to the Senate for their consideration. The next day, the Senate entered the document into their official journal. The Senate Journal shows Article the Fifth as:

{{cquote|Art. V. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 25 August 1789.</ref>}}

On September 4, the Senate debated the amendments proposed by the House, and the conscientious objector clause was quickly stricken. Sadly, these debates were held in secret, so records of them do not exist. The Senators agreed to accept Article the Fifth in this form:

{{cquote|...a well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall net be infringed.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 4 September 1789.</ref>}}

In further debates on September 9, the Senate agreed to strike the words, "the best," and replace them with, "necessary to the." Since the third and fourth articles had been combined, the Senators also agreed to rename the amendment as Article the Fourth. The Senate Journal that day carried the article without the word, "best," but also without the replacements, "necessary to." Note that the extraneous commas have been omitted:

{{cquote|A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 9 September 1789.</ref>}}

With two-thirds of the Senate concurring on the proposed amendments, they were sent back to the House for the Representatives' perusal. On September 21, the House notified the Senate that it agreed to some of their amendments, but not all of them. However, they agreed to Article the Fourth in its entirety:

{{cquote|Resolved, That this House doth agree to the second, fourth, eighth, twelfth, thirteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth amendments... <ref>U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 September 1789.</ref>}}

By September 25, the Congress had resolved all differences pertaining to the proposed amendments to the Constitution. On that day, a Clerk of the House, William Lambert, put what is now known as the Bill of Rights to parchment. Three days later, it was signed by the Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and the President of the Senate, Vice President John Adams. This parchment copy is held by the National Archives and Records Administration, and shows the following version of the fourth article:

{{cquote|Article the Fourth. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.<ref>Bill of Rights. National Archives and Records Administration. http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/bill.jpg, 22 January 2000.</ref>}}

The above version is used almost exclusively today, but aside from the parchment copy, the author was unable to find any other official documents from that era which carry the amendment with the extra commas. In fact, in the appendix of the Senate Journal, Article the Fourth is entered as reading:

{{cquote|Art. IV. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix.</ref>}}

Also, the Annals of Congress, formally called The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, show the proposed amendment as follows:

{{cquote|Article the Fourth. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<ref>Annals of Congress, 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix</ref>}}

Further, once two-thirds of both chambers of the Congress agreed to the proposed amendments, the House passed a resolve to request that the President send copies of them to the governors of the eleven states in the Union, and to those of Rhode Island and North Carolina. The Senate concurred on September 26, as recorded in their journal:

{{cquote|Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit to the executives of the United States, which have ratified the constitution copies of the amendments proposed by Congress, to be added thereto; and like copies to the executives of the states of Rhode Island and North Carolina.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong. 1st sess., 26 September 1789.</ref>}}

Fortunately, an original copy of the amendments proposed by the Congress, and sent to the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations, does survive. Certified as a true copy by Assembly Secretary Henry Ward, it reads in part:

{{cquote|Article the Fourth, — A well regulated Militia being neceffary to the Security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms fhall not be infringed.<ref>A True Bill. The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/billofrt.jpg, 27 January 2000.</ref>}}

And so, the proposed amendments to the Constitution were sent to the states for ratification. When notifying the President that their legislatures or conventions had ratified some or all of the proposed amendments, some states attached certified copies of them. New York, Maryland, South Carolina, and Rhode Island notified the general government that they had ratified the fourth amendment in this form:

Article the Fourth. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<ref>U.S. House Journal, 1st Cong., 3rd sess., Appendix Note: Maryland and South Carolina capitalized the "m" in "Militia."</ref>}}

Articles the First and Second were not ratified by the required three-fourths of the states, but by December 15, 1791, the last ten articles were. These, of course, are now known as the Bill of Rights. Renumbering the amendments was required since the first two had not been ratified. The 1796 revision of The Federalist on the New Constitution reflects the change as such:

{{cquote|ARTICLE THE SECOND

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<ref>The Federalist on the New Constitution, 1796. The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/f16b1234.jpg, 17 February 2000.</ref>}}

This version is carried throughout the 19th Century, in such legal treatises as Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) and Thomas Cooley's Principles of Constitutional Law (1898). It is also transcribed in this manner in the 1845 Statutes at Large, although the term "state" is capitalized in that text. The latter are the official source for acts of Congress.<ref>Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm, 18 February 2000.</ref><ref>Quotes from Constitutional Commentators. Gun Cite. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcom.html, 2 February 2000.</ref><ref>Statutes at Large 1845, 21.</ref>

This version still appears today, as is the case with the annotated version of the Constitution they sponsored on the Government Printing Office web site (1992, supplemented in 1996 and 1998). The Second Amendment is shown as reading:

{{cquote|A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.<ref>Second Amendment--Bearing Arms. The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html, 18 February 2000.</ref>}}

(The Senate-sponsored GPO site does carry a "literal print" of the amendments to the Constitution showing the Second Amendment with the additional commas. The punctuation and capitalization of the amendments transcribed there are the same as those found on the parchment copy displayed in the Rotunda of the National Archives.)<ref>Text of the Amendments (Literal Print). The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/conamt.html, 18 February 2000.</ref>

Thus, many scholars argue that correct rendition of the Second Amendment carries but a single comma, after the word "state." It was in this form that those twenty-seven words were written, agreed upon, passed, and ratified.

Why the Commas are Important

It is important to use the proper Second Amendment because it is clearly and flawlessly written in its original form. Also, the function of the words, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," are readily discerned when the proper punctuation is used. On the other hand, the gratuitous addition of commas serve only to render the sentence grammatically incorrect and unnecessarily ambiguous.

==Liberal targeting==
Liberals have made various efforts to subvert the Second Amendment by enacting unconstitutional gun laws which restrict the ability of individuals to protect themselves against the excesses of government. Examples include:
* news reports appealing predominately to emotion in the aftermath of mass shootings while ignoring merits of self-defense
* celebrity-showings demanding a plan to end mass shootings
* gun "buy back" programs officiated by city police

==Weapons covered==
The drafters of the Second Amendment probably had muskets and hand guns in mind, but courts are now struggling to define the weapons covered by the "right to bear arms" in the 21st Century.

For example, the Connecticut Supreme Court in [http://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR315/315CR113.pdf''State v. DeCiccio'' (2015)] upheld the constitutionality of a state law prohibiting the transportation of a police batton or dirk knife in a motor vehicle. Yet, the Court struck down the statute to the extent that it infringed on the defendant's right to transport them between his old and new residences.

There are also lower court cases finding Second Amendment protection for tasers, billy clubs, switchblades and other weapons that are less lethal than hand guns.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/16/second-amendment-protects-dirk-knives-and-police-batons/|title=Second Amendment protects dirk knives and police batons|first=Eugene |last=Volokh |date=December 16, 2014|work=Washington Post|accessdate=February 7, 2015}}</ref>

== Footnotes ==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[United States Constitution]]
* [[Castle Doctrine]]
* [[National Rifle Association]]
* [[Gun Owners of America]]
* [[Veterans]]
* [[Oath Keepers]]

{{US amendments}}

==External Links==
* [http://www.nraila.org/Issues/SecondAmendment.aspx Second Amendment Center], [[NRA|nraila.org]].
* [http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm Professor Eugene Volokh's comprehensive compilation of resources on the Second Amendment]

[[Category : Second Amendment]]

{{Template:Firearms topics}}

Second Amendment

2015-02-07T22:41:48Z

Wschact: /* Chronological History */ finished

''See also [[gun control]]''.

The '''{{PAGENAME}}''' to the [[United States Constitution]] states:<ref>This is the most-often quoted form of this Amendment, but note later in this entry the significant objection to including three commas rather than just one.</ref>
{{cquote|'''A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'''}}

== Individual or Collective Right? ==
For several decades, the lower federal courts had interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting merely a collective right of state militias.<ref>http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35finalpartone.htm</ref> However, the [[U.S Supreme Court]] has always called it an individual right. The 2008 Supreme Court decision of [[District of Columbia v. Heller]] ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

==Where the Second Amendment comes from==
In 1786, the [[United States]] existed as a loose national [[government]] under the [[Articles of Confederation]]. This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a Federal military response to an armed uprising in western [[Massachusetts]] known as [[Shays' Rebellion]].

In 1787, to address these weaknesses, the [[Constitutional Convention]] was held with the idea of amending the Articles. When the convention ended with a proposed [[Constitution]], those who debated the ratification of the Constitution divided into two camps; the [[Federalist]]s (who supported ratification of the Constitution) and the [[Anti-Federalists]] (who opposed it).

Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared a standing army that could eventually endanger [[democracy]] and [[civil liberties]]. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise they insured that a [[Bill of Rights]] would be made, which would provide constitutional guarantees against taking away certain rights.

One of those rights was the right to bear arms. This was intended to prevent the Federal Government from taking away the ability of the states to raise an army and defend itself and arguably to prevent them from taking away from individuals the ability to bear arms.

==Comments==
The meaning of this amendment is controversial with respect to [[gun control]] and what type of weapons are covered.
===Individual right===
The [[National Rifle Association]], which supports gun rights, has a stone plaque in front of its headquarters bearing the words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." By dropping the "militia" phrase, the slogan advocates that the Second Amendment should mean that individual citizens have the right to own and use guns.

American law has always said that the militia includes ordinary private citizens, and gun rights advocates say that the amendment means individuals have the right to own and use guns. Gun control advocates began in the late 20th century to say it means only that there is only some sort of collective or state-controlled right.

[[Supreme Court]] opinions have all been consistent with the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, but the lower court opinions are mixed.

As of 2007, people argue about the meaning of the Second Amendment, but there is no definitive answer. The latest ruling is ''Parker v District of Columbia'', in which the DC Circuit court of appeals ruled on March 9, 2007 that the [[Washington, D.C.|DC]] gun ban violated individual rights under the Second Amendment.

===The One Comma vs. The Three Comma Debate===

'''''A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''''''''''

Quoted from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm

Down to the Last Second (Amendment)

Participants in the various debates on firearms, crime, and constitutional law may have noticed that the Second Amendment is often quoted differently by those involved. The two main variations differ in punctuation — specifically, in the number of commas used to separate those twenty-seven words. But which is the correct one? The answer to this question must be found in official records from the early days of the republic when the Bill of Rights was sent by the First Congress to the states for ratification. Therefore, a look into the progression of this declaratory and restrictive clause from its inception to its final form is in order.

Before beginning, one must note that common nouns, like "state" and "people," were often capitalized in official and unofficial documents of the era. Also, an obsolete formation of the letter s used to indicate the long s sound was in common usage. The long 's' is subject to confusion with the lower case 'f', therefore, Congress" is sometimes spelled as "Congrefs," as is the case in the parchment copy of the Bill of Rights displayed by the National Archives. The quotations listed here are accurate. With the exception of the omission of quotations marks, versions of what is now known as the Second Amendment in boldface appear with the exact spelling, capitalization, and punctuation as the cited originals.

===Chronological History===

During ratification debates on the Constitution in the state conventions, several states proposed amendments to that charter. Anti-Federalist opposition to ratification was particularly strong in the key states of New York and Virginia, and one of their main grievances was that the Constitution lacked a declaration of rights. During the ratification process, Federalist James Madison became a champion of such a declaration, and so it fell to him, as a member of the 1st Congress, to write one. On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced his declaration of rights on the floor of the House. One of its articles read:

{{cquote|The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.<ref>Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison, June 8, 1789. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.htm, 16 January 2000.</ref>}}

On July 21, John Vining of Delaware was appointed to chair a select committee of eleven to review, and make a report on, the subject of amendments to the Constitution. Each committeeman represented one of the eleven states (Rhode Island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution at that time), with James Madison representing Virginia. Unfortunately, no record of the committee's proceedings is known to exist. Seven days later, Vining duly issued the report, one of the amendments reading:

{{cquote|A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.<ref>Amendments Reported by the Select Committee. July 28, 1789. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_scom.htm, 16 January 2000.</ref>}}

In debates on the House floor, some congressmen, notably [[Elbridge Gerry]] of Massachusetts and Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania, objected to the conscientious objector clause in the fifth article. They expressed concerns that a future Congress might declare the people "religiously scrupulous" in a bid to disarm them, and that such persons could not be called up for military duty. However, motions to strike the clause were not carried. On August 21, the House enumerated the Amendments as modified, with the fifth article listed as follows:

{{cquote|5. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.<ref>U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 August 1789.</ref>}}

Finally, on August 24, the House of Representatives passed its proposals for amendments to the Constitution and sent them to the Senate for their consideration. The next day, the Senate entered the document into their official journal. The Senate Journal shows Article the Fifth as:

{{cquote|Art. V. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 25 August 1789.</ref>}}

On September 4, the Senate debated the amendments proposed by the House, and the conscientious objector clause was quickly stricken. Sadly, these debates were held in secret, so records of them do not exist. The Senators agreed to accept Article the Fifth in this form:

{{cquote|...a well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall net be infringed.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 4 September 1789.</ref>}}

In further debates on September 9, the Senate agreed to strike the words, "the best," and replace them with, "necessary to the." Since the third and fourth articles had been combined, the Senators also agreed to rename the amendment as Article the Fourth. The Senate Journal that day carried the article without the word, "best," but also without the replacements, "necessary to." Note that the extraneous commas have been omitted:

{{cquote|A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 9 September 1789.</ref>}}

With two-thirds of the Senate concurring on the proposed amendments, they were sent back to the House for the Representatives' perusal. On September 21, the House notified the Senate that it agreed to some of their amendments, but not all of them. However, they agreed to Article the Fourth in its entirety:

{{cquote|Resolved, That this House doth agree to the second, fourth, eighth, twelfth, thirteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth amendments... <ref>U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 September 1789.</ref>}}

By September 25, the Congress had resolved all differences pertaining to the proposed amendments to the Constitution. On that day, a Clerk of the House, William Lambert, put what is now known as the Bill of Rights to parchment. Three days later, it was signed by the Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and the President of the Senate, Vice President John Adams. This parchment copy is held by the National Archives and Records Administration, and shows the following version of the fourth article:

{{cquote|Article the Fourth. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.<ref>Bill of Rights. National Archives and Records Administration. http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/bill.jpg, 22 January 2000.</ref>}}

The above version is used almost exclusively today, but aside from the parchment copy, the author was unable to find any other official documents from that era which carry the amendment with the extra commas. In fact, in the appendix of the Senate Journal, Article the Fourth is entered as reading:

{{cquote|Art. IV. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix.</ref>}}

Also, the Annals of Congress, formally called The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, show the proposed amendment as follows:

{{cquote|Article the Fourth. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<ref>Annals of Congress, 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix</ref>}}

Further, once two-thirds of both chambers of the Congress agreed to the proposed amendments, the House passed a resolve to request that the President send copies of them to the governors of the eleven states in the Union, and to those of Rhode Island and North Carolina. The Senate concurred on September 26, as recorded in their journal:

{{cquote|Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit to the executives of the United States, which have ratified the constitution copies of the amendments proposed by Congress, to be added thereto; and like copies to the executives of the states of Rhode Island and North Carolina.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong. 1st sess., 26 September 1789.</ref>}}

Fortunately, an original copy of the amendments proposed by the Congress, and sent to the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations, does survive. Certified as a true copy by Assembly Secretary Henry Ward, it reads in part:

Article the Fourth, — A well regulated Militia being neceffary to the Security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms fhall not be infringed.<ref>A True Bill. The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/billofrt.jpg, 27 January 2000.</ref>}}

And so, the proposed amendments to the Constitution were sent to the states for ratification. When notifying the President that their legislatures or conventions had ratified some or all of the proposed amendments, some states attached certified copies of them. New York, Maryland, South Carolina, and Rhode Island notified the general government that they had ratified the fourth amendment in this form:

Article the Fourth. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<ref>U.S. House Journal, 1st Cong., 3rd sess., Appendix Note: Maryland and South Carolina capitalized the "m" in "Militia."</ref>}}

Articles the First and Second were not ratified by the required three-fourths of the states, but by December 15, 1791, the last ten articles were. These, of course, are now known as the Bill of Rights. Renumbering the amendments was required since the first two had not been ratified. The 1796 revision of The Federalist on the New Constitution reflects the change as such:

{{cquote|ARTICLE THE SECOND

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<ref>The Federalist on the New Constitution, 1796. The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/f16b1234.jpg, 17 February 2000.</ref>}}

This version is carried throughout the 19th Century, in such legal treatises as Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) and Thomas Cooley's Principles of Constitutional Law (1898). It is also transcribed in this manner in the 1845 Statutes at Large, although the term "state" is capitalized in that text. The latter are the official source for acts of Congress.<ref>Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm, 18 February 2000.</ref><ref>Quotes from Constitutional Commentators. Gun Cite. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcom.html, 2 February 2000.</ref><ref>Statutes at Large 1845, 21.</ref>

This version still appears today, as is the case with the annotated version of the Constitution they sponsored on the Government Printing Office web site (1992, supplemented in 1996 and 1998). The Second Amendment is shown as reading:

{{cquote|A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.<ref>Second Amendment--Bearing Arms. The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html, 18 February 2000.</ref>}}

(The Senate-sponsored GPO site does carry a "literal print" of the amendments to the Constitution showing the Second Amendment with the additional commas. The punctuation and capitalization of the amendments transcribed there are the same as those found on the parchment copy displayed in the Rotunda of the National Archives.)<ref>Text of the Amendments (Literal Print). The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/conamt.html, 18 February 2000.</ref>

Thus, many scholars argue that correct rendition of the Second Amendment carries but a single comma, after the word "state." It was in this form that those twenty-seven words were written, agreed upon, passed, and ratified.

Why the Commas are Important

It is important to use the proper Second Amendment because it is clearly and flawlessly written in its original form. Also, the function of the words, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," are readily discerned when the proper punctuation is used. On the other hand, the gratuitous addition of commas serve only to render the sentence grammatically incorrect and unnecessarily ambiguous.

==Liberal targeting==
Liberals have made various efforts to subvert the Second Amendment by enacting unconstitutional gun laws which restrict the ability of individuals to protect themselves against the excesses of government. Examples include:
* news reports appealing predominately to emotion in the aftermath of mass shootings while ignoring merits of self-defense
* celebrity-showings demanding a plan to end mass shootings
* gun "buy back" programs officiated by city police

==Weapons covered==
The drafters of the Second Amendment probably had muskets and hand guns in mind, but courts are now struggling to define the weapons covered by the "right to bear arms" in the 21st Century.

For example, the Connecticut Supreme Court in [http://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR315/315CR113.pdf''State v. DeCiccio'' (2015)] upheld the constitutionality of a state law prohibiting the transportation of a police batton or dirk knife in a motor vehicle. Yet, the Court struck down the statute to the extent that it infringed on the defendant's right to transport them between his old and new residences.

There are also lower court cases finding Second Amendment protection for tasers, billy clubs, switchblades and other weapons that are less lethal than hand guns.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/16/second-amendment-protects-dirk-knives-and-police-batons/|title=Second Amendment protects dirk knives and police batons|first=Eugene |last=Volokh |date=December 16, 2014|work=Washington Post|accessdate=February 7, 2015}}</ref>

== Footnotes ==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[United States Constitution]]
* [[Castle Doctrine]]
* [[National Rifle Association]]
* [[Gun Owners of America]]
* [[Veterans]]
* [[Oath Keepers]]

{{US amendments}}

==External Links==
* [http://www.nraila.org/Issues/SecondAmendment.aspx Second Amendment Center], [[NRA|nraila.org]].
* [http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm Professor Eugene Volokh's comprehensive compilation of resources on the Second Amendment]

[[Category : Second Amendment]]

{{Template:Firearms topics}}

Second Amendment

2015-02-07T22:39:13Z

Wschact: /* Chronological History */ clean up

''See also [[gun control]]''.

The '''{{PAGENAME}}''' to the [[United States Constitution]] states:<ref>This is the most-often quoted form of this Amendment, but note later in this entry the significant objection to including three commas rather than just one.</ref>
{{cquote|'''A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'''}}

== Individual or Collective Right? ==
For several decades, the lower federal courts had interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting merely a collective right of state militias.<ref>http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35finalpartone.htm</ref> However, the [[U.S Supreme Court]] has always called it an individual right. The 2008 Supreme Court decision of [[District of Columbia v. Heller]] ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

==Where the Second Amendment comes from==
In 1786, the [[United States]] existed as a loose national [[government]] under the [[Articles of Confederation]]. This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a Federal military response to an armed uprising in western [[Massachusetts]] known as [[Shays' Rebellion]].

In 1787, to address these weaknesses, the [[Constitutional Convention]] was held with the idea of amending the Articles. When the convention ended with a proposed [[Constitution]], those who debated the ratification of the Constitution divided into two camps; the [[Federalist]]s (who supported ratification of the Constitution) and the [[Anti-Federalists]] (who opposed it).

Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared a standing army that could eventually endanger [[democracy]] and [[civil liberties]]. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise they insured that a [[Bill of Rights]] would be made, which would provide constitutional guarantees against taking away certain rights.

One of those rights was the right to bear arms. This was intended to prevent the Federal Government from taking away the ability of the states to raise an army and defend itself and arguably to prevent them from taking away from individuals the ability to bear arms.

==Comments==
The meaning of this amendment is controversial with respect to [[gun control]] and what type of weapons are covered.
===Individual right===
The [[National Rifle Association]], which supports gun rights, has a stone plaque in front of its headquarters bearing the words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." By dropping the "militia" phrase, the slogan advocates that the Second Amendment should mean that individual citizens have the right to own and use guns.

American law has always said that the militia includes ordinary private citizens, and gun rights advocates say that the amendment means individuals have the right to own and use guns. Gun control advocates began in the late 20th century to say it means only that there is only some sort of collective or state-controlled right.

[[Supreme Court]] opinions have all been consistent with the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, but the lower court opinions are mixed.

As of 2007, people argue about the meaning of the Second Amendment, but there is no definitive answer. The latest ruling is ''Parker v District of Columbia'', in which the DC Circuit court of appeals ruled on March 9, 2007 that the [[Washington, D.C.|DC]] gun ban violated individual rights under the Second Amendment.

===The One Comma vs. The Three Comma Debate===

'''''A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''''''''''

Quoted from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm

Down to the Last Second (Amendment)

Participants in the various debates on firearms, crime, and constitutional law may have noticed that the Second Amendment is often quoted differently by those involved. The two main variations differ in punctuation — specifically, in the number of commas used to separate those twenty-seven words. But which is the correct one? The answer to this question must be found in official records from the early days of the republic when the Bill of Rights was sent by the First Congress to the states for ratification. Therefore, a look into the progression of this declaratory and restrictive clause from its inception to its final form is in order.

Before beginning, one must note that common nouns, like "state" and "people," were often capitalized in official and unofficial documents of the era. Also, an obsolete formation of the letter s used to indicate the long s sound was in common usage. The long 's' is subject to confusion with the lower case 'f', therefore, Congress" is sometimes spelled as "Congrefs," as is the case in the parchment copy of the Bill of Rights displayed by the National Archives. The quotations listed here are accurate. With the exception of the omission of quotations marks, versions of what is now known as the Second Amendment in boldface appear with the exact spelling, capitalization, and punctuation as the cited originals.

===Chronological History===

During ratification debates on the Constitution in the state conventions, several states proposed amendments to that charter. Anti-Federalist opposition to ratification was particularly strong in the key states of New York and Virginia, and one of their main grievances was that the Constitution lacked a declaration of rights. During the ratification process, Federalist James Madison became a champion of such a declaration, and so it fell to him, as a member of the 1st Congress, to write one. On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced his declaration of rights on the floor of the House. One of its articles read:

{{cquote|The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.<ref>Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison, June 8, 1789. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.htm, 16 January 2000.</ref>}}

On July 21, John Vining of Delaware was appointed to chair a select committee of eleven to review, and make a report on, the subject of amendments to the Constitution. Each committeeman represented one of the eleven states (Rhode Island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution at that time), with James Madison representing Virginia. Unfortunately, no record of the committee's proceedings is known to exist. Seven days later, Vining duly issued the report, one of the amendments reading:

{{cquote|A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.<ref>Amendments Reported by the Select Committee. July 28, 1789. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_scom.htm, 16 January 2000.</ref>}}

In debates on the House floor, some congressmen, notably [[Elbridge Gerry]] of Massachusetts and Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania, objected to the conscientious objector clause in the fifth article. They expressed concerns that a future Congress might declare the people "religiously scrupulous" in a bid to disarm them, and that such persons could not be called up for military duty. However, motions to strike the clause were not carried. On August 21, the House enumerated the Amendments as modified, with the fifth article listed as follows:

{{cquote|5. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.<ref>U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 August 1789.</ref>}}

Finally, on August 24, the House of Representatives passed its proposals for amendments to the Constitution and sent them to the Senate for their consideration. The next day, the Senate entered the document into their official journal. The Senate Journal shows Article the Fifth as:

{{cquote|Art. V. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 25 August 1789.</ref>}}

On September 4, the Senate debated the amendments proposed by the House, and the conscientious objector clause was quickly stricken. Sadly, these debates were held in secret, so records of them do not exist. The Senators agreed to accept Article the Fifth in this form:

{{cquote|...a well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall net be infringed.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 4 September 1789.</ref>}}

In further debates on September 9, the Senate agreed to strike the words, "the best," and replace them with, "necessary to the." Since the third and fourth articles had been combined, the Senators also agreed to rename the amendment as Article the Fourth. The Senate Journal that day carried the article without the word, "best," but also without the replacements, "necessary to." Note that the extraneous commas have been omitted:

{{cquote|A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 9 September 1789.</ref>}}

With two-thirds of the Senate concurring on the proposed amendments, they were sent back to the House for the Representatives' perusal. On September 21, the House notified the Senate that it agreed to some of their amendments, but not all of them. However, they agreed to Article the Fourth in its entirety:

{{cquote|Resolved, That this House doth agree to the second, fourth, eighth, twelfth, thirteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth amendments... <ref>U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 September 1789.</ref>}}

By September 25, the Congress had resolved all differences pertaining to the proposed amendments to the Constitution. On that day, a Clerk of the House, William Lambert, put what is now known as the Bill of Rights to parchment. Three days later, it was signed by the Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and the President of the Senate, Vice President John Adams. This parchment copy is held by the National Archives and Records Administration, and shows the following version of the fourth article:

{{cquote|Article the Fourth. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.<ref>Bill of Rights. National Archives and Records Administration. http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/bill.jpg, 22 January 2000.</ref>}}

The above version is used almost exclusively today, but aside from the parchment copy, the author was unable to find any other official documents from that era which carry the amendment with the extra commas. In fact, in the appendix of the Senate Journal, Article the Fourth is entered as reading:

{{cquote|Art. IV. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.9<ref></ref>}}

Also, the Annals of Congress, formally called The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, show the proposed amendment as follows:

{{cquote|Article the Fourth. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.10<ref></ref>}}

Further, once two-thirds of both chambers of the Congress agreed to the proposed amendments, the House passed a resolve to request that the President send copies of them to the governors of the eleven states in the Union, and to those of Rhode Island and North Carolina. The Senate concurred on September 26, as recorded in their journal:

{{cquote|Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit to the executives of the United States, which have ratified the constitution copies of the amendments proposed by Congress, to be added thereto; and like copies to the executives of the states of Rhode Island and North Carolina.<ref>U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong. 1st sess., 26 September 1789.</ref>}}

Fortunately, an original copy of the amendments proposed by the Congress, and sent to the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations, does survive. Certified as a true copy by Assembly Secretary Henry Ward, it reads in part:

Article the Fourth, — A well regulated Militia being neceffary to the Security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms fhall not be infringed.<ref>A True Bill. The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/billofrt.jpg, 27 January 2000.</ref>}}

And so, the proposed amendments to the Constitution were sent to the states for ratification. When notifying the President that their legislatures or conventions had ratified some or all of the proposed amendments, some states attached certified copies of them. New York, Maryland, South Carolina, and Rhode Island notified the general government that they had ratified the fourth amendment in this form:

Article the Fourth. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<ref>U.S. House Journal, 1st Cong., 3rd sess., Appendix Note: Maryland and South Carolina capitalized the "m" in "Militia."</ref>}}

Articles the First and Second were not ratified by the required three-fourths of the states, but by December 15, 1791, the last ten articles were. These, of course, are now known as the Bill of Rights. Renumbering the amendments was required since the first two had not been ratified. The 1796 revision of The Federalist on the New Constitution reflects the change as such:

{{cquote|ARTICLE THE SECOND

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.<ref>The Federalist on the New Constitution, 1796. The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/f16b1234.jpg, 17 February 2000.</ref>}}

This version is carried throughout the 19th Century, in such legal treatises as Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) and Thomas Cooley's Principles of Constitutional Law (1898). It is also transcribed in this manner in the 1845 Statutes at Large, although the term "state" is capitalized in that text. The latter are the official source for acts of Congress.<ref>Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm, 18 February 2000.</ref><ref>Quotes from Constitutional Commentators. Gun Cite. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcom.html, 2 February 2000.</ref><ref>Statutes at Large 1845, 21.</ref>

This version still appears today, as is the case with the annotated version of the Constitution they sponsored on the Government Printing Office web site (1992, supplemented in 1996 and 1998). The Second Amendment is shown as reading:

{{cquote|A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.<ref>Second Amendment--Bearing Arms. The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html, 18 February 2000.</ref>}}

(The Senate-sponsored GPO site does carry a "literal print" of the amendments to the Constitution showing the Second Amendment with the additional commas. The punctuation and capitalization of the amendments transcribed there are the same as those found on the parchment copy displayed in the Rotunda of the National Archives.)<ref>Text of the Amendments (Literal Print). The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/conamt.html, 18 February 2000.</ref>

Thus, many scholars argue that correct rendition of the Second Amendment carries but a single comma, after the word "state." It was in this form that those twenty-seven words were written, agreed upon, passed, and ratified.

Why the Commas are Important

It is important to use the proper Second Amendment because it is clearly and flawlessly written in its original form. Also, the function of the words, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," are readily discerned when the proper punctuation is used. On the other hand, the gratuitous addition of commas serve only to render the sentence grammatically incorrect and unnecessarily ambiguous.
9. U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix.

10. Annals of Congress, 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix

11.

12.

13.

==Liberal targeting==
Liberals have made various efforts to subvert the Second Amendment by enacting unconstitutional gun laws which restrict the ability of individuals to protect themselves against the excesses of government. Examples include:
* news reports appealing predominately to emotion in the aftermath of mass shootings while ignoring merits of self-defense
* celebrity-showings demanding a plan to end mass shootings
* gun "buy back" programs officiated by city police

==Weapons covered==
The drafters of the Second Amendment probably had muskets and hand guns in mind, but courts are now struggling to define the weapons covered by the "right to bear arms" in the 21st Century.

For example, the Connecticut Supreme Court in [http://jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR315/315CR113.pdf''State v. DeCiccio'' (2015)] upheld the constitutionality of a state law prohibiting the transportation of a police batton or dirk knife in a motor vehicle. Yet, the Court struck down the statute to the extent that it infringed on the defendant's right to transport them between his old and new residences.

There are also lower court cases finding Second Amendment protection for tasers, billy clubs, switchblades and other weapons that are less lethal than hand guns.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/16/second-amendment-protects-dirk-knives-and-police-batons/|title=Second Amendment protects dirk knives and police batons|first=Eugene |last=Volokh |date=December 16, 2014|work=Washington Post|accessdate=February 7, 2015}}</ref>

== Footnotes ==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[United States Constitution]]
* [[Castle Doctrine]]
* [[National Rifle Association]]
* [[Gun Owners of America]]
* [[Veterans]]
* [[Oath Keepers]]

{{US amendments}}

==External Links==
* [http://www.nraila.org/Issues/SecondAmendment.aspx Second Amendment Center], [[NRA|nraila.org]].
* [http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm Professor Eugene Volokh's comprehensive compilation of resources on the Second Amendment]

[[Category : Second Amendment]]

{{Template:Firearms topics}}