Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Christianization of the Roman Empire

2016-03-16T07:28:12Z

Brenden:

The Christianization of the Roman Empire was formally legalized by [[Constantine]] on October 28, 312, when reportedly, the empire saw evidence for God prior to a battle. To him, just as God had called Moses to lead the Israelites to the Promised Land, God had intervened in human history to insure Constantine's victory at the Milvian Bridge. This was a central moment in western history - convincing the emperor of Rome of the legitimacy of Christianity, and sparking the subsequent legalization, and promotion to dominant faith in the Empire of Christianity during the fourth century. Indeed, Constantine, in 313, issued the Edict of Milan which granted ''toleration'' for Christianity, a vast improvement from the days of persecution of Christianity. Towards his end, Constantine became imperial patron for Christianity. Although Christianity would not become the official religion of Rome until later in the fourth century, Christianity and Rome would never be the same after the time of Constantine.

{{stub}}

Christianization of the Roman Empire

2016-03-16T07:27:24Z

Brenden: Created page with "The Christianization of the Roman Empire was formally legalized by Emperor Constantine on October 28, 312, when reportedly, the empire saw evidence for God prior to a batt..."

The Christianization of the Roman Empire was formally legalized by [[Emperor Constantine]] on October 28, 312, when reportedly, the empire saw evidence for God prior to a battle. To him, just as God had called Moses to lead the Israelites to the Promised Land, God had intervened in human history to insure Constantine's victory at the Milvian Bridge. This was a central moment in western history - convincing the emperor of Rome of the legitimacy of Christianity, and sparking the subsequent legalization, and promotion to dominant faith in the Empire of Christianity during the fourth century. Indeed, Constantine, in 313, issued the Edict of Milan which granted ''toleration'' for Christianity, a vast improvement from the days of persecution of Christianity. Towards his end, Constantine became imperial patron for Christianity. Although Christianity would not become the official religion of Rome until later in the fourth century, Christianity and Rome would never be the same after the time of Constantine.

{{stub}}

Best arguments against homosexuality

2016-03-16T07:24:13Z

Brenden:

The '''best arguments against homosexuality''' are as follows:

=== Top ten arguments ===

#It's unhealthy, and it's better to encourage people to adopt healthier lifestyles<ref>This argument worries the [[Left]]. [http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/15b/DrChurch-BIDMC/hearing-coming_072715.html One hospital recently fired a physician for informing the public about the health risks] of [[homosexuality]].</ref>
#It's not [[pro-life]] - it leads to various diseases, physical and psychological disorders and early death among those who practice homosexual behavior<ref>Nothing the Left can do about this argument, which resonates well with the increasingly pro-life youth.</ref>
#It's anti-[[Bible]] - no other conduct is condemned as much by the [[Bible]] as [[homosexuality]]<ref>The Bible even condemns those who approve of homosexuality. ''See'' Romans 1:32.</ref>
#It's infringing on more important freedoms, like freedom of religion and speech<ref>The recent attacks on people of faith (like Kim Davis, Colorado baker Jack Phillips, former Atlanta fire chief Kelvan Cochran and Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein, among others) who oppose homosexuality and same-sex "marriage", which are either not reported in the mainstream media or get twisted to favor the liberal viewpoint when they are reported, bear this truth out.</ref>
#It's another [[Leftist]] political movement, which [[Communists]] support<ref>Not surprising, as Communists always want the opposite of what's best for American society, simply for the sake of being contrarian.</ref>
#It's promoted far too much by the [[liberal media]] - if the lifestyle were good, then why would [[liberal censorship]] of criticism be necessary?
#People should be (and have been) able to leave the lifestyle if they want to, so why are homosexuals working hard to ban [[conversion therapy]]?
#Homosexuals are wealthier than heterosexuals, so homosexuals don't need any more handouts like benefits for same-sex couples
#It's an anti-Christian movement - why aren't homosexual activists suing Muslim or Hindu bakers for not serving [[same-sex marriage]]?
#It's a selfish movement - notice how billionaire homosexuals are not setting up hospitals as Christians have?

=== Additional arguments ===

#Gay corruption has become too big of a problem in our country and elsewhere
#We should believe in real marriage instead
#There is no "gay gene" and studies of twins prove this, supporting the idea that it is a lifestyle choice
#The [[homosexual agenda]] is the wrong direction for our country
#Many horrific crimes have been committed by men caught up in the homosexual lifestyle; there are so many examples of this that listing them here would be futile
#The homosexual lifestyle increases suicide rates by up to 400%
#States and local communities should be deciding this, not a few liberal activist "justices" in D.C.
#Churches have rights too
#Disordered conduct is the wrong direction for individuals and our Nation
#Ancient Romans committed many homosexual acts, and as a result for violating the Lord's wishes, the Lord struck down the decadent Empire of Rome, until the [[Christianization of the Roman Empire]]
(add to list)

=== References ===
<references/>

=== See also ===
*[[Arguments Against Homosexuality]]
*[[Ex-homosexuals]]
*[[Conversion therapy]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]

[[Category:Homosexuality]]

User talk:Produx

2016-03-16T07:15:57Z

Brenden: Created page with "{{welcome}}~~~~"

{{welcome}}[[User:Brenden|brenden]] ([[User talk:Brenden|talk]]) 03:15, 16 March 2016 (EDT)

Dialer

2016-02-19T06:01:39Z

Brenden: typo

A '''Dialer''' is a [[Malware|malicious]] [[Software|program]] which does not aim to damage its host. Rather, it dials out without request to waste minutes and/or bandwidth.
This kind of [[malware]] was originally used when computers used Dial-Up networking. Since high-speed connections are the norm now, this kind of attack is somewhat obsolete. However, it is not entirely gone, since some [[cellular phones]] have plans with limited minutes. Dialers are now relegated primarily to these [[cellular phones]]. Much like their predecessors, these programs will try to waste minutes of cellular service.<ref> http://www.scmagazine.com/android-trojan-sends-premium-sms-messages-targets-us-users-for-first-time/article/343953</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[category:Malware]]
[[category:Internet]]

Iran

2015-07-17T23:10:49Z

Brenden:

{{Country
|name = جمهوری اسلامی ايران'' Jomhūrī-ye Eslāmī-ye Īrān''
|map =Iran rel 2001.jpg
|map2 =Iran location.png
|flag =800px-Flag of Iran svg.png
|arms =Arms of Iran.png
|capital =Tehran
|capital-raw =
|government =Islamic Republic
|government-raw =
|language =Persian (Farsi)
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president = Hassan Rouhani
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =636,372 sq. mi.
|pop =77,891,000
|pop-basis =2011
|gdp =$610 billion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$8,700
|currency =Iranian rial
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Iran''', officially the '''Islamic Republic of Iran''' (جمهوری اسلامی ايران) is an Islamic theocratic republic in southwest [[Asia]]. Its capital is [[Tehran]] and its official language is Farsi. A historical name for Iran was "'''Persia, '''" which is also the name of the dominant ethnic group. Iran is suspected by Israel and her western allies of pursuing nuclear weapons to gain a strategic advantage in a regional cold war against Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia. Israel also accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons for use against Israel, which is hotly denied by Iran's government which claims the program is to be used for peaceful purposes, requiring the enrichment of [[uranium]].

==People==
Iran is a pluralistic society. Persians are the largest predominant ethnic and cultural group in this country, though many are actually of mixed ancestry. The population of the country has important Turkic elements (e.g., Azeris) and Arabs predominate in the southwest. In addition, Iranian citizens include Kurds, Balochi, Bakhtyari, Lurs, and other smaller minorities, such as Armenians, Assyrians, Jews, and Brahuis (or Brohi).
*Population (2007): 65.4 million.
*Population growth rate (2007 est.): 0.663%.
*Ethnic groups: Persians 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%.
*Religions: Shi'a Muslim 89%; Sunni Muslim 9%; Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%.
*Languages: Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic languages (besides Turkish) 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%.
*Education: Literacy (total population age 15 and over who can read and write, 2003)--79% (male: 86%, female: 73%).
*Health (2007 est.): Infant mortality rate--38.2 deaths/1,000 live births. Life expectancy at birth (2007)--total population: 70.56 yrs.

[[File:Iran.jpg|thumb|left|[[Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini]].]]
[[File:Persian women from Shiraz Iran.jpg|thumb|Persian women from Shiraz.]]
The 1979 Islamic revolution and the 1980-88 war with Iraq transformed Iran's class structure politically, socially, and economically. During this period, [[Shia]] clerics took a more dominant position in politics and nearly all aspects of Iranian life, both urban and rural. After the fall of the Pahlavi regime in 1979, much of the urban upper class of prominent merchants, industrialists, and professionals, favored by the former monarch, the shah, lost standing and influence to the senior clergy and their supporters. Bazaar merchants, who were allied with the clergy against the Pahlavi shahs, also have gained political and economic power since the revolution. The urban working class has enjoyed somewhat enhanced status and economic mobility, spurred in part by opportunities provided by revolutionary organizations and the government bureaucracy. Though the number of clergy holding senior positions in the parliament and elsewhere in government has declined since the 1979 revolution, Iran has nevertheless witnessed the rise of a post-revolutionary elite among lay people who are strongly committed to the preservation of the Islamic Republic.

Most Iranians are Muslims; 89% belong to the Shi'a branch of Islam, the official state religion, and about 9% belong to the [[Sunni]] branch, which predominates in neighboring Muslim countries. Non-Muslim minorities include [[Zoroastrian]]s, [[Jew]]s, Baha'is, and [[Christian]]s.

==Government==
[[Image:Iran population density 2004.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Population density]]
The December 1979 Iranian constitution defines the political, economic, and social order of the Islamic republic. The document establishes Shi'a Islam of the Twelver (Jaafari) sect as Iran's official religion. Sunni Islam, [[Zoroastrianism]], [[Judaism]] and Christianity are the only other recognized, legal minority religions. But Iran is the eigth country on the World Watch List of [[Open Doors]]. The country is governed by secular and religious leaders through governing bodies, whose duties often overlap. (See also:[[Christians in Iran]])

The Supreme Leader holds power for life unless removed by the Assembly of Experts. He has final say on all domestic, foreign, and security policies for Iran, though he establishes and supervises those policies in consultation with the Expediency Council. The Leader is the final arbiter on all differences or disputes among the various branches of government. He appoints officials to key positions including the head of judiciary and the 12 members of the Guardian Council (six directly, six indirectly). He has power to remove the president and is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

The constitution stipulates that the Assembly of Experts, which currently consists of the 86 popularly-elected clerics elected to 8-year terms, chooses the Supreme Leader based on jurisprudent qualifications and commitment to the principles of the revolution. The Assembly of Experts reviews his performance periodically and has the power to depose and replace him. Pragmatic conservative candidates generally polled better than their hardline conservative opponents during the December 15, 2006 elections to the Assembly of Experts. (Turnout for this vote, which coincided with municipal council elections, was quite high, topping 60%.) Citizens will not vote for representatives to the Assembly again until 2014.

The Council of Guardians consists of 12 persons. The Supreme Leader appoints the six religious members of the Council of Guardians while the Iranian parliament, the Majles, selects the six lay members from candidates recommended by the judiciary, which is in turn selected by the Supreme Leader. The non-clerics play a role only in determining whether legislation before the [[Majles]] conforms to Iran's constitution. The religious members, on the other hand, take part in all deliberations, considering all bills for conformity to Islamic principles. The Council of Guardians can veto any law. This body also certifies the competence of candidates for the presidency, the Assembly of Experts, and the Majles.

The president of the Islamic Republic of Iran is elected by universal suffrage to a 4-year term. The president supervises the affairs of the executive branch, appointing and supervising the Council of Ministers (members of the cabinet), coordinating government decisions, and selecting government policies to be placed before the National Assembly.
[[File:Tehran Milad Tower Iran.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Milad Tower, Tehran.]]
The Majles, or National Assembly, consists of 290 members elected to 4-year terms. The members of the legislature are elected by direct and secret ballot from among the candidates approved by the Council of Guardians.

In 1988, Ayatollah Khomeini created the Council for Expediency, which resolves legislative issues on which the Majles and the Council of Guardians fail to reach an agreement. Since 1989, it has been used to advise the national religious leader on matters of national policy as well. It is composed of the president, the speaker of the Majles, the judiciary chief, the clerical members of the Council of Guardians, and other members appointed by the Supreme Leader for 3-year terms. Cabinet members and Majles committee chairs also serve as temporary members when issues under their jurisdictions are considered. In 2005, it was announced that the Expediency Council, which now has over 40 members, would have responsibility for general supervision of the system, though that has not resulted in any noticeable change in this institution's day-to-day authority or operations.

Judicial authority is constitutionally vested in the Supreme Court and the four-member High Council of the Judiciary; these are two separate groups with overlapping responsibilities and have one head. Together, they are responsible for supervising the enforcement of all laws and for establishing judicial and legal policies.

Iran has two military forces. The national military is charged with defending Iran's borders, while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is charged mainly with maintaining internal security.

Iran has 30 provinces managed by an appointed governor general. The provinces are further divided into counties, districts, and villages. Sixty percent of eligible voters took part in the first ever municipal and local council elections in 1999, though a lower percentage went to the polls in the second round in 2003. Turnout during the December 15, 2006 elections, during which citizens also elected Assembly of Expert representatives, was over 60%. The local councils select mayors.

The March 2008 elections resulted in the conservatives getting a significant lead in the polls, with Conservative politician Shahabeddin Sadr saying that, during early counting, 70 per cent of winners were "principlists" - a label conservatives use to describe their loyalty to the Islamic Republic's ideals.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/15/2190618.htm Conservatives forge ahead in Iran parliament vote], [[ABC Online]], 15 March 2008</ref>.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:Hassan Rouhani.jpg|thumb|President [[Hassan Rouhani]]]]
*Leader of the Islamic Revolution--Ali Hosseini-Khamenei
*President--Hassan Rouhani
*First Vice President--Parviz Davudi
*Foreign Minister--Manouchehr Mottaki
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Mohammad Javad Zarif

===Political Conditions===
[[Image:Iran ethnoreligious distribution 2004.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Ethnoreligious distribution]]
Iran's post-revolution difficulties have included an 8-year war with Iraq, internal political struggles and unrest, and economic disorder. The early days of the regime were characterized by severe human rights violations and political turmoil, including the seizure of the U.S. Embassy compound and its occupants on 4 November 1979, by Iranian student militants. Iranian authorities released the 52 hostages only after 444 days of captivity.

By mid-1982, the clergy had won a succession of post-Revolution power struggles that eliminated first the center of the political spectrum and then the leftists, including the communist Tudeh party and the cult-like Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO). Assassinations, throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil, and other acts of violence punctuated this period. There has been some moderation of excesses since the early days of the revolution, and the country experienced a partial "thaw" in terms of political and social freedoms during the tenure of former president Khatami, but serious problems remained. The administration of former President Ahmadi-Nejad had witnessed a crackdown on Iranian civil society, continued human rights violations, and worsening constraints on press freedom and civil liberties. Current president [[Hassan Rouhani]] did not changed anything.

The Islamic Republican Party (IRP) was Iran's sole political party until its [[dissolution]] in 1987. Iran now has a variety of groups engaged in political activity; some are oriented along ideological lines or based on an identity group, others are more akin to professional political parties seeking members and recommending candidates for office. Some have been active participants in the Revolution's political life while others reject the state. Conservatives consistently thwarted the efforts of reformists during the Khatami era and have consolidated their control on power since the flawed elections for the seventh Majles in 2004 and president Ahmadi-Nejad's victory in 2005. The party of Khamenei is the Combatant Clergy Association. President [[Hassan Rouhani]] is a member of it.

The Iranian Government has faced armed opposition from a number of groups, including the MEK (which the U.S. Government added to its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 1999), the People's Fedayeen, and the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI).

===Foreign Relations===
Khomeini's revolutionary regime initiated sharp changes from the foreign policy pursued by the Shah, particularly in reversing the country's orientation toward the West. In the Middle East, Iran's only significant ally has been [[Syria]], but Iran has made strides in improving relations with its Gulf neighbors, particularly [[Saudi Arabia]].
[[File:Ayatollah Abdolhussein Moezi.JPG|thumb|Ayatollah Abdolhussein Moezi.]]
Iran's foreign relations are based on sometimes competing objectives. Iran's pragmatic foreign policy goals include, not surprisingly, protecting itself from external threats and building trade ties. Iran has additionally been accused, however, of trying to export its fundamentalist revolution to other countries, sometimes supporting terrorist organizations, and its vehement anti-U.S. and anti-Israel stances are well-known. Senior Iranian officials directed Hezbollah to carry out the bombing of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA, the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association) building in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994, killing 85 people and wounding scores of others. Out of the eight individuals indicted by the Government of Argentina in October 2006, the Interpol Executive Committee has recommended the issuance of Red Notices (international arrest warrants) against six: five former or current Iranian officials and one Lebanese Hezbollah leader.

In September 1980, during the U.S. hostage crisis, Iraq invaded Iran to take control of the waterway between the two countries, the Shatt al-Arab, although the conflict's underlying causes included each nation's overt desire for the overthrow of the other's government. Iran defended itself and demanded the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Iranian territory and the return to the status quo ante for the Shatt al-Arab as established under the 1975 Algiers Agreement signed by Iraq and Iran. Khomeini's government turned down an Iraqi cease-fire proposal in 1982, making a new demand for Saddam Hussein's removal as well. After eight punishing years of war, in July 1988, Iran at last agreed to UN Security Council Resolution 598 and the cease-fire was implemented on August 20, 1988. Neither nation had made any real gains in the war.
[[File:Chavez ahmad.jpg|thumb|left|290px|[[Hugo Chavez]] and former president Ahmadineyad.]]
Iran's relations with many of its Arab neighbors have been strained by Iranian attempts to spread its Islamic revolution, a strictly ideological goal. In 1981, Iran supported a plot to overthrow the [[Bahrain Government]]. In 1983, Iran expressed support for Shi'ites who bombed Western embassies in Kuwait, and in 1987, Iranian pilgrims rioted during the hajj (pilgrimage) in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Nations with strong fundamentalist movements, such as Egypt and Algeria, also mistrust Iran. Iran backs Hezbollah (in Lebanon), Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of [[Palestine]]-General Command, all of which are violently opposed to the Arab-Israeli peace process. In contrast, while relations with west European nations have been uneven, they have been driven primarily by pragmatic goals of trade and security. Iran has accepted stronger commercial ties but largely declined to deliver on key European political concerns such as human rights and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) acquisition efforts, particularly in the nuclear field, where the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been strongly critical of Iran.

An IAEA report in November 2003 provided evidence that Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), had concealed secret nuclear activities for 18 years. Under international pressure, Iran signed the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement on December 18, 2003, agreeing to suspend all uranium-enrichment and reprocessing activities voluntarily, as well as cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in resolving questions regarding Iran's nuclear program. In June 2004, the IAEA rebuked Iran for failing to fully cooperate with an inquiry into its nuclear activities, and in November 2004, Iran agreed to suspend most of its uranium enrichment under a deal with the EU. That promise did not last, however, and since then concerns over Iran's nuclear activities have increased.

On June 6, 2006, [[China]], [[France]], [[Germany]], [[Russia]], the [[United States]], and [[United Kingdom]] offered Iran a substantial package of economic cooperation and assistance. Tehran, however, was first required to come into compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines on its nuclear program, suspending its [[uranium]] enrichment program. On July 31, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1696 on the Iranian nuclear question, requiring Iran to suspend all activities related to enrichment and reprocessing, including research and development, as demanded by the IAEA, or else face possible sanctions. Tehran defied the UN Security Council (UNSC) deadline of August 31, leading to the passage of UNSC Resolution 1636 in December 2006 and, as Iran continued to balk, Resolution 1747 in March 2007.
[[File:Iran Pakistan India gas pipeline.JPG|thumb|300px|Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.]]
Iran sparked an international controversy when its forces seized and held hostage 15 British sailors and marines, conducting routine anti-smuggling operations in Iraqi territorial waters under UN mandate, on March 23, 2007. Tehran released the U.K. service members on April 6.

Iran maintains regular diplomatic and commercial relations with Russia and the former Soviet republics. Both Iran and Russia believe they have important national interests at stake in developments in Central Asia and the Transcaucasus, particularly regarding energy resources from the Caspian Sea. Russian and other sales of military equipment and technology to Iran concern Iran's neighbors and the United States. Washington is also concerned about Russian assistance in building at nuclear facility at Bushehr.

Iran spends about 3.3% of its GDP on its military. Iran's military consists of both a national military held over from the shah's government and the IRGC, each with its own ground, naval and air branches. The Iran-Iraq war took a heavy toll on these military forces. Iran is trying to modernize its military, including ballistic missile programs, and acquire weapons of mass destruction; it continues to seek nuclear capabilities. On November 7, 2007, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had 3,000 centrifuges operating in its uranium enrichment program, which would be enough to produce a nuclear weapon. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308903,00.html</ref> However, a December, 2007 U.S. intelligence report stated that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003, and remains on hold. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc Report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclean program]</ref>

===Relations with the United States===
[[File:US Iran.gif|right]]
On November 4, 1979, militant Iranian students occupied the American Embassy in Tehran with the support of Ayatollah Khomeini. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. On April 7, 1980, the United States broke diplomatic relations with Iran, and on April 24, 1981, the Swiss Government assumed representation of U.S. interests in Tehran. Iranian interests in the United States are represented by the Government of Pakistan. The Islamic Republic of Iran does not have its own embassy in Washington, though it does have a permanent mission to the United Nations in New York City.

In accordance with the Algiers declaration of January 20, 1981, the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal (located in The Hague, Netherlands) was established for the purpose of handling claims of U.S. nationals against Iran and of Iranian nationals against the United States. U.S. contact with Iran through The Hague covers only legal matters.

The U.S. Government, by Executive Orders issued by the President as well as by Congressional legislation, prohibits most trade with Iran. Some sanctions were imposed on Iran because Tehran is a state sponsor of terrorism, others because of the nuclear [[proliferation]] issues, and still more for human rights violations, including infringement of religious freedom. The commercial relations that do exist between the two countries consist mainly of Iranian purchases of food and medical products and U.S. imports of carpets and food. Some sanctions were temporarily waived in the wake of the devastating Bam earthquake of December 2003. U.S. officials and relief workers actively assisted in relief and reconstruction efforts.

There are serious obstacles to improved relations between the two countries. As a state sponsor of terrorism, Iran remains an impediment to international efforts to locate and prosecute terrorists. Recent attempts by Iran to form loose alliances with anti-U.S. governments in the Western Hemisphere, such as the Venezuelan Government, has further heightened concern about Iran's support for terrorism and nuclear ambitions. Operation Iraqi Freedom removed the Iranian Government's greatest security threat, but officially Iran remained neutral about U.S. policy, sometimes strongly condemning American policies and actions in Iraq. Iran has cultural ties to elements of the populations of both Iraq and Afghanistan. It has made some positive contributions to stability in both countries, but other actions have had the opposite effect. It remains to be seen whether Tehran will ultimately be a constructive force in the reconstruction of its two neighbors or not.

The U.S. Government defines its areas of objectionable Iranian behavior as the following:
*Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction;
*Its support for and involvement in international terrorism;
*Its support for violent opposition to the Middle East peace process, as well as its harmful activities particularly in Lebanon, as well as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the region; and
*Its dismal human rights record and lack of respect for its own people.

The United States has held discussions with Iranian representatives on particular issues of concern over the years. U.S. and Iranian envoys cooperated during operations to overthrow the Taliban in 2001 and during the Bonn Conference in 2002 that established a broad-based government for the Afghan people under President Karzai. The Secretary of State, her Iranian counterpart, and others met at talks on Iraq in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, on May 3, 2007. The American and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq took part in face-to-face discussions in Baghdad, with Iraqi officials in attendance, on May 28, 2007. The United States believes, however, that normal relations are impossible until Iran's policies change.

Nevertheless, the U.S. State Department is supporting efforts to further the cause of democracy in Iran. In fiscal year (FY) 2006, the U.S. Congress allocated approximately $66 million to promote free media, personal freedom, and a better understanding of western values and culture. As part of these efforts, the Department supports efforts to develop civil society in Iran and exchange programs that bring Iranian students, athletes, professionals and others to the United States.

The Secretary of State has stated that Iranian agreement to abide by UNSC Resolutions 1696 and 1747, calling for Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment and comply with its international nuclear obligations, could lead to the direct negotiations between American and Iranian government officials, not only on Iran's nuclear case but on a wide range of issues.

In May 2007, the Iranian Government charged and in some cases imprisoned a handful of innocent Iranian-American scholars, civil society actors, and journalists, accused by the regime of jeopardizing the security of the state. The international community, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private citizens have joined the U.S. Government in calling for the release of the detained dual nationals, as well as Iranian cooperation in the case of missing retired FBI agent Robert Levinson, last reported on Kish Island, Iran, on March 8, 2007.

===Covert operations and the 2009 elections===
Beginning in 2004, U.S. President [[George W. Bush]] is reported to have signed a series of Executive Orders initiating covert operations aimed at destabilizing the Iranian regime.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2009/intell-090113-rferl01.htm ''Reports Suggest Obama Faces Early Choice On Iran Covert Ops''], Ron Synovitz, Globalsecurity.org January 13, 2009.</ref> The CIA was authorized to supply communications equipment which would enable opposition groups in Iran to work together and bypass internet censorship by the government.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html ''Bush sanctions 'black ops' against Iran''], London Telegraph, 27 May 2007.</ref> During the domestic unrest following the post-election protests in which opposition groups accused the regime of rigged elections, U.S. Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] urged Twitter networking service to keep the system running, leading to complaints from Iran's government. Protesters used Twitter to communicate amid the clampdown.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-twitter18-2009jun18,0,5845567.story ''Hillary Clinton defends Twitter efforts for Iran''], L.A. Times, June 17, 2009.</ref>

==Economy==
[[Image:Iran industry mining78.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Iranian industry and mining]]
Pre-revolutionary Iran's economic development was rapid. Traditionally an agricultural society, by the 1970s Iran had achieved significant industrialization and economic modernization. However, the pace of growth had slowed dramatically by 1978, just before the Islamic revolution. Since the fall of the shah, economic recovery has proven elusive thanks to a combination of factors, including fluctuations in the global energy market. Economic activity was severely disrupted additionally by years of upheaval and uncertainty surrounding the revolution and the introduction of statist economic policies. These conditions were worsened by the war with Iraq and the decline in world oil prices beginning in late 1985. After the war with Iraq ended, the situation began to improve: Iran's GDP grew for two years running, partly from an oil windfall in 1990, and there was a substantial increase in imports. However, Iran had suffered a brain drain throughout the previous decade and wartime policies had resulted in a demographic explosion.

A decrease in oil revenues in 1991 and growing external debt dampened optimism for recovery. In March 1989, the government instituted a new 5-year plan for economic development, which loosened state control and allowed Iran to seek greater latitude in accessing foreign capital. Mismanagement and inefficient bureaucracy, as well as political and ideological infighting, hampered the formulation and execution of a consolidated economic policy, and the Iran fell short of the plan's goals while economic inequality was aggravated. Today, Iran's economy is a mixture of central planning, state ownership of oil and other large enterprises, village agriculture, and small-scale private trading and service ventures. Former President Khatami followed the market reform plans of his predecessor, President Rafsanjani, and indicated that he would pursue diversification of Iran's oil-reliant economy, although he made little progress toward that goal. High [[inflation]] and expansive public transfer programs, as well as powerful economic-political vested interests created obstacles for rapid reform.

During the 2005 election campaign, President Ahmadi-Nejad promised to redistribute oil revenues to the impoverished, fund large infrastructure projects, and privatize Iranian state enterprises. He has been criticized within Iran for not carrying through on many of his promises. While establishment of the Imam Reza fund for cheap loans to youth has been popular, a law increasing the minimum was revoked because of the huge strain on employers. The "Shares of Justice" program--distributing shares of state-owned enterprises to the poor--faces a number of potential problems.
[[File:Naghshe Jahan Square Isfahan Iran.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Naghshe Jahan Square, Isfahan.]]
Unemployment was estimated to be 20% for 2007, according to the International Monetary Fund. Unemployment, a major problem even before the revolution, has many causes, including population growth, high minimum wage level and other restrictive labor policies. Farmers and peasants enjoyed a psychological boost from the attention given them by the Islamic regime but hardly appear to be better off in economic terms. The government has made progress on rural development, including electrification and road building, but Iran still faces inefficiencies related to agricultural land usage which are politically difficult to reconcile. Agriculture also has suffered from shortages of capital, raw materials, and equipment, problems dating back to the 1980-1988 war with Iraq. (See Foreign Relations above.)

Although Islam guarantees the right to private ownership, banks and some industries--including the petroleum, transportation, utilities, and mining sectors--were nationalized after the revolution under Marxist-influenced economic policies. Starting under President Rafsanjani, Iran has pursued some privatization through its nascent equities markets. However, the industrial sector remains plagued by low labor productivity and shortages of raw materials and spare parts, and is uncompetitive against foreign imports.

Increases in the price of oil starting in 2003 have increased state revenue enormously and permitted a much larger degree of spending on social programs than previously anticipated. However, this has not eased economic hardships such as high unemployment and inflation. The proportion of the economy devoted to the development of weapons of mass destruction and military spending overall remains a contentious issue with leading Western nations.

Earnings from Iranian oil exports, projected at $57-$87 billion for 2007-2008, are placed into the Oil Stabilization Fund (OSF), originally designed as a Treasury safety net if oil prices dropped below $20/barrel. In practice, the government has drawn upon the OSF to cover over expenditures. Iran relies on oil for 80% of its export revenue, and 40% of total revenues. (Note: Iran's refining capacity is limited, and Tehran is a net gasoline importer, spending $2.6 billion for foreign gas in 2005.)
*GDP (purchasing power parity, 2006 est.): $599.2 billion.
*GDP (official exchange rate, 2006 est.): $193.5 billion.
*GDP real growth rate (2007 est.): 4.6%.
*GDP composition by sector (2006): Agriculture 11.2%, industry 41.7%, services 47.1%.
*Per capita income (2006 est.): $8,700.
*Work force: 24.36 million.
*Work force - by occupation (2001 est.): Agriculture 30%, industry 25%, services 45%.
*Unemployment rate (2007 est.): 20%.
*Natural resources: [[Petroleum]], [[natural gas]], [[coal]], [[chromium]], [[copper]], [[iron ore]], [[lead manganese]], [[zinc]], [[sulfur]].
*Agriculture: Principal products--wheat, rice, other grains, sugar beets, fruits, nuts, cotton, dairy products, wool, caviar. Note: Iran is not self-sufficient in terms of food.
*Industry: Types--petroleum, petrochemicals, textiles, cement and building materials, food processing (particularly sugar refining and vegetable oil production), metal fabricating (particularly steel and copper), armaments.
*Trade (2007 est.): Exports--$56.9 billion: petroleum 80%, chemical and petrochemical products, carpets, fruits, nuts. Major export partners (2006): Japan (17.3%), China (11.4%), Italy (6.2%), South Korea (5.2%), South Africa (5.5%), Turkey (5.7%), Netherlands (4.6%), France (4.1%), Taiwan (4.1%). Imports--$48.1 billion: industrial raw materials and intermediate goods, capital goods, foodstuffs and other consumer goods, technical services, military supplies. Major import partners: Germany (14.2%), U.A.E. (6.7%), China (8.3%), Italy (7.5%), France (6.2%), South Korea (5.4%), Russia (4.9%).
==Military==
Iran currently relies upon her Russian and Chinese allies to supply defense equipment. In addition, it holds sizable stockpiles given to it by the United States during the period of the Shah.
== History ==
[[Image:Colossal Bull Head.gif|left]]
see [[History of Iran]]
[[File:Persepolis-Hundred Columns Hall Iran.jpg|thumb|300px|Persepolis-Hundred Columns Hall.]]
Tensions between Iran and the United States have increased since Iran was identified by President Bush in January 2002 as part of the [[Axis of Evil]], and particularly since the 2005 election of Ahmadinejad. An attempt by the [[European Union]] to negotiate a surrender of or reduction in [[Iranian nuclear efforts]] failed, leading to the [[United Nations Security Council]] voting to impose limited [[sanctions]]. The United States has since lobbied for sanctions more along the lines of those imposed on 1990 upon [[Iraq]], which remained in place until the beginning of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] in 2003. Talks in March 2007 between U. S., Iranian, and [[Syrian]] diplomats at a regional conference organized by Iraq proved unproductive, although the willingness of the parties to talk was itself regarded by some as a sign that war had become somewhat less likely.

In spite of the relative overstretch of the U. S. [[military]], the utility of an attack on Iran, or at least its nuclear facilities, was a live [[debate]] among American opinion leaders throughout 2006. Objections to such an attack were mostly based upon the belief that this would represent the first step on a [[slippery slope]] to [[occupation]] of Iran, which would probably require [[conscription]] in the United States, a step [[conservatives]] and most military leaders oppose. The debate, however, appeared to have been won decisively by the hawks following the regime's suicidal decision in late March 2007 not to promptly release 15 British sailors and marines it had captured on March 23, 2007.

In 2007, [[NATO]] officials caught Iran "red-handed" shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the [[Taliban]] for use against NATO forces.<ref>''[http://www.aina.org/news/20070608101313.htm Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban]''. June 8, 2007. Assyrian International News Agency.</ref> The NATO officials stated that the incident was a "dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the [[United States]] and [[United Kingdom]]".<ref>''[http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html Document: Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban]''. June 6, 2007. ABC News.</ref>

A [[United States]] intelligence report in 2007 noted growing public unrest in Iran over the bleak economic situation. <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070824/ap_on_go_ot/us_iran;_ylt=AqDn5RrWdeIow5YjHjscMn2yFz4D Draft report logs bleak outlook for Iran. August 24, 2007. Associated Press. </ref>

==Moral legislation in Iran==
[[Image:Maleki An Achaemenian Soldier.jpg|thumb|An Achaemenian Soldier by Iman Maleki.]]
[[Homosexuality|Homosexuals]] get the death penalty in Iran.
<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297982,00.html Iran Does Far Worse Than Ignore Gays, Critics Say] Fox News, September 25, 2007</ref> However, in a speech at Columbia Univeristy, the president of Iran stated that homosexuality does not exist in his nation.

In Iran, production and consumption of alcohol by Muslims is prohibited. However, Iranian law makes an exception for minority groups, such as the Christian [[Armenia]]ns, who are allowed to produce and consume [[wine]] and distilled spirits. Naturally, these communities produce far more alcohol than they consume, "illegally" selling it to Muslims who drink in contradiction of [[Sharia]] law.

Prostitution is also prohibited in Iran, but there are allegations that نكاح المتعة (temporary marriage, legal in [[Usuli]] [[Shia]] jurisprudence) is exploited to solemnize marriages of such short duration (hours or days) that the activities thus permitted more resemble dating (if money is not exchanged) or prostitution (if a fee is charged for the marriage).

==Further reading==
*[http://www.townhall.com/News/NewsArticle.aspx?contentGUID=e3d7a4b3-5763-41db-afaf-9f5b2304ca9f Iran: Western Spy Networks Discovered], May 26, 2007.
*[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21816881-38197,00.html Iranian-American charged with spying], May 29, 2007.

==See Also==
* [[Previous Breaking News/Iran|Articles about '''Iran''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
* [[Democracy in Iran]]
* [[Big government]] [[Welfare state]] leads to [[socialist]] [[Nanny state]], leads to [[communist]] [[Police state]] - Don't think [[Communism]] is incompatible with [[Islam]].
* [[Gun control]] - key element to create a police state
* [[Press TV]]

== External Links ==
*[http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/06/16/iran_leader_calls_for_alliance_against_west/ Iran leader calls for alliance against West.]
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ Purim, Haddasah Hospital in Jerusalem, and Iran's Nuclear Bomb]

* [http://www.president.ir/eng/ Official website of the President of Iran]
* [http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/ The blog of the President of Iran]
* [http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articlenavigation/index.isc Encyclopædia Iranica]

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}

Source = [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5314.htm]}}

{{Asian Countries}}

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

[[Category:Iran]]
[[Category:Middle Eastern Countries]]
[[Category:Muslim-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Dictatorships]]
[[Category:Welfare State]]
[[Category:Police State]]
[[Category:Gun control]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]
[[Category:Anti-American]]

{{Terrorism}}

Windows 10

2014-11-01T05:34:50Z

Brenden: Created page with "'''Microsoft Windows 10''' is the upcoming edition of Microsoft Windows, announced on Sept. 30th 2015, it is planned to be released to the general public near the end of 2015. Wi..."

'''Microsoft Windows 10''' is the upcoming edition of Microsoft Windows, announced on Sept. 30th 2015, it is planned to be released to the general public near the end of 2015. Windows 10 is intended to overcome the shortfalls in the UI that manifested after the debut of Windows 8, including, most notably, the return of the Start Menu.

Talk:There Are No Atheists In Foxholes

2014-06-04T00:39:29Z

Brenden: /* Battle of Stalingrad */

What's the point of this, aside from being an ad homenim attack on atheists? [[User:JecklynH|JecklynH]] 02:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:That IS the point. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:41, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

So has anyone ever heard "'There are no atheists in foxholes' is not an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes?'" I love that line (by the way I'm not an atheist). [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:41, 8 October 2008 (EDT) I'm also in the Army...

I am going to add in here that the Battle of Stalingrad was fought by an explicitly atheistic army. [[User:Basel|Basel]]

== Battle of Stalingrad ==

State atheism was not very effective in Russia: [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z3211C.pdf Forced Secularization in Soviet Russia: Why an Atheistic Monopoly Failed]. It is doubtful that a high percentage of the Russian troops were atheists as far as the Battle of Stalingrad. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:57, 2 June 2014 (EDT)

:I have read the article you listed.

:I am unsure if you want to discuss the Russian SSR or the Soviet Union. Your article discusses the USSR in general, but there is a important difference. The article you listed stated that there was a distinct difference between the religious beliefs held and the region of the USSR. (45) The urban areas of the USSR were in the Russian SSR and were strongholds of the Red Army very early in the earlier revolution and civil war. In contrast, the rural areas, particularly in Ukraine, were strongholds of the white movement.

:According to your own source, there were 5.6 million people listed as members in "The League of Godless" in 1932 (38), which is a significant number of people. At that time there were appx. 100 million people in the Soviet Union.

:The source seems to come to some interesting conclusions. On page 37 it pronounces suspicion on how the League could have more members than the communist party. This is explained by the fact that "full" membership does not include partial membership or the other forms of membership.

:"Realizing in 1931 that approximately half its members resided in Moscow and Leningrad..." (37) supports the idea that half of the 5.6 million people were in a very geographically small part of the Soviet Union which was directly involved in the fighting of the battles which I listed.

:If you observe table 4 on page 45 many of the atheists were also included as Irreligious (the author notes this). The report summarizes that only 12% of the Soviet Union claimed to be religious.

:I further believe that the decline in anti-religious propaganda was not due to a lack of success, but that it was not successful. It is more probable that Stalin and the Politburo became very interested in recruiting soldiers from the religious areas of the USSR, which by that time were ravished by the brutal civil war, and by the famine.

:A careful observer of history will not that “Godless League"'s was dissolved in 1941. This was the first year of Operation Barbarossa. The article you provided does not even mention Operation Barbarossa or any mention of the invasion of the Soviet Union. I was fairly surprised that the article did not mention WWII for its analysis. That was fairly disappointing.

:At any rate, it is clear that atheists fought in foxholes in the battle of Stalingrad. Stalingrad was listed as a highly atheistic part of the USSR and of the Russian SSR in the article.
-Basel
::I will ask someone versed in Soviet atheism to review your comments within the next 20 days. Personally, I am not sure that bona fide atheists even exists. See: [[Denials that atheists exist]].

::One thing for certain though: Simo Häyhä (who reportedly was a Christian)[https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080201102218AAhS5qI] was a better sniper than Vasily Zaytsev. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:54, 3 June 2014 (EDT)

:::The Soviet army was wimpy just like modern atheism!

:::I cite:

:::"Simo Häyhä aka “The White Death” is widely regarded as the most hardcore sniper there ever was, with over 500 kills to his name. He helped defend his homeland from the Soviets during World War II...

:::In 1939, the Soviet Union attempted to invade Finland. Being a member of the Civil Guard, Häyhä was called into service, serving under the 6th Company of JR 34 on the Kollaa River. Commanded by Major General Uiluo Tuompo, the Finns faced both the 9th and 14th Soviet Armies, and at one point were fighting against as many as 12 divisions— about 160,000 soldiers. Also at one point in the same area, there only 32 Finns fighting against over 4,000 Soviets!

:::Despite being outnumbered, however, the Finns were still victorious at the end of the day." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 3 June 2014 (EDT)

::::Yeah, the Soviet Army was very incompetent during the early stages of the war. A lot of that, but not all, was related to the purges of army officers after the civil war. I believe that nearly half of the officer corps was executed, with the rest becoming understandably paranoid. They also had significant problems in other areas, such as supply problems and really horrendous biplanes. [[User:Basel|Basel]]
:::::Your point was incorporated into the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:52, 3 June 2014 (EDT)
::::::My grandfather, who was a devout atheist fought in WW2 on the eastern front. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:39, 3 June 2014 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative of the Year 2013

2013-12-19T01:56:27Z

Brenden: /* Gennady Zyuganov */ new section

==Putin==
Really? Putin? With all his acts to crush free speech and his refusal to really ever yield power? Okay. Hey man Hitler didn't like the gays either maybe he should be on this list.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 11:07, 11 December 2013 (EST)

== Merkel ==

I would suggets the Conservative German chancellor [[Angela Merkel]], who won the election in 2013.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 12:38, 16 December 2013 (EST)

== Gennady Zyuganov ==

Although he is a member of the KPRF, he does stand up to Putin's oligarchical rule. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:56, 18 December 2013 (EST)

Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2013-11-25T04:23:20Z

Brenden: /* General denials */ "yankee superiority" was added by a confirmed parodist, edit removed.

Here are [[liberal]] denials about history, with the result that virtually no textbooks teach them.

== General denials ==

The following truths about history are typically denied by liberal history textbooks:

#That military battles are an essential part of history, and of preserving freedom.
#That the only vote in Congress against declaring war on Japan the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor was by the first woman congressman, a suffragette.
#That there were valid reasons for past opposition to immigration which had nothing to do with racism; immigration did not enable the North to beat the South.
#That unions caused great harm, including senseless violence and lost jobs.
#That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.
#That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison to [[George Patton]], were homeschooled.
#That [[Abraham Lincoln]]'s [[faith]] grew while he was President.
#That [[Benjamin Franklin]] abandoned the [[Deism]] of his youth later in his life.
#That [[Thomas Jefferson]]'s religious beliefs were not representative of the other [[Founding Fathers]].
#That [[Rhode Island]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]], and their view of a "separation of church and state," had no role in the formation of the [[Constitution]].
#That there were [[conservative]] Presidents before [[Ronald Reagan]], such as [[George Washington]], [[James Monroe]] and [[Grover Cleveland]].
#That President [[FDR]] did not end the [[Great Depression]], and may have prolonged it.
#That President [[LBJ]]'s [[Great Society]] did little to alleviate poverty.
#That President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s foreign policy was key to ending the Cold War.
#That NO "[[triangular trade]]" existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World<ref>In fact, no specific "triangular" trade route has ever been identified and it is unlikely that there was significant sale of goods to Africa at that time. The term was invented by an historian more than 100 years later.</ref>
#That the [[Catholic Church]] has a history of promoting science, not suppressing it.
#That as an Intelligence agency, CIA was crucial for the Free world to defeat communism and their agents made huge sacrifices to defend our freedom.

== General bias ==

#Standard textbooks mislead students into thinking that contributions to history were somehow based more on status than by effort or Providence. This bias is a form of [[Essay:Status Worship|status worship]].
#Standard textbooks emphasize material things (like race, gender, wealth, scarcity) at the expense of the more important role played by ideas and "the power of the pen."
#Standard textbooks overemphasize the significance of popularity (e.g [[JFK]]).
#Standard textbooks ignore or deceive students about the fact that most great contributions to western society have been made by conservative Christians.

== Specific truths that history books deny or distort==

#[[Rhode Island]] was the only state to separate church and state, and it became the biggest importer of slaves.<ref>"The largest slave trading ports in America were located in Rhode Island and soon rivaled those of Liverpool. The wealth and economy of New England was based solely on slave trading and exporting rum; and the southern most colonies were NOT part of that odious slave trade."[http://www.floridareenactorsonline.com/realslavetraders.htm]</ref>
#[[Thomas Jefferson]] was not as successful or important as liberals claim;<ref>For example, Jefferson was given a wealthy estate but died in substantial debt.</ref> He failed personally and as president, especially in his second term.
#[[Chivalry]] was customary throughout most of American history.
#The greatest corruption in government during the Grant Administration was by the Democratic-controlled "[[Tammany Hall]]."
#The misnamed "[[Gilded Age]]" generated tremendous prosperity for some, thanks to an absence of stifling regulation.
#[[Public school]] education in its current form in the U.S.A. is less than 100 years old.
#[[Atheist]] materialism lay behind the genocidal crimes of the [[Nazi]]s
#[[Martin Luther King]] was a Republican.
#[[Lenin]] was a ruthless and violent dictator who oppressed the people of the [[Soviet Union]] almost as thoroughly as [[Stalin]].
#[[Nazism]], with its insistence on the collective, was a [[left-wing]] doctrine.
#The history of the "[[State of Franklin]]."
(add more)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:United States History Essays]]

Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2013-11-25T04:22:22Z

Brenden: /* General denials */ e.e "Yankee Superiority" seems like a parody piece. Will be patrolling this page.

Here are [[liberal]] denials about history, with the result that virtually no textbooks teach them.

== General denials ==

The following truths about history are typically denied by liberal history textbooks:

#That "Yankee ingenuity" (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it. 
#That military battles are an essential part of history, and of preserving freedom.
#That the only vote in Congress against declaring war on Japan the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor was by the first woman congressman, a suffragette.
#That there were valid reasons for past opposition to immigration which had nothing to do with racism; immigration did not enable the North to beat the South.
#That unions caused great harm, including senseless violence and lost jobs.
#That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.
#That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison to [[George Patton]], were homeschooled.
#That [[Abraham Lincoln]]'s [[faith]] grew while he was President.
#That [[Benjamin Franklin]] abandoned the [[Deism]] of his youth later in his life.
#That [[Thomas Jefferson]]'s religious beliefs were not representative of the other [[Founding Fathers]].
#That [[Rhode Island]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]], and their view of a "separation of church and state," had no role in the formation of the [[Constitution]].
#That there were [[conservative]] Presidents before [[Ronald Reagan]], such as [[George Washington]], [[James Monroe]] and [[Grover Cleveland]].
#That President [[FDR]] did not end the [[Great Depression]], and may have prolonged it.
#That President [[LBJ]]'s [[Great Society]] did little to alleviate poverty.
#That President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s foreign policy was key to ending the Cold War.
#That NO "[[triangular trade]]" existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World<ref>In fact, no specific "triangular" trade route has ever been identified and it is unlikely that there was significant sale of goods to Africa at that time. The term was invented by an historian more than 100 years later.</ref>
#That the [[Catholic Church]] has a history of promoting science, not suppressing it.
#That as an Intelligence agency, CIA was crucial for the Free world to defeat communism and their agents made huge sacrifices to defend our freedom.

== General bias ==

#Standard textbooks mislead students into thinking that contributions to history were somehow based more on status than by effort or Providence. This bias is a form of [[Essay:Status Worship|status worship]].
#Standard textbooks emphasize material things (like race, gender, wealth, scarcity) at the expense of the more important role played by ideas and "the power of the pen."
#Standard textbooks overemphasize the significance of popularity (e.g [[JFK]]).
#Standard textbooks ignore or deceive students about the fact that most great contributions to western society have been made by conservative Christians.

== Specific truths that history books deny or distort==

#[[Rhode Island]] was the only state to separate church and state, and it became the biggest importer of slaves.<ref>"The largest slave trading ports in America were located in Rhode Island and soon rivaled those of Liverpool. The wealth and economy of New England was based solely on slave trading and exporting rum; and the southern most colonies were NOT part of that odious slave trade."[http://www.floridareenactorsonline.com/realslavetraders.htm]</ref>
#[[Thomas Jefferson]] was not as successful or important as liberals claim;<ref>For example, Jefferson was given a wealthy estate but died in substantial debt.</ref> He failed personally and as president, especially in his second term.
#[[Chivalry]] was customary throughout most of American history.
#The greatest corruption in government during the Grant Administration was by the Democratic-controlled "[[Tammany Hall]]."
#The misnamed "[[Gilded Age]]" generated tremendous prosperity for some, thanks to an absence of stifling regulation.
#[[Public school]] education in its current form in the U.S.A. is less than 100 years old.
#[[Atheist]] materialism lay behind the genocidal crimes of the [[Nazi]]s
#[[Martin Luther King]] was a Republican.
#[[Lenin]] was a ruthless and violent dictator who oppressed the people of the [[Soviet Union]] almost as thoroughly as [[Stalin]].
#[[Nazism]], with its insistence on the collective, was a [[left-wing]] doctrine.
#The history of the "[[State of Franklin]]."
(add more)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:United States History Essays]]

User talk:JoeyJ

2013-10-09T23:47:53Z

Brenden: /* Account promoted */

[[File:200px-Ancapflag.svg.png|200px|right]]
[[File:Anarchy-symbol.svg.png|thumbnail|250px|left|The symbol of Anarchism]]

== Something you may not know... ==

In the English language, the names of countries, such as "Egypt," are what are known as "proper nouns," and are thus spelled with the first letter in upper case. The same goes with adjectives based on country names or religions, such as "Estonian," or "Islamist." [[User:EddyJ|EddyJ]] 09:46, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

:OK I will note it in future --[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 10:51, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

== Idi Amin ==

"In 1971 he coup in power..." What does that mean? Do you mean he "staged a coup"? Also, what does "tenue" mean? You've used that word several times in your edits. I don't think I've ever seen it before. [[User:EddyJ|EddyJ]] 13:12, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

:Yes I mean staged the coup. --[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 13:14, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

==Cats==
Hi, Joey. Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Get_rich_quick&curid=129666&diff=1066739&oldid=1066736&rcid=1415354 categorizing] my [[Get rich quick schemes]] article, even though it's just a stub.[
:No matter.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 13:27, 15 September 2013 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 8 October 2013 (EDT)

What does it mean? Am I a administator now?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 08:58, 9 October 2013 (EDT)
:No, it means that you now are trusted enough to block vandals and spammers. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:47, 9 October 2013 (EDT)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2013-08-28T20:32:03Z

Brenden: /* Homosexuality */

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. This list together with the sublists linked below provide a wide variety of examples of the resulting bias.

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>

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

Below is a growing list of around 300 examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], 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> 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 ===

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]]
# 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>
#The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=nigger&limit=500&offset=0]
#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 amoung 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>

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

=== 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.

=== 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>

=== 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]]

#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.
#[[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>
# 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]

==Structural problems with Wikipedia==
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. 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.

== 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).
*[[Wikipedia and atheism]]

==External Links==
*[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.

==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. I (ctown200) am still working on breaking this article into sub topics. It's taking me too long!

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

British Broadcasting Corporation

2013-08-24T23:09:11Z

Brenden: moved qoute to relevant section

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.

BBC was given a royal charter in 1927 as a public body; it replaced a private, commercially run British Broadcasting Company, which began in 1922. The royal charter and license, constitute the BBC as a public corporation with a mandate to provide broadcasting as a public service. BBC is funded by an annual license fee levied on the majority of UK residents owning a television set regardless of income. The BBC's monopoly on lasted from 1922 until 1973 and the introduction of commercial radio. It monopolised television from 1936 to 1954, when the Television Act allowed for the establishment of commercial stations financed by spot advertising.

The BBC is criticised for political bias by members of the Conservative Party for particularly [[liberal]] ideology, and for being overly [[politically correct]] and overly supportive and selective in its coverage of the [[Labour Party]]. And likewise those in the Labour Party accuse it of having an inbuilt Conservative bias and being overtly hostile to the working class. Analysts have accused the numerous extremist links to this BBC indicates a possible propaganda media network connection to [[Al Qaeda]]. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472430/WikiLeaks-Leaked-files-accuse-BBC-of-being-part-of-a-possible-propaganda-media-network.html BBC part of 'possible propaganda media network', Telegraphe UK, April 25, 2011]</ref> In general, the BBC succeeds in broadcasting material that have offended varying elitists, Conservatives, and Liberals alike.

== Broadcasting ==
The BBC operates eight national television channels (nine including the High-Definition service- BBC HD)[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Question Time'', ''Eastenders'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.

Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref> of £135.50 (about $250 ) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such the license fee is often criticised as being a tax.

BBC programming is free of commercial advertising. However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes. BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless free of commercial advertising - with the exception of sporting events, during which it is still permitted to display commercial advertising. Cricket matches were a previous source of contention as adverts projected onto the field of play are only visible to television viewers. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However, since the funding is determined by the government, the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. This arrangement means the government has to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given.<ref>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5006.htm</ref> This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case.

Whilst there is a vocal minority campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.

== Ownership ==
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people. The BBC was most recently given a ten-year royal charter in 2006 that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence.

Control rests with the 12-person BBC Trust, which replaced the Board of Governors in 2007. Trust members are paid and are appointed by the British prime minister and are supposed to represent the interests of a broad cross-section of the British listening and viewing public. Day-to-day management is handled by the board of management, headed by the director general; its members are appointed by the board of governors.

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.

News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.

News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.

==Internet==
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.

Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to its ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.
==History==
From its inception in 1922, J. C. W. Reith, the first director-general of the BBC, envisioned the organisation as an integral advocate of patriotism and the empire at home.

===Second World War===
From June 1940 to March 1941, the writer J. B. Priestley (1894-1984), broadcast a widely popular series of Sunday-night radio talks, 'Postscripts to the News.' He became the best known, most gifted, and probably most popular BBC commentator, for he had caught the mood of the British people during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. His forced departure was controversial and harmful to the BBC. Priestley blamed Prime Minister Churchill's negative reaction to his left-wing views on postwar reconstruction. Actually his firing was mainly due to Ministry of Information and BBC reluctance to allow an extended forum to a 'demagogic' personality who might attract a personal following, as [[Father Coughlin]] had done in the United States in the 1930s. The upshot was employment of a wider range of speakers and careful avoidance of controversy.

The BBC played a major role in promoting the British Empire worldwide during [[World War II|The Second World War, 1939-45]]. The BBC became the voice of Britain, reflecting as well as constructing the nation's history, culture, and tradition. At first the BBC worked aggressively to deflect criticism and insure that the Empire appeared as a source of strength. It presented British imperialism as a benefit to both Britain and the colonised areas. However, as the war progressed and postwar objectives became a concern, the focus of the BBC expanded to include the importance of maintaining Britain as an imperial power.<ref> Thomas Hajkowski, "The BBC, the Empire, and the Second World War, 1939-1945," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 2002 22(2): 135-155 </ref>

Special programs were directed to peoples controlled by the Nazis; listening to the short-wave broadcasts was illegal but widespread. The German-language Austrian Service was directed by Patrick Smith, who emphasised the 'separateness' of Austria from Germany and on 'freedom and independence' as the Austrian goal. As victory approached the BBC stressed the need for Austrians themselves to take part in their own liberation. There were interviews with Austrian prisoners of war held in Britain.

Until 1944, broadcasts by the BBC's Hungarian service avoided describing the plight of the Jews in Hungary for fear that it would create an anti-Semitic backlash against one of the few Jewish populations in Europe which, though persecuted, was still allowed to live. Shortly after the Nazi occupation of Hungary in March 1944 the rounding up and deporting of Jews to death camps began. For the next four months, until Hungarian regent Horthy suspended the deportations, the Hungarian service repeatedly broadcast news of the deportation of Jews and urged Hungarians to obstruct, delay, and hinder the deportations in the name of humanity and Hungarian patriotism. Altering BBC Hungarian service policies regarding the Final Solution would perhaps have done little to slow the [[Holocaust]] in Hungary.<ref> Gabriel Milland, "The BBC Hungarian Service and the Final Solution in Hungary," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 1998 18(3): 353-373 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> The BBC Home Service rarely mentioned the massacre of Jews for many reasons, including the restraints formally imposed by a government at war, the notions that such reports simply would not be believed (or, being incomprehensible, written off as propaganda) or might spur a latent anti-Semitism, and the fact that people were not interested in gloomy stories but wanted to hear about the war effort.<ref>Jeremy D. Harris, "Broadcasting the Massacres: an Analysis of the BBC's Contemporary Coverage of the Holocaust." ''Yad Vashem Studies'' 1996 25: 65-98 </ref>

===Cultural Impact===
====Monopoly years====
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly hold on British electronic media. As such its content was highly influential.

'Children's Hour', begun in the late 1920s, was intended as a medium for democracy and the production of exemplary citizens through the dissemination of idealised middle-class values. In time, this approach proved to be out of touch with the listening habits and working class context of many 'Children's Hour' listeners.

Music broadcasts for schools were begun in 1924, and did much to disseminate new ideas, especially through 'music and movement' programs and the enormously popular 'Singing Together' during the Second World War. However, the more formal programs, designed to teach the rudiments of music and notation, were less successful, and Sir Walford Davies's idea of tune building by children was abandoned in 1934. Radio's ability to teach music formally appeared severely limited, and serious doubts as to its precise function in relationship to music teachers were constantly voiced and never answered.<ref>Gordon Cox, "School Music Broadcasts and the BBC 1924-47," ''History of Education'' 1996 25(4): 363-371 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

Scottish broadcasters forged a unique and specifically Scottish tradition of radio programming in the 1920s, led by the Aberdeen studies of the BBC. However its role was weakened by a policy of centralisation in London after 1932. Radio drama based on collaboration with local theatre companies was especially strong, included much original work, and made a major contribution to the development of professional theatre in Scotland. The centralisation of radio broadcasting in London reflected the shift in the organisation of the British state toward greater involvement in the everyday lives of its citizens during the interwar years.<ref> Adrienne Scullion, "BBC Radio in Scotland, 1923-1939: Devolution, Regionalism and Centralisation." ''Northern Scotland'' 1995 15: 63-93 </ref>
====Competitive years====
Since the late 1970s the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.

The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.

==Accusations of Bias==
<big>''"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"''-</big> Andrew Marr- BBC reporter.
The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards and against multiculturalism and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.

The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.

While the BBC had been accused of bias many times in its history, a liberal bias became prevalent during the reign of Prime Minster [[Margaret Thatcher]], likely as a direct result of her government's efforts to streamline the corporation and make it more efficient. Before her reign, the BBC's overall ideology had fluctuated quite often between being pro-Conservative and pro-Liberal, mostly depending on which party was in power.

It is also perhaps noteworthy that, as a public sector organization, the BBC does have features of a [[socialist]] institution and it is believed that this may be reflected in some of its broadcast content.<ref>http://biased-bbc.com/2012/04/20/a-socialist-win-is-a-bbc-win/</ref>

===Bias against the US and Israel===
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]].<ref>[[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411977/Yes-biased-religion-politics-admit-BBC-executives.html]]</ref> At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</ref> The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.

However, the BBC was also criticised by some for refusing to show a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza following the fighting in the region in December 2008 - January 2009. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4789700/BBC-Trust-chairman-attacks-politicians-over-Gaza-appeal-pressure.html</ref>

===Liberal bias===
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
*has an "institutional Left-wing bias" (its 'Play for Today' series in the 1960s/70s was known as the '[[Trotskyist|Trot]] Slot')
*has "a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*fails to reflect concerns about pornography and family-unfriendly broadcasting (1960s Director General Hugh Carleton-Greene notoriously refused ever to meet broadcasting standards campaigner [[Mary Whitehouse]] and would commonly refer to her in opprobrious terms)
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world

[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the "liberal media consensus". Jay also said his ex-colleagues "were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007</ref>Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as "[[liberal]]" than "[[conservative]]". <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007</ref>

===Regional bias===
The BBC is based in [[London]], in the South East of England. It often faces accusations of being London-centric, with events in the North of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland having a reduced profile. A perceived disproportionately private school education is often claimed to be illustrated in the output, with a disproportionate emphasis on private school events and sports. Recently, this London emphasis is shifting, with many high profile BBC programs including Doctor Who being produced in Wales<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/arts/map/doctor-who-wales/</ref>, and production of some programs and channels being moved to Salford in 2012. <ref>http://www.mediacityuk.co.uk/</ref>

It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English<ref>[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]</ref>. In September 2008, the BBC launched BBC Alba, a [[Gaelic]] service consisting of a digital TV channel, a radio station and an online portal<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/alba/</ref>.

===Other===
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to "[[freedom fighter]]s". <ref>[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&only&rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007</ref>

The BBC cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007</ref>

The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007</ref>

[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of "parroting" [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007</ref>

While it is true that the BBC does display bias, private news institutions are also guilty of leaning liberal or conservative. For instance, a recent Pew survey found that 46% of the stories about Obama on Fox were negative compared to 6% that were positive and the rest neutral. When it came to the liberal leaning news outlet MSNBC, and their coverage of Romney, 71% of their stories were negative compared to 3% positive stories and the rest neutral.<ref>http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/winning_media_campaign_2012</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.
*[http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]
==Bibliography==
* Briggs, Asa, and Peter Burke. '' A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Media-Gutenberg-Internet/dp/0745623751/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom'' (Oxford University Press, 1961).
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume I: The Birth of Broadcasting'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Birth/dp/0192129260/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume II: The Golden Age of Wireless,'' (1995)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume III: The War of Words'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Words/dp/0192129562/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume IV: Sound & Vision'' (1979)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume V: Competition'' (1995)
* Crisell, Andrew ''An Introductory History of British Broadcasting.'' 2nd ed. London: Routledge. (2002)
* Nicholas, Siân. ''The Echo of War: Home Front Propaganda and the Wartime BBC, 1939-45.'' (1996) 307p.
* Hickman, Tom. ''What Did You Do in the War, Auntie? The BBC at War, 1939-45.'' (1995) 224p.
* Scannell, Paddy, and Cardiff, David. ''A Social History of British Broadcasting, Volume One, 1922-1939'' (Basil Blackwell, 1991).
* Smith, Anthony, and Richard Paterson. ''Television: An International History'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Television-International-History-Anthony-Smith/dp/0198159285/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197416369&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
* [http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]

[[Category:Broadcasters]][[Category:Television]][[Category:Radio]]

Chinese Cyberterrorism

2013-08-24T23:07:16Z

Brenden:

[[The People's Republic of China]] has often been accused of launching [[cyberterrorism]] attacks against foreign targets, including the [[United States]] and it's various allies, along with civilian organizations operating outside of China. In 2005, Chinese hackers in the Guangdong province launched an attack against the [[United States]], using speаr phishing and a [[computer worm|worm]] named "trojan rain" in an attempt to steal American intelligence. The Chinese government was thought to be involved in supporting the hackers, as part of a broader policy of [[information warfare]]<ref>http://www.fcw.com/online/news/97658-1.html</ref> <ref>http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5969516.html</ref>.

===Cybercrime against the People's Republic of China===
The People's Republic of China has often attempted to accuse the United States of America of conducting covert attacks on it's civilian, and military networks<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/30/china_denies_hacking_disses_us_tech/</ref>. While it was for the most part ignored as retaliatory bluffing, recent leaks by [[Edward Snowden]] has revealed evidence of a massive, concerted attempt by the United States to capture civilian data, via unauthorized entry into university and corporate routers, that direct the vast majority of Chinese internet traffic<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/24/snowden_china_carriers_hacked_nsa/</ref><ref> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-21/u-s-said-to-charge-snowden-over-nsa-surveillance-leaks.html</ref>. These revelations were dismissed as evidence brought out by a "traitor", by the Obama administration, and censorship of the claims were promptly conducted by the United States Army.<ref>http://www.ibtimes.com/us-army-blocks-guardian-articles-snowden-nsa-leak-1327925</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Bradley Manning]]
*[[Edward Snowden]]
==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Internet]]
[[Category:Crime]]

User talk:Brenden

2013-08-20T06:44:11Z

Brenden: Remove edits by parodist

{{Useful links}}
[[User talk:Brenden/Archive]]

== Regarding the Anonymous page ==

I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. [[User:JGrant|Blessings of the Almighty on you :)]] 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

== Seeing as you've blocked me in the past for sometimes having a less-than-cheerful attitude... ==

....you'll love [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/PaulDiFoglio this guy's] stream of edit comments. Hugs and kisses, [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:00, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

== What the hell are you doing? ==

Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.[[User:Brenden|Brenden]] 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

::DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:::[Comments retracted by poster]<del>Thank you, EJamesW </sarcasm>[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)</del>

What does </sarcasm> mean?

Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?

Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)

I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...

[[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

:Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
::My apologies, I failed to take a look at the history, and the tone you took kind of distracted me from looking. Sorry about that.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
==Editing==
Editing is fully restored. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:55, 11 November 2012 (EST)
:Thanks, Mr. Schlafly[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)

==Conservative==
If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)

== Personal Honeypot ==

Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)
:I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)
==Thanks==
Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

:Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)

== Spambots ==

It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)

:I think I might upgrade that to very active! Have you been getting much spam at your honeypot mate? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 19:27, 3 February 2013 (EST)
::It's been ok-ish. I blocked most of the ranges that were targeting my honeypot. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:50, 3 February 2013 (EST)

== I removed your latest round of "personal attacks removed" censorship ==
I think it is poor form to edit talk page comments left by others. If an editor wishes to run afoul of the rules by speaking their mind, it should be their freedom to do so. If that editor happens to be immune to the rules (as with the user in this case), then I think their unfettered comments should stand as testimony to their true nature. Thanks --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:16, 7 February 2013 (EST)
:Well, the last time that specific user left his comments, a lot of people were offended. While I agree, that generally, it is inappropriate to censor users, in certain cases, especially when personal attacks are involved, it should be fine. Furthermore, the use of such tags, causes the poster understand that such attacks are not welcome on Conservapedia.

Thanks for your input anyways, though. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:04, 7 February 2013 (EST)

== Editing should work now ==

Try now - your account has been promoted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 19 February 2013 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:59, 19 February 2013 (EST)

==Maybe you're right==

I still retain my suspicion, but if that contributor wants to reregister we should let him. I probably should have enabled account recreation after the block. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:34, 1 March 2013 (EST)

==AlanE==
Thanks Brenden. I needed that! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:20, 6 March 2013 (EST)
:NP [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:30, 6 March 2013 (EST)

== Reverting admins ==

Hi Brenden. You do not have the authority to undo admin's blocks. If you have an issue, you raise it. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:30, 7 March 2013 (EST)
:KK got it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:47, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

== Block ==

Thanks. [[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 11:56, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:No problem[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:25, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

== CameronD ==

Sorry I had been playing around with my signature I have now corrected it. [[User:CameronD|CameronD]] 13:45, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

== Unleash the <s>Kraken</s> Bot! ==
If you really do have the ability to implement some technical means to protect this wiki from a certain user's flagrant deletion sprees, I implore you to do so. Asking him to stop won't do a thing. He literally is incapable of changing his ways. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:57, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:Well I do hope that asking him to change will help him overcome his irritating habit of deleting pages, I am prepared to create a bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the MW api, sooo, I see a lot of googling, and asking for technical help in my foreseeable future. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:42, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

==User:C Reply==
I have no intention of leaving, but between C's actions and [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] choosing to ignore the problem(as well as any message I write to him now), it's hard to stay motivated to keep trying to make the site better. I'll stick around for now and continue to fight for this site, but I have this sinking feeling that it is only a matter of time before I'm perma-banned. Thanks for the support though, hopefully those of us who actually care will be able to prevail in the end. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 14:24, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
:On a related note... am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in C's repeated use of the 90/10 rule as a reason for banning (including the block of [[User:FWilliamM|FWilliamM]] a mere 40 minutes after your unbanning him) when 38% of his own last 500 edits were to talk pages? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:28, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::I do try to unblock the users unfairly blocked by that admin. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 01:17, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
:::I know you do and my earlier comment wasn't aimed at you. I was just frustrated with his antics last night and needed to express that to someone. Thank you for doing what you can. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 08:32, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

That is enough from both of you. Brendan, you have no business or authority unblocking users because of a pet peeve against Conservative, especially when I look into the matter and discover they are proven trolls previously blocked for hostility. User Fnarrow, your whining about being bullied is now over and done with. You chose to come into the site, and you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise. This site is an encyclopedia; it is not a site where anyone can cause a fight with anyone else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::: Karajou, I've always respected you, and found you to be a fair, and rational person, despite whatever ideological differences we may have. On the other hand, I must protest that contrary to what you said about FNarrow, ''"you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise."'' is actually an incorrect take on what happened. FNarrow was according to his contributions, merely being a productive editor, when s/he was provoked by User:C's ad-hominem attacks, and blatant violation of the Commandments. As per my authority to undo blocks placed by a superior, I feel, (and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Schlafly agrees with me), that blocks placed to censor users, and to subvert the policies here, are worthy of an immediate unblock. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:44, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

::::This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1036560] says a lot in support of my argument; this individual also created three additional accounts via a Philippine proxy in order to cause an attack on user Conservative...and you unblocked two of those socks. What you and FNarrow need to do is not only read the Conservapedia Commandments, but read and heed the warnings at the bottom of my user page. Everyone coming in is going to respect this website and the people in it, or they are out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:04, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Respect,K.? Ha!! Whose wife was implied to be a slut, K; and by whom, and who stood by and let that worm, Cons, get away with it? Who said one thing on Gmail and something else in public when he realised he had to show solidarity with a certain Mexican "gentleman" who backed a coward who has not bothered to do what he said he would do. I am still here, K. Where did Markman go when he realised he had given himself some work to do?

Just one question - why, if lack of citations is such a crime, wasn't I pulled up in 2007? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:55, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Sorry Brenden for smeering your page with my anger. One takes the opportunity when it arises. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:12, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
::@User:Karajou
I don't have the checkuser ability, so I cannot tell if the people I block and unblock are socks. As per respecting the website, and the people (Especially user:C), I do try to respect the person, even if I cannot respect their actions. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:37, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

==Fnarrow infinite block==
I am a friend of Fnarrow and he asked me to post the copy of this email which he sent to cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com on the user talk pages ofa few people whom he said had always been fair to him. <blockquote>
I got banned for a day and then Karajou immediately changed it to infinite for no apparent reason immediately after it expired. I have cut the dead end pages by nearly half during my short time there and feel i have made substantive improvements to other articles during that time. While i have had disagreements with Karajou and Conservative, i have always been respectful and adhered to the Conservapedia commandments. Finally, I never had a chance to respond to my accuser and did nothing to deserve this treatment. Please forward this to Mr. Schlafly for review.
Thank you, Fnarrow
</blockquote>
If my opinion counts for anything, Frank really is a great and passionate guy who could add a lot of valuable knowledge to yosite. That is all, please keep up the great work. [[User:JSandler|JSandler]] 14:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== If you hide another civil discussion I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website ==

If you hide another civil discussion that I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website. Thank you. I am sure Karajou and others would agree with me on this matter if I bring up this matter with other Admins. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:How dare you? You insulted Patmac, and a vast host of other anglicans, you dragged me into this fight, and if you don't tone down your insults, I will bring it up with Mr. Schlafly, who certainly agrees that your words are unnacceptable. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:14, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't consider my post to you daring. And I do mean to carry out what I said I would do should you do it again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::That discussion was civil? Calling user:Patmac a untrue christian, who is also a "lying evolutionist"? Really? I have brought this matter with the site's owner already. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:19, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::::Stating untruths about the conversation is not going to further your cause. In fact, you are making things worse. For example, I expressly did not answer Pacmac's question on whether or not he was a Christian which is why he repeated this question. You are digging for yourself a deeper hole. I would suggest you stop digging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:28, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::Since when is it your right to be implying that any user is not a "True Christian"? And furthermore, can you justify User:Conservative/Patmac dodged this issue?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:32, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Brenden, you shouldn't have pushed it so far. All C probably meant was that "no true Christian" would advocate this or that. You'd have to be an idiot to take that personally (in fact, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that 'be an idiot' was just a figure of speech).

It may seem unfair that sometimes admins get greater leeway when it comes to personal remarks, but getting into a pissing contest over it will never be productive. If you're really worried about fairness, I suggest you consider all the people in totalitarian dictatorships who have NO ACCESS to the Internet and no way to express themselves without a swift ride to prison. Getting blocked on a pro-freedom site for [[personal remarks]] hardly compares.

Chill out, and come back refreshed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:48, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==It is nothing to do with like or dislike ==
It is nothing to do with like or dislike. It is for your own good. This is a fight you will NOT win. Rob Smith tried this and he now edits at ratwiki, he is an ex-person here. Keep this up and you will be as well. Davidspencer 16:23, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:Thank you, David. I'm sorry for my choice of words now, but I must say, what User:Conservative did was not acceptable, and I tried to do my best to halt it before it returned to another user:C vs other sysops wheel war like last week. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:27, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==Thanks Brenden ==
I do appreciate it, but don't want to cause disruption--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 16:41, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==Re:Ryancsh==
I don't see why user page edits should not be understood as talk page edits for purposes of enforcing the 90/10 rule. I'm thinking of indefinitely banning Ryancsh for being a parodist anyway. Look up "Ryan Cash" on google, it seems to be some kind of an internet joke. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 11:25, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
:I searched up Ryan Cash, and saw that the second result points to a certain "Sonichu.com". However, I don't see how a website dedicated to provoking the creator of "sonichu" has any connection with Conservapedia or editing at Conservapedia. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:41, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

==Re:Rafael==

Considering his past record (see relevant block log) I think that if anything his block was not long enough. Increased length of block to one week. If this was his first offense then maybe it could have ended with a warning. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:10, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:Given the fact that you have been chastised for being overly block-happy, I would strongly suggest not touching Rafael again, until Mr. Schlafly condones it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:39, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
==Schmoozing with the enemy==

Good day,

I couldn't help but notice that you are not only frequenting a website dedicated solely for the purpose of attacking Conservapedia (everybody knows which website I'm talking about), but that you are also talking with the other liberals there about me. Care to elaborate? - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 15:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:If you see my goals I stated on my talkpage at that website, you will have your questions answered. As for speaking about you, I don't make assumptions on your motivations, but I have seen your blocking record, and I am frankly less than convinced on your sincerity. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:32, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

==Swordsman==

Look up "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?‎" You'll find Swordsman as there in the discussion about the Catholic Church and evolution. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

==Mark Kirk==

The idea that the stroke damaged his judgement does not sound unreasonable to me. I think that the main problem with the edit you reverted is that it treats this idea as a fact rather than a likely yet unproven possibility. I changed the wording [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&diff=1056953&oldid=1056927 accordingly]. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 04:04, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:The likelyhood of a stroke changing a person's political views are not supported by any reliable neuroscience research. I'm removing it as it seems to be at the best, an unproven claim. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:27, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

==Go to the talk page at the other wiki both of us frequent==

There's a surprise for you there. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 19:55, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:Do you mean Twigo or my talk page? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:59, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
::Your talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 20:01, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Aww thanks :), but I declined it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:42, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

== I'll tell you what ==

Why don't you ask Andy if he thinks it's impossible that damage to the brain can make someone liberal. If he says it's impossible, I'll remove that part of Kirk's article myself. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 20:28, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:You could do that. I encourage you to do so, as a matter of fact. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:42, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

== NKeaton ==

He needs to stop making false accusations against me. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:05, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
:You don't need to say "idiot" in the block comment, especially against a valuable and trusted contributor here. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:29, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
::I call them I like I seem them. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:48, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
:::What?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:55, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
::::LOL should have been "I call them like I see them". - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:59, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

== Markman ==

That's really enough of you and Markman going at it; you shouldn't be reverting his comment on Andy's talk page - he is a user with advanced privileges.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:29, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
:"Checkers, stop barking at Mr. Schlafly this instant!" is not appropriate for anyone to say. Besides, I have the same rank as Markman. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:31, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
::You have the same rank has nothing to do with the fact that you don't treat a user with advanced privileges as you would a new user; nor do you get in blocking wars with a user who has blocking rights. Stop blocking him.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:33, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
:::I won't block him or revert him. However, then wouldn't this logic then extend to me, and shouldn't Markman stop blocking me? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:34, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Yes.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:36, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

==Eg==

I'm going to relent on this issue. It seems as if the block has demoralized and discouraged him from further editing Conservapedia, so I don't see any reason to reinstate his block so long as he doesn't show his ugly mug around here. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 09:39, 26 June 2013 (EDT)
:{{cquote|It seems as if the block has demoralized and discouraged him from further editing Conservapedia, so I don't see any reason to reinstate his block so long as he doesn't show his ugly mug around here.}}

:Do you really believe that is appropriate behaviour, to drive off good faith editors, over a dispute over a pathetic claim of "overrated sports stars"? I'm appalled that you then had the audacity to go on my page, bragging of your misdeeds! Kindly refrain from posting on my talk page. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:44, 27 June 2013 (EDT)

::What is this tomfoolery I am reading? Participating in a wiki is a collaborative effort. You can't just shut people from you talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 18:00, 27 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Thatès rich comming from you. At any rate, I won't stand for your bullying of other users. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:54, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

== The Block log ==

The block log is getting ridiculous - we need to stop this block warring. If someone with blocking rights blocks a user you should generally respect that user's decision, but if you want to stick your neck out and be responsible for Rafael go ahead; I've unblocked him. If you decide you don't want this responsibility then you can block him again.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:04, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
And now, I've been vindicated. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 02:44, 20 August 2013 (EDT)

== questycaptcha ==

Greetings. I see that you have mentioned using the questycaptcha to reduce spam accounts. We are having an unbelievably serious problem with spam accounts at ameriwiki.org, and I wonder if you could give any advice. We don't allow editing until a user has given an email address, so none of the bot-created accounts go anywhere, but it's still annoying. I believe that CP doesn't require email, but it uses the "fuzzy letters" captcha, which seems to eliminate most of the spam. But then they post the usual "n0t much t0 say about me but blah blah blah go to my website" user page, which people like you then revert and block. To repeat, your problem at CP is nowhere near as pervasive as ours at AW, though it is often malicious. Our captcha at AW appears to be nothing but "write the word 'swordfish' in the box", or things like that. Anyway, I'm wondering if you could give any advice.

BTW, the quote that I put in the above paragraph got blocked by your spam filter, so I had to cloak it with zeros. Nice job! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:30, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

:Good heavens! Now I see that spammers are putting up ads for captcha-breaking services! Amazing! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:33, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
::Yes, I personally have QuestyCaptcha rotate it's questions every week or so. The questions are always geographically unique to my target audience, so they tend to be stuff like "who is the prime minister of Canada", etc.
::On a tangent, I noticed my AW account seems to have disappeared. Did it get lost in a database update or something? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:22, 13 July 2013 (EDT)

Thanks for the info. We changed the challenge question at AW, and the spam came to a screeching halt. Though I think the present question may be presented in an unhelpful way.

I promised Andy and JPatt that I would not actively recruit for AW. That said, your account appears to be in good standing. It was last used in late 2012. Is it possible that you've forgotten the user name? I won't remind you of it here, because people tend to be very wary of having their identities revealed publicly. But if you've forgotten, send me mail at sam4557@gmail.com (not my main email, nor is my name Sam) for a reminder. If you are using the correct account and it isn't working, let me know. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:24, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

== Nestor Makhno ==

Please uploud this picture for me: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/1921._%D0%9D%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%BE_%D0%B2_%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86_%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D1%83%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8.jpg --[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 12:58, 27 July 2013 (EDT)

Macroevolution

2013-08-06T20:21:08Z

Brenden:

'''Macroevolution''' is a distinction made by Creationists that separates the change of certain characteristics of a species, from the changes that [[natural selection]], [[mutation]]s, and genetic drift can, given enough time, lead to the creation of new groups of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor (see [[Clade]]s). Modern biologists do not make a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, but instead group it under the general theory of Evolution. The rationale for this is that the change of characteristics inside a species is the primary factor in the defination of a species, thus invalidating an absolute description of species, but instead rendering all members in a species to follow a bell curve of differentiation, thus allowing the rise of a new species.

==See also==
*[[Microevolution]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Question evolution! campaign]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp Answers In Genesis]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Walter van der Kamp

2013-08-06T20:13:41Z

Brenden:

'''Walter van der Kamp''' (1913-1998) was a Dutch-Canadian Biblical astronomer. Van der Kamp reexamined the claims of Galileo and made the case for the [[geocentrism]] proposed by [[Tycho Brahe]].

In 1955 van der Kamp immigrated to Canada from the Netherlands. In 1967, he circulated a paper on geocentrism among Christians. He demonstrated that Galileo could not have proven heliocentrism with the tools available in his era, and argued that more recent astronomical data did not conclusively demonstrate heliocentrism. He devoted his life to a system of astronomy based on Biblical principles.
==See Also==
*[[Geocentrism]]
*[[Pseudoscience]]
==External links==
* http://www.geocentricity.com/
* http://archive.org/details/DeLaboreSolis
* http://borderlandresearch.com/book/de-labore-solis

User talk:Brenden

2013-07-29T23:05:55Z

Brenden: /* JZ */

{{Useful links}}
[[User talk:Brenden/Archive]]

== Regarding the Anonymous page ==

I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. [[User:JGrant|Blessings of the Almighty on you :)]] 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

== Seeing as you've blocked me in the past for sometimes having a less-than-cheerful attitude... ==

....you'll love [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/PaulDiFoglio this guy's] stream of edit comments. Hugs and kisses, [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:00, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

== What the hell are you doing? ==

Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.[[User:Brenden|Brenden]] 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

::DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:::[Comments retracted by poster]<del>Thank you, EJamesW </sarcasm>[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)</del>

What does </sarcasm> mean?

Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?

Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)

I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...

[[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

:Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
::My apologies, I failed to take a look at the history, and the tone you took kind of distracted me from looking. Sorry about that.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
==Editing==
Editing is fully restored. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:55, 11 November 2012 (EST)
:Thanks, Mr. Schlafly[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)

==Conservative==
If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)

== Personal Honeypot ==

Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)
:I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)
==Thanks==
Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

:Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)

== Spambots ==

It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)

:I think I might upgrade that to very active! Have you been getting much spam at your honeypot mate? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 19:27, 3 February 2013 (EST)
::It's been ok-ish. I blocked most of the ranges that were targeting my honeypot. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:50, 3 February 2013 (EST)

== I removed your latest round of "personal attacks removed" censorship ==
I think it is poor form to edit talk page comments left by others. If an editor wishes to run afoul of the rules by speaking their mind, it should be their freedom to do so. If that editor happens to be immune to the rules (as with the user in this case), then I think their unfettered comments should stand as testimony to their true nature. Thanks --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:16, 7 February 2013 (EST)
:Well, the last time that specific user left his comments, a lot of people were offended. While I agree, that generally, it is inappropriate to censor users, in certain cases, especially when personal attacks are involved, it should be fine. Furthermore, the use of such tags, causes the poster understand that such attacks are not welcome on Conservapedia.

Thanks for your input anyways, though. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:04, 7 February 2013 (EST)

== Editing should work now ==

Try now - your account has been promoted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 19 February 2013 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:59, 19 February 2013 (EST)

==Maybe you're right==

I still retain my suspicion, but if that contributor wants to reregister we should let him. I probably should have enabled account recreation after the block. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:34, 1 March 2013 (EST)

==AlanE==
Thanks Brenden. I needed that! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:20, 6 March 2013 (EST)
:NP [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:30, 6 March 2013 (EST)

== Reverting admins ==

Hi Brenden. You do not have the authority to undo admin's blocks. If you have an issue, you raise it. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:30, 7 March 2013 (EST)
:KK got it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:47, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

== Block ==

Thanks. [[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 11:56, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:No problem[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:25, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

== CameronD ==

Sorry I had been playing around with my signature I have now corrected it. [[User:CameronD|CameronD]] 13:45, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

== Unleash the <s>Kraken</s> Bot! ==
If you really do have the ability to implement some technical means to protect this wiki from a certain user's flagrant deletion sprees, I implore you to do so. Asking him to stop won't do a thing. He literally is incapable of changing his ways. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:57, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:Well I do hope that asking him to change will help him overcome his irritating habit of deleting pages, I am prepared to create a bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the MW api, sooo, I see a lot of googling, and asking for technical help in my foreseeable future. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:42, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

==User:C Reply==
I have no intention of leaving, but between C's actions and [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] choosing to ignore the problem(as well as any message I write to him now), it's hard to stay motivated to keep trying to make the site better. I'll stick around for now and continue to fight for this site, but I have this sinking feeling that it is only a matter of time before I'm perma-banned. Thanks for the support though, hopefully those of us who actually care will be able to prevail in the end. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 14:24, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
:On a related note... am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in C's repeated use of the 90/10 rule as a reason for banning (including the block of [[User:FWilliamM|FWilliamM]] a mere 40 minutes after your unbanning him) when 38% of his own last 500 edits were to talk pages? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:28, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::I do try to unblock the users unfairly blocked by that admin. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 01:17, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
:::I know you do and my earlier comment wasn't aimed at you. I was just frustrated with his antics last night and needed to express that to someone. Thank you for doing what you can. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 08:32, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

That is enough from both of you. Brendan, you have no business or authority unblocking users because of a pet peeve against Conservative, especially when I look into the matter and discover they are proven trolls previously blocked for hostility. User Fnarrow, your whining about being bullied is now over and done with. You chose to come into the site, and you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise. This site is an encyclopedia; it is not a site where anyone can cause a fight with anyone else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::: Karajou, I've always respected you, and found you to be a fair, and rational person, despite whatever ideological differences we may have. On the other hand, I must protest that contrary to what you said about FNarrow, ''"you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise."'' is actually an incorrect take on what happened. FNarrow was according to his contributions, merely being a productive editor, when s/he was provoked by User:C's ad-hominem attacks, and blatant violation of the Commandments. As per my authority to undo blocks placed by a superior, I feel, (and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Schlafly agrees with me), that blocks placed to censor users, and to subvert the policies here, are worthy of an immediate unblock. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:44, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

::::This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1036560] says a lot in support of my argument; this individual also created three additional accounts via a Philippine proxy in order to cause an attack on user Conservative...and you unblocked two of those socks. What you and FNarrow need to do is not only read the Conservapedia Commandments, but read and heed the warnings at the bottom of my user page. Everyone coming in is going to respect this website and the people in it, or they are out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:04, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Respect,K.? Ha!! Whose wife was implied to be a slut, K; and by whom, and who stood by and let that worm, Cons, get away with it? Who said one thing on Gmail and something else in public when he realised he had to show solidarity with a certain Mexican "gentleman" who backed a coward who has not bothered to do what he said he would do. I am still here, K. Where did Markman go when he realised he had given himself some work to do?

Just one question - why, if lack of citations is such a crime, wasn't I pulled up in 2007? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:55, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Sorry Brenden for smeering your page with my anger. One takes the opportunity when it arises. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:12, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
::@User:Karajou
I don't have the checkuser ability, so I cannot tell if the people I block and unblock are socks. As per respecting the website, and the people (Especially user:C), I do try to respect the person, even if I cannot respect their actions. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:37, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

==Fnarrow infinite block==
I am a friend of Fnarrow and he asked me to post the copy of this email which he sent to cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com on the user talk pages ofa few people whom he said had always been fair to him. <blockquote>
I got banned for a day and then Karajou immediately changed it to infinite for no apparent reason immediately after it expired. I have cut the dead end pages by nearly half during my short time there and feel i have made substantive improvements to other articles during that time. While i have had disagreements with Karajou and Conservative, i have always been respectful and adhered to the Conservapedia commandments. Finally, I never had a chance to respond to my accuser and did nothing to deserve this treatment. Please forward this to Mr. Schlafly for review.
Thank you, Fnarrow
</blockquote>
If my opinion counts for anything, Frank really is a great and passionate guy who could add a lot of valuable knowledge to yosite. That is all, please keep up the great work. [[User:JSandler|JSandler]] 14:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== If you hide another civil discussion I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website ==

If you hide another civil discussion that I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website. Thank you. I am sure Karajou and others would agree with me on this matter if I bring up this matter with other Admins. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:How dare you? You insulted Patmac, and a vast host of other anglicans, you dragged me into this fight, and if you don't tone down your insults, I will bring it up with Mr. Schlafly, who certainly agrees that your words are unnacceptable. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:14, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't consider my post to you daring. And I do mean to carry out what I said I would do should you do it again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::That discussion was civil? Calling user:Patmac a untrue christian, who is also a "lying evolutionist"? Really? I have brought this matter with the site's owner already. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:19, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::::Stating untruths about the conversation is not going to further your cause. In fact, you are making things worse. For example, I expressly did not answer Pacmac's question on whether or not he was a Christian which is why he repeated this question. You are digging for yourself a deeper hole. I would suggest you stop digging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:28, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::Since when is it your right to be implying that any user is not a "True Christian"? And furthermore, can you justify User:Conservative/Patmac dodged this issue?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:32, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Brenden, you shouldn't have pushed it so far. All C probably meant was that "no true Christian" would advocate this or that. You'd have to be an idiot to take that personally (in fact, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that 'be an idiot' was just a figure of speech).

It may seem unfair that sometimes admins get greater leeway when it comes to personal remarks, but getting into a pissing contest over it will never be productive. If you're really worried about fairness, I suggest you consider all the people in totalitarian dictatorships who have NO ACCESS to the Internet and no way to express themselves without a swift ride to prison. Getting blocked on a pro-freedom site for [[personal remarks]] hardly compares.

Chill out, and come back refreshed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:48, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==It is nothing to do with like or dislike ==
It is nothing to do with like or dislike. It is for your own good. This is a fight you will NOT win. Rob Smith tried this and he now edits at ratwiki, he is an ex-person here. Keep this up and you will be as well. Davidspencer 16:23, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:Thank you, David. I'm sorry for my choice of words now, but I must say, what User:Conservative did was not acceptable, and I tried to do my best to halt it before it returned to another user:C vs other sysops wheel war like last week. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:27, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==Thanks Brenden ==
I do appreciate it, but don't want to cause disruption--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 16:41, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==Re:Ryancsh==
I don't see why user page edits should not be understood as talk page edits for purposes of enforcing the 90/10 rule. I'm thinking of indefinitely banning Ryancsh for being a parodist anyway. Look up "Ryan Cash" on google, it seems to be some kind of an internet joke. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 11:25, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
:I searched up Ryan Cash, and saw that the second result points to a certain "Sonichu.com". However, I don't see how a website dedicated to provoking the creator of "sonichu" has any connection with Conservapedia or editing at Conservapedia. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:41, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

==Re:Rafael==

Considering his past record (see relevant block log) I think that if anything his block was not long enough. Increased length of block to one week. If this was his first offense then maybe it could have ended with a warning. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:10, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:Given the fact that you have been chastised for being overly block-happy, I would strongly suggest not touching Rafael again, until Mr. Schlafly condones it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:39, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
==Schmoozing with the enemy==

Good day,

I couldn't help but notice that you are not only frequenting a website dedicated solely for the purpose of attacking Conservapedia (everybody knows which website I'm talking about), but that you are also talking with the other liberals there about me. Care to elaborate? - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 15:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:If you see my goals I stated on my talkpage at that website, you will have your questions answered. As for speaking about you, I don't make assumptions on your motivations, but I have seen your blocking record, and I am frankly less than convinced on your sincerity. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:32, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

==Swordsman==

Look up "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?‎" You'll find Swordsman as there in the discussion about the Catholic Church and evolution. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

==Mark Kirk==

The idea that the stroke damaged his judgement does not sound unreasonable to me. I think that the main problem with the edit you reverted is that it treats this idea as a fact rather than a likely yet unproven possibility. I changed the wording [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&diff=1056953&oldid=1056927 accordingly]. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 04:04, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:The likelyhood of a stroke changing a person's political views are not supported by any reliable neuroscience research. I'm removing it as it seems to be at the best, an unproven claim. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:27, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

==Go to the talk page at the other wiki both of us frequent==

There's a surprise for you there. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 19:55, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:Do you mean Twigo or my talk page? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:59, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
::Your talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 20:01, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Aww thanks :), but I declined it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:42, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

== I'll tell you what ==

Why don't you ask Andy if he thinks it's impossible that damage to the brain can make someone liberal. If he says it's impossible, I'll remove that part of Kirk's article myself. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 20:28, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:You could do that. I encourage you to do so, as a matter of fact. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:42, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

== NKeaton ==

He needs to stop making false accusations against me. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:05, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
:You don't need to say "idiot" in the block comment, especially against a valuable and trusted contributor here. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:29, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
::I call them I like I seem them. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:48, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
:::What?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:55, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
::::LOL should have been "I call them like I see them". - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:59, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

== Markman ==

That's really enough of you and Markman going at it; you shouldn't be reverting his comment on Andy's talk page - he is a user with advanced privileges.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:29, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
:"Checkers, stop barking at Mr. Schlafly this instant!" is not appropriate for anyone to say. Besides, I have the same rank as Markman. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:31, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
::You have the same rank has nothing to do with the fact that you don't treat a user with advanced privileges as you would a new user; nor do you get in blocking wars with a user who has blocking rights. Stop blocking him.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:33, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
:::I won't block him or revert him. However, then wouldn't this logic then extend to me, and shouldn't Markman stop blocking me? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:34, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Yes.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:36, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

==Eg==

I'm going to relent on this issue. It seems as if the block has demoralized and discouraged him from further editing Conservapedia, so I don't see any reason to reinstate his block so long as he doesn't show his ugly mug around here. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 09:39, 26 June 2013 (EDT)
:{{cquote|It seems as if the block has demoralized and discouraged him from further editing Conservapedia, so I don't see any reason to reinstate his block so long as he doesn't show his ugly mug around here.}}

:Do you really believe that is appropriate behaviour, to drive off good faith editors, over a dispute over a pathetic claim of "overrated sports stars"? I'm appalled that you then had the audacity to go on my page, bragging of your misdeeds! Kindly refrain from posting on my talk page. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:44, 27 June 2013 (EDT)

::What is this tomfoolery I am reading? Participating in a wiki is a collaborative effort. You can't just shut people from you talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 18:00, 27 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Thatès rich comming from you. At any rate, I won't stand for your bullying of other users. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:54, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

==RE:you have regular contact with Mr. Schlafly?==

No but I just saw him log in two minutes before my latest block of Rafael (see recent changes). - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 12:33, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
:EDIT: To be a little more specific, he edited [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=1059294&oldid=1059218 mainpageright] on 16:20 while the aforementioned block of Rafael was given on 16:22. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 12:34, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
::Excellent, he should be able to check RC soon. At any rate, you can contact my special purpose account at brendenliasonwithmarkman@gmail.com [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 12:37, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
:::Check your email. In case you have doubts whether or not it's really me (I wouldn't be surprised if someone else already tried to contact you while pretending to be me) then I'll tell you on email how I will verify the authenticity of my account to you. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 11:49, 2 July 2013 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I got it. (I think it's you, at any rate) [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 12:32, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

== The Block log ==

The block log is getting ridiculous - we need to stop this block warring. If someone with blocking rights blocks a user you should generally respect that user's decision, but if you want to stick your neck out and be responsible for Rafael go ahead; I've unblocked him. If you decide you don't want this responsibility then you can block him again.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:04, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

==Email + Help on the other side==

Hey man,

Just curious, are you reading my emails? I remember sending you one a long time ago and you didn't respond. Not that I'm berating you or anything, just asking. Also, this might not be relevant by the time you read this, but can you go to the other wiki we both frequent and unblock me? The recent upset at their elections has raised some antagonism. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:05, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
:Nevermind, problem solved. Also there was no upset, just a mistake in calculating the results. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 15:41, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

== questycaptcha ==

Greetings. I see that you have mentioned using the questycaptcha to reduce spam accounts. We are having an unbelievably serious problem with spam accounts at ameriwiki.org, and I wonder if you could give any advice. We don't allow editing until a user has given an email address, so none of the bot-created accounts go anywhere, but it's still annoying. I believe that CP doesn't require email, but it uses the "fuzzy letters" captcha, which seems to eliminate most of the spam. But then they post the usual "n0t much t0 say about me but blah blah blah go to my website" user page, which people like you then revert and block. To repeat, your problem at CP is nowhere near as pervasive as ours at AW, though it is often malicious. Our captcha at AW appears to be nothing but "write the word 'swordfish' in the box", or things like that. Anyway, I'm wondering if you could give any advice.

BTW, the quote that I put in the above paragraph got blocked by your spam filter, so I had to cloak it with zeros. Nice job! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:30, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

:Good heavens! Now I see that spammers are putting up ads for captcha-breaking services! Amazing! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:33, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
::Yes, I personally have QuestyCaptcha rotate it's questions every week or so. The questions are always geographically unique to my target audience, so they tend to be stuff like "who is the prime minister of Canada", etc.
::On a tangent, I noticed my AW account seems to have disappeared. Did it get lost in a database update or something? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:22, 13 July 2013 (EDT)

Thanks for the info. We changed the challenge question at AW, and the spam came to a screeching halt. Though I think the present question may be presented in an unhelpful way.

I promised Andy and JPatt that I would not actively recruit for AW. That said, your account appears to be in good standing. It was last used in late 2012. Is it possible that you've forgotten the user name? I won't remind you of it here, because people tend to be very wary of having their identities revealed publicly. But if you've forgotten, send me mail at sam4557@gmail.com (not my main email, nor is my name Sam) for a reminder. If you are using the correct account and it isn't working, let me know. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:24, 14 July 2013 (EDT)

== Nestor Makhno ==

Please uploud this picture for me: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/1921._%D0%9D%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%BE_%D0%B2_%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%89%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86_%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D1%83%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8.jpg --[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 12:58, 27 July 2013 (EDT)

==JZ==

You do not have the authority to overturn a block by an admin so please don't do it. If you have a problem with the block that was given talk to Conservative rather than act unilaterally. Also, if you feel like you must resolve this subject with me than wait until next week. I'm on vacation right now so I try to relax myself and not involve myself with CP too much unless I deem it necessary. - [[User:Markman|Markman]]
:I didn't change the period, I just changed the reason to one reflecting what he was blocked for. (90/10 rule). [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:05, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

500.shtml

2013-07-24T22:26:29Z

Brenden: 500.shtml seems to pop up quite a bit, so I created it to redirect to the main page to seem more seamless.

#redirect [[Main Page]]

User:Conservative/Nate K and GregG, you gentlemen do not have the moral high ground/talk/talk

2013-07-23T19:32:44Z

Brenden: Sorry user;C, I couldn't help myself.

Very well, I will stop poking you for now. I imagine this truthification of yours is rather stressful, and I remember you mentioning that your therapist advised you to stop responding to us every time we complain about you actions. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:32, 23 July 2013 (EDT)

United Kingdom

2013-07-23T17:18:25Z

Brenden: removed blatant parody/insertion of opinion.

{{Country
|name =''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''
|map =United kingdom rel87.jpg
|map2 =UK location.png
|flag =Union_jack.jpg
|arms =UK Royal Coat of Arms.png
|capital =London
|capital-raw =
|government =Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =HM Queen [[Elizabeth II]]
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =David Cameron
|pm-raw =
|area =94,526 sq mi
|pop =62,698,000
|pop-basis =2011
|gdp =$2.006 trillion
|gdp-year =2006
|gdp-pc =$35,051 (2006)
|currency =Pound Sterling
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''The United Kingdom''' ('''UK''') is a sovereign [[state]] north-west of mainland [[Europe]]. It comprises [[England]], [[Scotland]] and [[Wales]], which occupy the island of [[Great Britain]], and [[Northern Ireland]] on the island of [[Ireland]]. It attained its current identity in 1922 after most of Ireland was granted independence.

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. Its [[head of state]] is [[Elizabeth II]], and its [[head of government]] is the Prime Minister [[David Cameron]].

The United Kingdom has the fifth largest economy in the world, and is a member of the [[European Union]], [[NATO]] and the [[United Nations]]. British values, culture and institutions were spread throughout many parts of the world during the period of the [[British Empire]], 1600-1960, and British contributions to world culture include the English language, the [[parliament|parliamentary]] form of government, the [[Church of England|Anglican]] Church ("Church of England"), a tradition of personal liberty, and the [[common law]] legal system.

==Name==
[[File:London Thames Sunset panorama 2008.jpg|thumb|left|London - Thames panorama.]]
The official name of the nation (since 1927) is ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''.<ref> From 1801 to 1927 the official name was ''The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''. </ref> The full official name is seldom used except in very formal or legal documents. The short version for historical topics is either "Britain" or "Great Britain." The short version for recent events (since the 1970s) is "United Kingdom" or "UK" The adjective is always '''"British"'''.

Britain was part of the [[British Empire]], which has become the "British Commonwealth", and is mostly a discussion club. Britain has a few scattered minor possessions, such as [[Gibraltar]], but gave up its last important colony--[[Hong Kong]]--in 1997.
[[File:Westminster in the evening.jpg|thumb|280px|Westminster in the evening.]]
* '''England''' is the largest of the four components of the United Kingdom. "England" was often used to stand for the nation in older literature published before 1970. However use of "England" to refer to the entire country is now sometimes considered offensive by many citizens of the other three member countries and is thus discouraged.
* The standard language of the UK is English; [[Welsh]] has parity in Wales, and [[Gaelic]] is widely used on official documents, roadsigns, etc in remote Gaelic-speaking areas of western Scotland.

MacColl (2008) explores the use of the term 'Britain' in English, French, and Latin texts from the 12th century to the 16th. The term was flexible, used in a variety of ways (geographically, politically, and ethnically), and not always indicative of any specific meaning. The English at first tended to conflate 'Britain' with England or the southern portion of the island of Great Britain, though the term 'Greater Britain' was applied starting in the 14th century to refer to the entire island. The Scottish, beginning in the 15th century, used the term in the modern sense - as reflective of the entire island of Great Britain and the 'polity' of England, Wales, and Scotland. This latter usage paved the way for the relatively smooth ideological transition after the 1707 Acts of Union.<ref> Alan MacColl, "The Meaning of 'Britain' in Medieval and Early Modern England." ''Journal of British Studies'' 2006 45(2): 248-269</ref>

===Anthem===
The national anthem of the UK is currently ''[[God Save the Queen]]''. Should a male heir accede to the throne, the anthem will become "God Save the King".<ref> This same melody is also sung by American schoolchildren (with different words) as "My Country, 'Tis of Thee".</ref>

The constituent nations have their own unofficial anthems. In the case of Wales, this is ''Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau'' (''Land of My Fathers''), and for Scotland it is ''Flower of Scotland''. England does not have its own distinctive anthem in the same way, but at sporting events in which England is competing as a separate nation, [[Edward Elgar]]'s patriotic song ''Land of Hope and Glory'' is sometimes used (although ''God Save the Queen'' is more commonly used). Additionally the hymn "Jerusalem" has a large number of supporters in England as an alternative to, or replacement for, the national anthem. In Northern Ireland, the Protestant and Catholic communities respectively use ''God Save the Queen'' and ''Amhran na bhFiann'', the Irish national anthem. ''Londonderry Air'' is often used as the anthem for Northern Ireland competitors in sporting events.

==People==
[[Image:Tower Bridge London.jpg|thumb|340px|Tower Bridge, London.]]
The United Kingdom's population in 2004 surpassed 60 million--the third-largest in the European Union. Its overall population density is one of the highest in the world. Almost one-third of the population lives in England's prosperous and fertile southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban--with about 7.2 million in the capital of London, which remains the largest city in Europe.

A net total of 408,000 people were added to the UK population in 2008, the largest numerical increase since 1972. This was partly due to the highest fertility rate in more than three decades. More than half of the increase in births last year was due to non-UK born mothers.

There is also an ever-increasing aging population with the number of people over 85 now at a record 1.3 million, the equivalent of one in every 50 people.

===Education===
[[File:Royal College of Music 2007.jpg|thumb|left|Royal College of Music.]]
The United Kingdom's high literacy rate (99%) is attributable to universal public education introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900. Education is mandatory from ages 5 through 16, although this is in the process of being raised to 18 for England and Wales. "Public" schools are elite private prep schools, such as [[Eton]] and [[Rugby School|Rugby]], attended by youth whose families can afford to pay high tuition rates.

All state-funded schools in the UK are required to start the day with a collective assembly that is 'wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character' <ref>[http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=387464 Times Educational Supplement]</ref>, although this is not always ahered too and there are small numbers of state-funded [[Muslim]], [[Jew]]ish and [[Hindu]] schools.

About thirty six percent of British students go on to post-secondary education.

Higher education has been a speciality for over 500 years at Oxbridge ([[Oxford University|Oxford]] and [[Cambridge University|Cambridge]]), with new "red brick" universities added in the 19th century and many others in the late 20th century. Universities contribute £33 billion a year to the economy. Britain has a strong attraction for international students, with 342,000 attending in 2007 (compared to 672,000 in the U.S. and 183,000 in Australia). They spend £1.5 billion in tuition in Britain annually, plus another £0.4 billion off campus.

===Demographics===
[[File:Youth UK.JPG|thumb|British youth.]]
A group of islands close to continental Europe, the British Isles have been subject to many invasions and migrations, especially from Scandinavia and the continent, including Roman occupation for several centuries. Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in Northern France. Although Celtic languages persist in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, as well as Cornwall in south-west England, the predominant language is English, which is primarily a blend of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.
*Population (2007 est.): 60.8 million.
*Annual population growth rate (2007 est.): 0.275%.
*Major ethnic groups: British 91%, Irish 2%, West Indian and African 3%, South Asian 3%, others 1%.
*Major religions: Church of England (Anglican), Roman Catholic, Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), Muslim.
*Major languages: English
*Education: Years compulsory--12. Attendance--nearly 100%. Literacy--99%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate (2007 est.)--5.01/1,000. Life expectancy (2007 est.)--males 76.23 yrs.; females 81.3 yrs.; total 78.7 years
*Work force (2007, 31.1 million): Services--80.4%; industry--18.2%; agriculture--1.4%.

===Ethnic tensions===

Britain is home to 2.4 million Muslims from numerous ethnicities. This population is growing 10 times faster than the national average. Regarded as one of the most tolerant countries in Europe, Britain struggles with questions of integration, particularly the social exclusion of its Muslims, as well as the psychological aftermath of the July 2005 suicide bombings on London’s public transport system carried out by young Britons of Pakistani descent, which left 52 people dead and over 700 injured.

===Religion===
[[File:Canterbury Cathedral.jpg|thumb|left|350px|Canterbury Cathedral (photographed during 1890-1900).]]
Religious faith, according to a 2011 survey, has declined sharply in Britain over the last two decades. Now only 42% of people describe themselves as Christian, as opposed to 66% in 1990. Most of the decline is due to a drift away from the Church of England, it is claimed, with only 20% claiming allegiance, down from 40%.

In 2003 the Office of National Statistics estimated 29% of the population identified with Anglicanism, 10% with the Catholic Church, and 14% with other Protestant churches. A 2007 survey reported that the number of Catholics (mostly Irish) attending Sunday services has overtaken the number of Anglicans doing so. A September 2006 English Church Census reported that Methodists were decreasing as a percentage of the population, while members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Pentecostal churches, many churches from Africa, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, almost entirely immigrants, were increasing.<ref> According to [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108478.htm U.S. State Department Report, 2008]</ref>

Individuals with no religious belief comprised 21% of the population in 2009. Muslims comprise 3% of the population. The Muslim community is predominantly South Asian in origin, but other groups from the Arabian Peninsula, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Levant are represented. In addition, there is a growing number of indigenous converts. Although estimates vary, the Government places the number of mosques in the whole country at one thousand. Groups comprising 1% or less of the population include Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Buddhists. Individuals from Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, and Sikh backgrounds are concentrated in London and other large urban areas, primarily in England.

Attendance at religious services was significantly different from the number of adherents. According to a report released on May 8, 2008, by Religious Trends, only 4 million Christians attend services on a regular basis (defined as at least once a month) in the country. These figures do not include Northern Ireland, where higher%ages reportedly attend both Catholic (more than 60%) and Protestant (more than 35%) services. The Religious Trends report stated that more than 50% of Muslims regularly worship at mosques. Figures for Jews and other religious groups were unavailable.

Religious affiliation was not evenly distributed among ethnicities. According to the 2001 census, approximately 70% of the white population described themselves as Christians. Nearly 75% of black Caribbean respondents stated that they were Christians, as did 70% of black Africans. Meanwhile, 45% of Indians were Hindus and 29% were Sikhs. Approximately 92% of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were Muslims.

In Northern Ireland, where divisions between nationalists and unionists evolved largely along religious lines, the 2001 census showed that 53.1% were Protestants and 43.8% were Catholics. Many Catholics and Protestants continued to live in segregated communities in Northern Ireland, although many middle class neighborhoods were mixed communities. The policy of the Government remained one of promotion of religious tolerance.

There are two established (or state) churches--The [[Church of England]] (Anglican) and the [[Church of Scotland]] (Presbyterian). The Act of Settlement, enacted in 1688, states that no Catholic, or person married to a Catholic, may ascend the throne.
====Religion in schools====
The Government provides financial support—up to 90% of the total capital costs of the buildings and 100% of running costs, including teachers' salaries - to sectarian educational institutions that are commonly referred to as "faith schools".
[[File:Matthew Boulton College.jpg|thumb|Matthew Boulton College.]]
The Government also helps fund the repair and maintenance of all listed places of worship for religious groups nationwide and contributes to the budget of the Church Conservation Trust, which preserves "redundant" Church of England buildings of architectural or historic significance.

The Government has not classified the Church of Scientology as a religious institution and therefore has not granted the organization recognition for charitable status.

More than 30% of state schools had a religious character. Nearly all of the 6,949 "faith schools" are associated with Christian denominations, although there are 31 Jewish, 7 Islamic, and 2 Sikh schools. An additional two Jewish, three Islamic, and two Sikh schools have also been tentatively approved by the Government to open. In addition, several hundred independent schools of a religious nature receive no state support but must meet government quality standards. Controversy arose in 2006 over 100 Islamic schools when an Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) evaluation of these schools showed many were "little more than places where the Koran was recited." The schools were given time to correct their deficiencies. A review is due in 2010. Some Christian faith schools also faced controversy. Some were accused of not following the national curriculum in science, teaching creationism instead. During the reporting period, a further controversy erupted when it was learned that some faith schools were not following an "open" admission policy as required by law, denying admission to both special needs children and those outside the faith of the school administrators. The Catholic Church and the Church of England have an agreement to voluntarily accept up to 25% of places for pupils from another religious group or no religious group.

Almost all schools in Northern Ireland receive state support. More than 90% of students attended schools that were either predominantly Catholic or Protestant. Integrated schools served approximately 5% of school-age children whose families voluntarily chose this option, often after overcoming significant obstacles to provide the resources to start a new school and demonstrate its sustainability for 3 years before government funding begins. Demand for places in integrated schools outweighed the limited number of places available. The May 8, 2007, devolution, or granting of power, authorized the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on academic selection. Now there are more than 50 integrated schools, and the new Government permits existing schools to petition to change from sectarian to integrated. More petition for that status than are granted it. Some have accused the Government of a go-slow approach to avoid sectarian animus.

The law requires religious education for all children, ages 3 to 19, in publicly maintained schools. In England and Wales it forms part of the core curriculum in accordance with the Education Reform Act of 1988. In Scotland, religious education of some sort is mandated by the Education Act of 1980. However, the shape and content of religious instruction throughout the country is decided on a local basis. Locally agreed syllabi are required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity while taking into account the teachings and practices of other principal religions in the country. Syllabuses must be nondenominational and refrain from attempting to convert pupils. Schools with a religious designation follow a syllabus drawn up by the school governors according to the trust deed of the school. All parents have the legal right to request that their children not participate in religious education, but the school must approve this request.

Daily collective prayer or worship of "a wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character" is practiced in schools in England and Wales, a requirement that may be waived for students who obtain permission of the school authorities. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 permits sixth form students (generally 16-19-year-olds) to withdraw themselves from worship without their parents' permission or action. This new law does not exempt sixth form students from religious education classes. Non-Christian worship is permitted with approval of the authorities. Teachers have the right not to participate in collective worship, without prejudice, unless they work for a faith school.

After several controversial court decisions prohibiting full-face veils in school (but not head scarves) and the wearing of a Christian chastity ring, the Department of Education provided guidance that advises schools to "… act reasonably in accommodating religious requirements," under human rights legislation. Some Muslim groups, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said it was inappropriate for the Government to provide guidance that regulated Muslim communities in matters concerning the expression of their religious beliefs. But it is also legally possible under the act, according to the guidance, to have a school uniform policy that "restricts the freedom of pupils to manifest their religion" on the grounds of health and safety and the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The Government's guidance is meant to remind "head teachers" to act with a degree of sensitivity when considering decisions that will impact the cultural complexion of their communities.

====Census====

According to the 2011 Census the religious make-up of the UK at that time was:

{| border="1" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3
|+'''Religions in United Kingdom'''
!Belief
!Thousands
!Proportion
|-
|Christian ||29,000 ||51.6
|-
|No Religion ||9104 ||15.5
|-
|Muslim ||1591 ||2.7
|-
|Hindu ||559 ||1.0
|-
|Sikh ||336 ||0.6
|-
|Jewish ||267 ||0.5
|-
|Other ||179 ||0.3
|-
|Buddhist ||152 ||0.3
|-
|Pagan & Wicca ||40 ||0.1
|-
|Total religious ||45,163 ||76.8
|-
|No answer ||4289 ||7.3
|}
The answers were distorted by an internet campaign just prior to the census, encouraging people to actually question religion that claimed that if at least 50,000 people stated their religion as 'Jedi Knight' it would be officially classified as a religion. This was not true, though the Office of National Statistics does aggregate very small religions into the 'Other' category whereas a religion of 50,000 would be itemised separately. This separate listing does not constitute any form of official recognition.

It should be noted that non-practising Christians and the non-religious group are growing in the UK and Europe. At the same time, there is growth in the Islamic, Sikh and Hindu groups due to immigration.

Two of the four states of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland, have official state religions. The [[Church of England]] is the official religion of England and the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is the official religion of Scotland. The (Anglican) Church of Ireland was [[disestablished]] in 1871 and the (Anglican) Church of Wales was disestablished in 1920, whereupon it was renamed the [[Church in Wales]].

===Crown Dependencies===
A number of the smaller [[British Isles]], most importantly [[Jersey]], [[Guernsey]] and the [[Isle of Man]] are '[[Crown dependencies|British Crown Dependencies]]' and not members of the UK. Their governments are independent of that of the UK other than foreign and defence policy (the UK government retains the legal power to overrule the governments of the Dependencies, but this power has not been exercised since 1967), and they are not members of the [[European Union]].

==Sports and Pastimes==
[[File:Wembley Stadium.jpg|thumb|230px|Wembley Stadium.]]
Many of the most popular [[sport]]s in the world today were developed or codified in the UK. These include [[soccer|football]] (which is called ''soccer'' in North America), [[cricket]], [[Rugby (Sport)|rugby]], [[tennis]], [[hockey]], [[baseball]] and [[golf]]. The UK is represented in international competitions by the individual nations (such as in football, the one-day form of cricket and rugby) and by the whole of the UK in other sports (such as [[athletics]], golf and tennis). The Test cricket team is that of 'England & Wales' (colloquially, just 'England') but from time to time has had Scottish and Irish players.

The UK remains a major sporting force both in competition and the administration of sport. It is dominant in several Olympic sports, notably cycling, rowing and sailing and a leading force in cricket, rugby union, and golf.

Certain venues have their own distinct and historical recognition and host a number of international competitions. These include Wimbledon for tennis, Silverstone for motor racing, and St Andrews for golf. There are several major venues for football, rugby and cricket.

Domestic sport is dominated by football with one of the strongest and most popular leagues in the world - the Premier League. This league is sponsored by Barclays Bank, so has the official name "Barclays Premier League". Many of the Premier League's teams are well known outside the United Kingdom, especially the "big four" (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool) and maintain followings around the world. Cricket and both codes of rugby also have strong and popular domestic leagues. Other popular sports include snooker, rowing, golf, tennis, athletics, cycling, darts, horse racing, and motor racing. These most popular sports are well covered by both the print press and television.

Some sports which are more popular in other countries such as volleyball, handball, American football and basketball have small but dedicated followings.

The [[U.K.]] is also renowned for its music, and is the home of bands like [[The Beatles]], [[Rolling Stones]], [[Pink Floyd]], [[The Who]], [[Oasis]], [[Coldplay]] and [[Radiohead]], as well as festivals such as [[Creamfields]], [[Isle of White]] Festival and [[Glastonbury]].

==Government==
''See also [[British politics]]''
[[File:Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.JPG|thumb|200px|Jewel House guard in the Tower of London.]]
Nationalist movements exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, seeking (in the case of Scottish and Welsh nationalists) to dissolve the United Kingdom and to win independence for their respective territories, and in the case of Northern Ireland nationalists and republicans to create a sovereign united Ireland. At the present time, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own legislatures.

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights". Changes may come about formally through new acts of Parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although Parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains arbitrary actions.

Executive power rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers (cabinet) selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, less frequently, the House of Lords. The prime minister is normally the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, and can remain in office for so long as he or she has the support of a majority in that body.

==Parliament==
[[File:Westminster palace Charles Barry.jpg|left|380px]]
Parliament was authorized in the [[Magna Carta]] (1215), and first summoned by King Edward I in 1296, making it one of the oldest governing bodies in the world. Parliament represents the entire country, and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination of parts. Elections are called by the Prime Minister, but the maximum length of a parliament is usually 5 years (except in wartime). The focus of legislative power is the 646 member [[House of Commons]], which has sole jurisdiction over finance. Normally the government--the Prime Minister and cabinet with their supporting MPs --have full control of the House. If they lose control an new general election may be held. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers, can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. In 1999, the government removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to hold seats in the House of Lords. The current house consists of appointed life peers who hold their seats for life and 92 hereditary peers who will hold their seats only until final reforms have been agreed upon and implemented. The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches, but cannot review the constitutionality of legislation.

Members of the House of Commons are elected to represent specific geographic constituencies. Members are elected on a "First past the post" system as opposed to proportional representation or other electoral systems. In effect this means that a third party with less than 25% of the vote typically obtains very few seats.

==Constituent countries==
[[File:Scottish Eilean Donan castle.jpg|thumb|300px|Scottish Eilean Donan castle.]]
The separate identities of each of the United Kingdom's constituent parts are also reflected in their respective governmental structures. Up until the recent devolution of power to Scotland and Wales, a cabinet minister (the Secretary of State for Wales) handled Welsh affairs at the national level with the advice of a broadly representative council for Wales. Scotland maintains, as it did before union with England, different systems of law (Roman-French), education, local government, judiciary, and national church (the Church of Scotland instead of the Church of England). In addition, separate departments grouped under a Secretary of State for Scotland, who also is a cabinet member, handled most domestic matters. In late 1997, however, following approval of referenda by Scottish and Welsh voters (though only narrowly in Wales), the British Government introduced legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The first elections for the two bodies were held May 6, 1999. The Welsh Assembly opened on May 26, and the Scottish Parliament opened on July 1, 1999. The devolved legislatures have largely taken over most of the functions previously performed by the Scottish and Welsh offices.

Northern Ireland had its own Parliament and prime minister from 1921 to 1973, when the British Government imposed direct rule in order to deal with the deteriorating political and security situation. From 1973, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, based in London, was responsible for the region, including efforts to resolve the issues that lay behind the "the troubles."

By the mid-1990s, gestures toward peace encouraged by successive British governments and by President Clinton began to open the door for restored local government in Northern Ireland. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) cease-fire and nearly 2 years of multiparty negotiations, led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, resulted in the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998, which was subsequently approved by majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Key elements of the agreement include devolved government, a commitment of the parties to work toward "total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations," police reform, and enhanced mechanisms to guarantee human rights and equal opportunity. The Good Friday Agreement also called for formal cooperation between the Northern Ireland institutions and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it established the British-Irish Council, which includes representatives of the British and Irish Governments as well as the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Devolved government was reestablished in Northern Ireland in December 1999.

The Agreement (more commonly known as the "Good Friday Agreement", and more rarely as the Belfast Agreement<ref>http://www.nio.gov.uk/index/key-issues/the-agreement.htm</ref>) was reached on Friday, April 10 1998 in Belfast and provides for a 108-member elected Assembly, overseen by a 12-minister Executive Committee (cabinet) in which unionists and nationalists share leadership responsibility. Northern Ireland elects 18 representatives to the Westminster Parliament in London. However, the five Sinn Fein Members of Parliament (MPs), who won seats in the 2004 election, have refused to claim their seats.

===Principal Government Officials===
[[File:674uyyhju.jpg|thumb|[[David Cameron|David Cameron]], current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]]
*Head of State '''- Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith''' who, as Head of State for many other countries also holds other titles particular to her role and rule as Head of State for those countries. More commonly referred to as '''HM''' (Her Majesty) '''Queen Elizabeth II'''

The Cabinet
*Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service '''- Rt Hon [[David Cameron]] MP'''
*Deputy Prime Minister and Lord President of the council '''- Rt Hon [[Nick Clegg]] MP'''<ref name="LibDem">Member of the [[Liberal Democrats]]</ref>
*First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs '''- Rt Hon [[William Hague]] MP'''
*Chancellor of the Exchequer '''- Rt Hon [[George Osborne]] MP'''
*Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor '''- Rt Hon Kenneth Clark QC MP'''
*Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities '''- Rt Hon Theresa May MP'''
*Secretary of State for Defence '''- Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP'''
*Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade '''- Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Work and Pensions '''- Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP'''
*Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change '''- Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Health '''- Rt Hon Andrew Lansley CBE MP'''
*Secretary of State for Education'''- Rt Hon Michael Gove MP'''
*Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government '''- Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP'''
*Secretary of State for Transport '''- Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP'''
*Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs '''- Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP'''
*Secretary of State for International Development '''- Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP'''
*Secretary of State for Northern Ireland '''- Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP'''
*Secretary of State for Scotland '''- Rt Hon Michael Moore MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Secretary of State for Wales '''- Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP'''
*Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport '''- Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP'''
*Chief Secretary to the Treasury '''- Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP'''<ref name = "LibDem" />
*Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster '''- Rt Hon The Lord Strathclyde PC'''
*Minister without Portfolio '''- Rt Hon The Baroness Warsi PC

Also attend Cabinet meetings:
*Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General'''- Rt Hon Francis Maude MP'''
*Minister of State in the Cabinet Office'''- Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP'''
*Minister for Universities and Science '''- David Willetts MP'''
*Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal '''- Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP'''
*Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip '''- Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP'''
*Attorney General '''- Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP'''<ref>http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/hmg.cfm</ref>

===Political Conditions===
[[David Cameron]] became Prime Minister on May 11, 2010, after [[Gordon Brown]] resigned. Cameron leads a [[Conservative Party|Con]]-[[Liberal Democrats|Lib Dem]] coalition after failing to achieve a majority in the the 2010 general election

===Membership in the European Union===
The [[Conservative Party|Conservative]] government of [[Edward Heath|Sir Edward Heath]] took the UK into the [[European Union]] in 1973. The [[Labour Party]] under [[Harold Wilson]] won the 1974 general elections and due to splits within the party, called the only national [[referendum]] asking the people if they wanted to stay in the Union. The "yes" vote won by a margin of approximately two to one. The Labour and Conservative parties have since had deep divisions over Union membership. Labour's 1983 manifesto promised to leave the Union, and whilst the Conservative party have never pledged to leave the Union, a growing band of "Eurosceptics" threatened to tear the party apart in the 1990s. All three major parties wish to stay in the Union although disagree over the level of integration, but smaller parties such as the UK Independence Party and the Referendum Party campaigned on the single issue of sovereignty being lost to the Union.

==Defence and Foreign Relations==
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|right|240px]]
The United Kingdom is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is one of NATO's major European maritime, air, and land powers; it ranks third among NATO countries in total defence expenditure. The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community (now European Union) since 1973. In the United Nations, the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the Security Council. The U.K. held the Presidency of the G-8 during 2005; it held the EU Presidency from July to December 2005.

The British Armed Forces are charged with protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, promoting Britain's wider security interests, and supporting international peacekeeping efforts. The 37,000-member Royal Navy, which includes 6,000 Royal Marine commandos, is in charge of the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear arm, which consists of four Trident missile submarines. The British Army, consisting of approximately 99,200 personnel, the Royal Air Force, with 42,000 personnel, along with the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, are active and regular participants in NATO and other coalition operations. Approximately 9% of the British Armed Forces is female, and 4% of British forces represent ethnic minorities.
[[File:Royal Naval college UK.jpg|thumb|center|380px|Royal Naval College.]]
===Iraq===
The U.K. was the United States' main coalition partner under the designation Operation TELIC. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, the U.K. also shared with the United States responsibility for civil administration in Iraq and was an active participant in the Coalition Provisional Authority before the handover of Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004. Britain's participation in the Iraq war and its aftermath remains a domestically controversial issue.

<blockquote>
Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests. The British Government saw Iraqi oil as "vital" to the UK's long-term energy security, and the effective privatisation of its oil industry was central to the post-invasion plan for the country, according to previously unseen Whitehall documents. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html] ''The Independent.''
</blockquote>

The Iraq Inquiry is conducted to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict; the inquiry is concerned over Mr. Blair's evidence on the legal advice he received before agreeing to join the invasion, and the timing of the decision to go to war. [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chilcot-to-grill-blair-on-how-he-misled-iraq-war-inquiry-2185725.html] The Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot (1939) was Staff Counsellor to the Security and Intelligence Agencies (1999-2004) and the National Criminal Intelligence Service (2002-06).

===Afghanistan===
Britain stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and its military forces are part of the coalition force in Afghanistan. The British force in [[Afghanistan War|Afghanistan]] is at 9,000 in late 2009 and will rise by an extra 500 troops in 2010. British forces are primarily based in the Helmand region, where they are on the front line in the war against continued Taliban operations. In addition, Britain has contributed more than £500 million to Afghan reconstruction--the second-largest donor after the U.S.
===Israel===
Britain has shown a greater willingness than the United States to criticize the Israelis over settlements and what some call the disproportionate responses to provocations from Gaza and southern Lebanon. (Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman is among the most vocal.) Like his predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, former Foreign Secretary Milliband has been unequivocal: "Settlements are illegal under international law," he told Parliament in 2008; "They are a major blockage to peace in the Middle East on the basis of a two-state solution." His successor William Hague, on 20 March 2011, "expressed our serious concern over the recent announcement of 400 new housing units in the West Bank. Continued settlements run contrary to peace.” A BBC poll in March 2011 found that 14% of British subjects have a generally positive opinion of Israel while 66% have a generally negative opinion.

===Relations with the United States===
The United Kingdom is one of the United States' closest allies, and British foreign policy emphasises close coordination with the United States. Bilateral cooperation reflects the common language, ideals, and democratic practices of the two nations. Relations were strengthened by the countries' alliances during both World Wars, and its role as a founding member of NATO, in the Korean conflict, in the Persian Gulf War, and in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United Kingdom and the United States continually consult on foreign policy issues and global problems and share major foreign and security policy objectives.

The United Kingdom is the fifth-largest market for U.S. goods exports after Canada, Mexico, Japan, and China, and the sixth-largest supplier of U.S. imports after Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany. U.S. exports of goods and services to the United Kingdom in 2006 totaled $92 billion, while U.S. imports from the U.K. totaled $93 billion. The United States has had a trade deficit with the United Kingdom since 1998. The United Kingdom is a large source of foreign tourists in the United States. In 2005, 3.4 million U.S. residents visited the United Kingdom, while 4.2 million U.K. residents visited the United States.

The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. U.S. investment in the United Kingdom reached $324 billion in 2005, while U.K. direct investment in the U.S. totaled $282 billion. This investment sustains more than 1 million American jobs.

==Economy==
[[File:London.jpg|thumb|left|280px|London's financial center.]]
Britain has been hard hit by the [[Recession of 2008]], with its major banks taken over or subsidized by the government. Real gross domestic product declined by 4.6% in 2009, and is expected to rise by 0.6% before 2010 and probably will continue to increase by 1% in 2011.

Britain has the fifth-largest economy in the world, is the second-largest economy in the European Union, and is a major international trading power. A highly developed, diversified, market-based economy with extensive social welfare services provides most residents with a high standard of living. Unemployment and inflation levels are amongst the lowest within the European Union.

Since 1979, the British Government has privatised most state-owned companies, including British Steel, British Airways, British Telecom, British Coal, British Aerospace, and British Gas, although in some cases the government retains a "golden share" in these companies. The previous Labour government continued the privatisation policy of its Conservative predecessor, particularly by encouraging "public-private partnerships" (partial privatisation) in such areas as the London Underground. The economy of the United Kingdom is now primarily based on private enterprise, accounting for approximately four-fifths of employment and output.
[[File:Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, England Crop 2009.jpg|thumb|440px|Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, 2009.]]
London ranks alongside New York as a leading international financial centre. London's financial exports contribute greatly to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. Ratings agencies rank the United Kingdom's banking sector as one of the strongest in the world and its banks are amongst the most profitable in the G-8. It is a global leader in emissions trading and is home to the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). It is also a government priority to make London the leading center of Islamic finance.

Britain is the European Union's only significant energy exporter. It is also one of the world's largest energy consumers, and most analysts predict a shift in U.K. status from net exporter to net importer of energy by 2020, possibly sooner. Oil production in the U.K. is levelling off. While North Sea natural gas production continues to rise, gains may be offset by ever-increasing consumption. North Sea oil and gas exploration activities are shifting to smaller fields and to increments of larger, developed fields, presenting opportunities for smaller, independent energy operators to become active in North Sea production.
*GDP (at current market prices, 2007 est.): US$1.93 trillion.
*Annual growth rate (2009 est.): -4.6%
*Per capita GDP (2006 est.): US$31,800.
*Natural resources: Coal, oil, natural gas.
*Agriculture (1.1% of GDP): Products--cereals, oilseed, potatoes, vegetables, cattle, sheep, poultry, fish.
*Industry: Types--steel, heavy engineering and metal manufacturing, textiles, motor vehicles and aircraft, construction (5.2% of GDP), electronics, chemicals.
*Trade (2006 est.): Exports of goods and services--US$468.8 billion: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco. Major markets--U.S., European Union. Imports of goods and services--US$603 billion: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels, foodstuffs. Major suppliers--U.S., European Union, Japan.

===Currency===
The currency of the United Kingdom is the [[Pound|Pound Sterling]], commonly called Pound and written £ or GBP, divided into 100 New Pence (now commonly just called pence or 'p'). Traditionally the UK had a complicated triple currency structure of 20 [[shilling|shillings]] to the Pound and 12 "old pence" (represented by a "d" from the Roman ''denarius'') to the shilling, making a total of 240 pence to the Pound. This system was abandoned in 1971 due to difficulties with computerised accounting systems, in favour of the current [[decimal]] system.

The UK has never joined the [[Euro]] zone.

==History==
[[File:Stonehenge.jpg|thumb|left|Stonehenge.]]
The Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD and most of Britain's subsequent incorporation into the Roman Empire stimulated development and brought more active contacts with the rest of Europe. However, there was no permanent Roman imprint apart from roads and locations for cities. As Rome's strength declined, the country again was exposed to invasion--including the pivotal incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the fifth and sixth centuries AD--up to the Norman conquest in 1066. Norman rule effectively ensured Britain's safety from further intrusions; certain institutions, which remain characteristic of Britain, could develop. Among these are a political, administrative, cultural, and economic centre in London; a separate but established church and distinctive and distinguished university education.

====Union====

Both Wales and Scotland were independent kingdoms that resisted English rule. The English conquest of Wales succeeded in 1282 under Edward I, and the Statute of Rhuddlan established English rule 2 years later. To appease the Welsh, Edward's son (later Edward II), who had been born in Wales, was made Prince of Wales in 1301. The tradition of bestowing this title on the eldest son of the British Monarch continues today. An act of 1536 completed the political and administrative union of England and Wales.

While maintaining separate parliaments, England and Scotland were ruled by the same king beginning in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I as James I of England. In the ensuing 100 years, strong religious and political differences divided the kingdoms. Finally, in 1707, England and Scotland were unified as Great Britain, sharing a single Parliament at Westminster.

Ireland's invasion by the Anglo-Normans in 1170 led to centuries of strife. Successive English kings sought to conquer Ireland. In the early 17th century, large-scale settlement of the north from Scotland and England began. After its defeat, Ireland was subjected, with varying degrees of success, to control and regulation by Britain.

The legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was completed on January 1, 1801, under the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (normally shortened to "Great Britain" or "Britain"). However, armed struggle for independence continued sporadically into the 20th century. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established the Irish Free State, which subsequently left the Commonwealth and became a republic after World War II. Six northern, predominantly [[Protestant]], Irish counties have remained part of the United Kingdom.

====British Expansion and Empire====
[[Image:Sir Francis Grant's Portrait of Queen Victoria.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''Queen Victoria'', by [[Sir Francis Grant]].]]
The '''British Empire''' was the [[List of largest empires|largest empire]] in history and, for over a century, was the foremost [[Great power|global power]]. It was a product of the [[Age of Discovery]], which began with the maritime explorations of the 15th century, that sparked the era of the European [[Colonialism|colonial]] empires. By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population.<ref>Angus Maddison. ''The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective'' (p. 98, 242). [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|OECD]], Paris, 2001.</ref> It covered about 36.7 million km² (14.2 million square miles),<ref>Bruce R. Gordon. [http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html ''To Rule the Earth...''] (See [http://www.hostkingdom.net/Bibliography.html Bibliography] for sources used.)</ref> about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was often said that "[[The empire on which the sun never sets|the sun never sets on the British Empire]]" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous [[colonies]] or subject nations.<ref>This phrase had already been used a few centuries before by the king [[Charles I of Spain]], referring to the [[Spanish Empire]].</ref>

Begun initially to support William the Conqueror's (c. 1029-1087) holdings in France, Britain's policy of active involvement in continental European affairs endured for several hundred years. By the end of the 14th century, foreign trade, originally based on wool exports to Europe, had emerged as a cornerstone of national policy.

During the five decades following [[World War II]], most of the territories of the Empire became independent. Many went on to join the [[Commonwealth of Nations]], a free association of independent states. <ref>T. O. Lloyd, ''The British Empire, 1558-1995. 2nd ed. (1996). </ref> Some have retained the [[British monarch]] as their [[head of state]] to become independent [[Commonwealth realm]]s.

====Sea Power====
The foundations of sea power were gradually laid to protect English trade and open up new routes. Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 firmly established England as a major sea power. Thereafter, its interests outside Europe grew steadily. Attracted by the spice trade, English mercantile interests spread first to the Far East. In search of an alternate route to the Spice Islands, John Cabot reached the North American continent in 1498. Sir Walter Raleigh organized the first, short-lived colony in Virginia in 1584, and permanent English settlement began in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. During the next two centuries, Britain extended its influence abroad and consolidated its political development at home, as the Royal Navy dominated the seas.
====Industrial Revolution====
[[File:Bradford Industrial Museum.jpg|thumb|left|Bradford Industrial Museum.]]
Britain's [[industrial revolution]] greatly strengthened its ability to oppose Napoleonic France. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain was the foremost European power, and its navy ruled the seas. Peace in Europe allowed the British to focus their interests on more remote parts of the world, and, during this period, the British Empire reached its zenith. British colonial expansion reached its height largely during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901). Queen Victoria's reign witnessed the spread of British technology, commerce, language, and government throughout the British Empire, which, at its greatest extent, encompassed roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the world's area and population. It is controversial whether British colonies accelerated or slowed Britain's economic growth, for its growth rate fell below nations without empires, especially the U.S. and germany. Democracy came in fits and starts in a series of reforms that finally, by the 1920s, allowed all adults to vote.

 

====End of Empire====
By the time of Queen Victoria's death in 1901, other nations, including the United States and Germany, had developed their own industries; Britain lost its comparative economic advantage, and the ambitions of its rivals had grown. The UK joined world war I because of the invasion of [[Belgium]], and subsequently began [[World War II]] after the invasion of [[Poland]]. The losses and destruction of [[World War I|The First World War]], the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s, the independence of the Dominions, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded the Britain's preeminent international position of the previous century.

Nationalism became stronger in other parts of the empire, particularly in India and Egypt.

In 1926, Britain granted Australia, Canada, and New Zealand almost complete autonomy as "dominions"; beginning with the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, the remainder of the British Empire was almost completely dismantled by the 1960s.

== United Kingdom and moral decline ==
[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|[[Christopher Hitchens]] was an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] in Britain.]]
''See also:'' [[Britain and morality]] and [[Atheism and morality]]

In 2011 and in recent years, there have been number of reports on the decline of morality in [[Britain]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'' by Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning? by Creation Ministries International'']
*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8695318/UK-riots-David-Cameron-promises-to-restore-sense-of-morality-as-police-get-new-powers.html UK riots: David Cameron promises to restore 'sense of morality' as police get new powers]
*[http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=171651 British morality, Jerusalem Post, By JERUSALEM POST, 03/24/2010]
*[http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000237.php The Strange Death of Moral Britain by Christie Davies]
*[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/carl-mortished/uk-welfare-plan-saves-money-but-morally-bankrupt/article1790653/ U.K. welfare plan: Saves money, but morally bankrupt, Globe and Mail,Nov. 09, 2010 by Carl Mortished]</ref> [[Peter Hitchens]] is the [[ex-atheists|ex-atheist]], now [[Church of England]] brother of atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]]. In an article entitled "Britain Needs God" [[Creation Ministries International]] declared:
{{cquote|Peter also wrote of what he saw as the growing public discourtesy and incivility in [[Britain]]. When he returned to London, after a five-year absence, he was shocked by the decline in people’s behaviour. He commented, “The rapid vanishing of [[Christianity]] from public consciousness and life, as the last fully [[Christian]] generation ages and disappears, seems to me to be a major part of it. I do not think I would have been half so shocked by the squalor and rudeness of 1990 [[Moscow]], if I had not come from a country where Christian forbearance was still well-established. If I had then been able to see the [[London]] of 2010, I would have been equally shocked.” In many respects, Peter’s book is a warning to people, as to the kind of society they can expect if they continue to reject Christian beliefs.<ref>[http://creation.com/britain-needs-god ''Britain needs God'']</ref>}}

In an article entitled "Why is England Burning", the Australian Bible study site Creation Ministries International ascribed the British riots of August 2012 to a "moral and social decline" that has been "the inevitable consequence of a nation rejecting God and His Word."<ref>[http://creation.com/lying-as-survival-strategy ''Why is England burning?'']</ref>

According to data from the 2011 census, released on 11 December 2012, "The number of residents [of England and Wales] who stated that their religion was Christian in 2011 was fewer than in 2001. The size of this group decreased 13 percentage points to 59 per cent (33.2 million) in 2011 from 72 per cent (37.3 million) in 2001. The size of the group who stated that they had no religious affiliation increased by 10 percentage points from 15 per cent (7.7 million) in 2001 to 25 per cent (14.1 million) in 2011.[http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/index.htm]

== See also ==
*[[English Painting]]
*[[British politics]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/sir-john-chilcot-wrong-man Sir John Chilcot 'wrong man to head Iraq invasion inquiry'.]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraqi-oil-supply-was-considered-to-be-vital-to-british-interests-2270072.html Iraqi oil supply was considered to be 'vital' to British interests.]

== Notes ==

<references/>

{{European Union}}

[[Category:United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:British Empire]]

York

2013-07-23T17:15:52Z

Brenden:

'''York''' is a city in [[North Yorkshire]], originally founded by the Romans as Eboracum. The [[Vikings]], who ruled the city for close to a century, renamed it Jorvik, whence the contemporary name stems. York is one of the few remaining walled cities in [[England]]. York was important prior to the [[union of the crowns]] as a strategic point on which attacks into [[Scotland]] or into [[England]] may be executed from. In recent times, York has mostly lost it's industry to it's much larger neighbour, [[Leeds]].

In addition to the medieval defensive wall, York is also known for:

* York ham
* York Minster, the largest Gothic cathedral in northern Europe
* The National Railway Museum, the world's largest railway museum
* York Railway station, known for its architecture
* Terry's and Rowntrees chocolate companies (makers of KitKats and Yorkie bars)
* The York Rite (see [[Freemasonry]])
* Medieval city walls - longest intact city walls in England

The American municipality of [[New York]] is named after York.

==External Links==
*[http://www.vryork.com Take Java + Quicktime VR tours of the City]
*[http://www.visityork.org/ Official York tourism website]
*[http://www.nrm.org.uk/ The National Railway Museum]
*[http://www.yorkminster.org/ Official York Minster website]
*[http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/65d99/49d7d/ VirtualTourist - York]

[[Category:United Kingdom Cities and Towns]]

Talk:Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder

2013-07-17T17:38:55Z

Brenden: /* Quality control */ It's not an article, but an essay, as evidenced by it's namespace.

Sounds frightening. Is there any known cure? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 21:40, 20 November 2010 (EST)
:::Thanks for the input. I just added a section to the essay entitled '''Treatment of Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder'''. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:20, 20 November 2010 (EST)
[[File:Dog with a bone.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|If you think taking a bone away from a dog is hard, try getting a [[liberal]] with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] to stop thinking about [[Conservapedia]]!
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/tsand/4589825889/ Flickr], see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]

== lol ==

I love you people. we need to get you all a tv show.. ratings would be big!! [[User:Xoxoxoxo|Xoxoxoxo]] 18:13, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

==Should it be noted==
That COCD can afflict conservatives as well? If an obsessive compulsion with Conservapedia caused people to read the Bible less, would we censor that? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 13:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Dog photos ==
I love dogs as much as the next guy but having them all over this article both takes away from the point, and makes Conservapedia look a little... childish? Thoughts? [[User:JRegden|JRegden]] 23:50, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

== Quality control ==

This should not pass it. This is the lowest quality article I have seen on any wiki. It's an affront to the brilliance of so many other articles on CP. I will ask ASchlafly whether this can be deleted. Any thoughts? [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 23:51, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
::Sure. I suggest testing the validity of your purported evolutionary worldview by debating [[VivaYehshua]]. The debate will be recorded and distributed widely. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:55, 15 July 2013 (EDT)
:::VivaYeshua got banned from that chatroom. I went looking for him the other day, while I was banned by MarkMan. How about I debate you? [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 08:23, 17 July 2013 (EDT)
::::Two things: A Conservapedian told me that the report that [[VivaYehshua]], who I believe is still a moderator of [[Shockofgod]]'s chat room, is a false report. He inquired about this matter in the [http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 Shockofgod's chat room]. I never believed this false report as VivaYehshua has never been disruptive in the chat room and that is why he was picked as a moderator. Second, please read [[User:Conservative/Conservapedia "evolutionists"|THIS]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:37, 17 July 2013 (EDT)
:::It isn't an article (thankfully), but rather an "essay" where user:Conservative is free to post his taunts. The rules for essays are more lenient, and thus, according to the commandments, this essay is fine. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:38, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2013-07-16T17:06:01Z

Brenden: reverted parodist

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs. Here is our growing list (click the box next to "Billboard Rank" to list the most popular first):

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Songs "Classic"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8QLI39r0nk "Fucc the Devil"]
|Andrew Jackson Jihad
|Song about defeating the devil and the dangers of alcoholism.
|NA
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sEqzEgDZ0g "Ain't I Right"]
|[[Marty Robbins]]
|Song against Communism and socialism.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|Amen
|Kid Rock
|Talks about "Stop living off handouts and favors". Written and performed by a republican.
|N/A
|Country/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3S7mlRYL-8 America]
|Neil Diamond
|Freedom, Liberty, Patriotism
|8
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|Sixteen
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|[[Lee Greenwood]]
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cMfrLFirGWc ''Chapel of Love'']
|Dixie Cups
|Marriage in a church
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIF4U_QFSxQ ''Chores'']
|Animal Collective
|"Now I've got these chores / and I'm not gonna hurt no-one" -- Hard work is praised and violence is discouraged. A scary song for [[liberals]]!
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Country Trash''
|Johnny Cash
|In a comedic way, the song praises the small town conservative virtues of the people looked down upon by big city liberals as "Country trash"
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']
|[[Elvis Presley]]
|Pro-marriage
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruNrdmjcNTc&ob=av2n''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)'']
|[[Toby Keith]]
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/v9BtLRWbkmA ''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)'']
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Do You Hear the People Sing''
|Claude-Michel Schönberg
|Standing up to government in the name of freedom, from the musical ''Les Miserables''
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Glory Hallelujah''
|Frank Turner
|Rejects those who say there is no God, insisting that never was the case
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z5hD38Bs8Y''God Bless America'']
|Irving Berlin
|American patriotic, classic song.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|Twenty-five
|Classic
|-
|''God Save the Queen''
|
|Despite being frighteningly atheistic, the British have enough sense to keep this God-inclusive song as their national anthem. The anthem rightly attributes the success and good fortune of the nation and its monarch to God.
|NA
|national anthem
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|[[Elton John]]
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|Twenty-four
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']
|Clive Dunn
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU&ob=av2nHave You Forgotten?]
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1KtScrqtbc "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother"]
|Hollies
|Repeats the slogan of Boys Town, a Christian charity for youngsters founded by Father Edward J. Flanagan in Omaha<ref>http://www.boystown.org/about/father-edward-|j-|flanagan</ref>
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|Eleven
|Classic/Country
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/BvPugOWeZiA ''Let It Be'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|Classic
|-
|''Living In America''
|[[James Brown]]
|Song that espouses the virtues of, and pride in, living in the United States. Appears in the movie "Rocky IV" and on the film's soundtrack.
|NA
|Classic/R&B/Funk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdZTKvNXxPA "Nothing Like You"]
|[[Miles Davis]] and Bob Dorough
|Celebrates the sight of ones beloved - Isaiah 43:4
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|[[Merle Haggard]]
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|Classic
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|"It was all based around this somewhat Utopian view of the world. The idea was that music would lift man up to a higher plane, and that world leaders, if they were able |to sit down on some big grassy knoll where the sun was shining and hear music..." Tom Johnston of LS
|Twenty-seven
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2lRcxlYx40''Renegade'']
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0''Respect'']
|Otis Redding
|This song is about respecting a productive member of society.
|1
|Classic/Soul
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their Bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|Twelve
|Classic/Country/Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|A religious rock song written in 1969.
|3
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8sUMv5sbW8 ''Star Spangled Banner'']
|Madison Rising
|The American national anthem, as performed by rock band Madison Rising, who put out a challenge to the American public to renew its intimacy with and understanding of the anthem and its patriotic message. [http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/you-havent-heard-this-star-spangled-banner/]
|NA
|Classic/Traditional/Rock
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|[[The Bee Gees]]
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrQST6VlnQ "Stay With Me"]
|[[Frank Sinatra]]
|Beautiful song of Christian faith.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKdAVYKYZfo''Storm the Embassy'']
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his |children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity that evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukUL_I14GPw''Take Me Home, Country Roads'']
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://youtube.com/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|Classic/Country/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://youtu.be/fHvf20Y6eoM ''Turn, Turn, Turn'']
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|sixty-six
|Classic/Folk
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvkUXKyl5wY "Waiting List"]
|[[Dr. Octagon]]
|A powerful song about socialized medicine and rationing
|NA
|Hip-hop
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun |ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|Fifteen (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mjWhMn-VnU ''The Well Below the Valley'']
|Traditional. Covered by Christy Moore
|Song loosely based on the story of [[Jesus]] and the woman at the well. Lyrics about old-fashioned family relationships and traditional attitudes to women. Promotes all children's right to life.
|NA
|Traditional/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nElc2vMU-b0 ''When You Love A Woman'']
|Journey
|True love from the heart
|Twelve
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJfJPxLntZU ''Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition'']
|Written by Frank Loesser; made famous by Kay Kyser and His Orchestra
|A patriotic song written and published as sheet music in 1942; Kay Kyser's recording came out in 1943. This rousing tune is about a chaplain (called a "sky pilot" in the song) who is with some men on a warship in the heat of a battle. One of the soldiers asks the chaplain to pray for the men shooting at the enemy aircraft. In response, the chaplain puts down his Bible, mans one of the gun turrets on the ship, and begins firing at the planes himself, and tells the soldiers, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, and we'll all stay free!" Beyond the obvious pro-Christian and pro-American messages, it also tells us that sometimes, the Lord calls on us to put down the Bible and pick up our guns to defend the American way.
|1
|Patriotic/Jazz, Classic
|-
!Songs "Rock"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qjSmODTQsk ''A Dead Man's Words'']
|Queensrÿche
|No Man Left Behind. "The word we hear is there's one man down and he's alive. They ask for volunteers. I raise my hand high. I'm sure he'd do the same for me. It's three days through the desert heat to save one man's life and I don't even know his name."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TefSlVqENRM ''At 30,000 Ft.'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, pro-Iraqi/Afghanistan action. "Flaming oil blackens the sky. I don't know why...their hate is the reason for the Hell that I make."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA, NYC and SF hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their heads in the sand".
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRNrzgDHmQE ''Devil is a Loser'']
|Lordi
|About how actions have consequences, mixed with contempt for the devil and Satanists.
|NA
|Rock/Metal
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjJ9v__NyR0 ''Disparity by Design'']
|Rise Against
|Refers to the 'over-reaching arm' of the government, and considers whether welfare is a 'handout undeserved'. Also refers to the American ideal of 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|Rock
|-
|[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIHuF8WvdFk ''Don't Tread On Me'']
|Metallica
|Tune about Gadsden flag
|N/A
|Metal
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of |the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange"]
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 1980s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYRZt7xcwpY&feature=youtu.be "Freedom is Colorblind"]
|JoeDanMedia
|A song about how the left uses race to polarize the country. It is a conservative song that tries to unite the country.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hZsG1ikgK8 ''Hundred Mile Stare'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, freedom. "What ever happened to conviction and faith? People trip from side to side; don't know which way or what side to take. Always known the truth. It's really black and white. I've got no fear of judgment when it's time to fight."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b71clnfgyts ''No Son of Mine'']
|Genesis
|
|Twelve
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzEhnBdOTAM "ONE TEA PARTY"]
|[[Toot Sweet]]
|This song is a metaphoric call to energize, motivate and unite the movement that we are all passionate about... the time is now to stand together, united, "AS ONE".
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/wDrRVlm5HOw "Prayer for America"]
|JoeDanMedia
|A short history lesson put to music regarding our schools and how the Bible was taught there in previous years.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/wq160PIYjHo "No Rules for Radicals"]
|JoeDanMedia
|This song highlights "rules" Saul Alinsky wrote about in his progressive-liberal book, 'Rules for Radicals'.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Sister Christian''
|Night Ranger
|This song advices the drummers sister to remain a virgin till she finds "Mr. Right"
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcT3sIBRv_I ''Sliver'']
|Queensrÿche
|Pro-soldier, bravery. "It's time to sack up and let go of your mothers. Take your gun, it's the cross that's carried by your brothers."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sticXkHxZC4 ''I've Seen Footage'']
|Death Grips
|Profane. Criticizes the glorification of violence by the mainstream media.
|NA
|Hip Hop
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 1980s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|forty-five
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY_6b4-N9Uo ''Ticket to Ride'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Lyrics describe anti-feminist attitude
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQYpF2pCkLI ''My Body'']
|Young the Giant
|''"My body tells me no / But I won't quit / Cause I want more"'' — Powerful chorus describes how the singer defies his body's physical desire to stop working and continue working hard because he wants to reap the rewards he has earned from his hard work. It describes conservative traits (persevering with hard work) and capitalistic ideals (wanting the rewards you worked for; working past your limit because you have proper incentive).
|65
|Alternative
|-
!Songs "Spiritual"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|Rap
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|Fourteen
|Rock
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|NA
|Rap
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power.
|NA
|Rap
|-
|''Tribute''
|Tenacious D
|Comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.
|4
|Rock/folk
|-
|''For Martha''
|The Smashing Pumpkins
|Being torn between the anguish of losing a lost one and the joy of knowing you will one day reunite them with in heaven
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIGzzeQjaE ''Dethharmonic'']
|Dethklok
|Anti-tax
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Get Over It''
|The Eagles
|Written by Don Henley (who is a liberal) about his frustration of people blaming others for their own problems and believing the world owes them a favor ''"the big bad |world doesn't owe you a thing,"''
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6oYX1D-0w "I Need A Dollar"]
|Aloe Blacc
|"Please Mr.Bossman I need this job more than you can know" - an excellent paean to the plights of unemployment
|NA
|Pop/Soul
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RlOQBGjkm78 "Extra Extra"]
|[[Toots Sweet]]
|Toots does a great job at making the clips entertaining as well as informative.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yq8zn15EPE "Somebody Must Be Prayin' For Me]
|[[Tim McGraw]]
|Song about prayer and how it is a necessary part of everyday life.
|NA
|Spiritual/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNTUADEhC8Q"The List"]
|The Right Brothers
|A song that melodically lists liberal activists.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/8uxAT6dzKSM "We the People"]
|[[Toots Sweet]]
|A song about the Constitution and how the current administration has been abusing the beloved document we are trying to live by.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/AA1aHrfxgEg "Shut up and Teach"]
|The Right Brothers
|Liberal indoctrination runs rampant in our schools. Song expresses the desire to stick to a non-partisan curriculum.
| NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/ROdsgYyheM4 "On Fire"]
|Switchfoot
|This song is about keeping the faith, in people and in our religion.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask |Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the |shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk ''Livin' on a Prayer'']
|Bon Jovi
|Organized labor is harmful to the welfare of workers, who turn to prayer.
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']
|The Right Brothers
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDSK98Y2FNg "Stop Global Whining"]
|The Right Brothers
|Anti-Global Warming hoax song.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dHthaNNnds Keep On Loving You]
|REO Speedwagon
|Love overcomes infidelity "When I said that I love you I meant That I love you forever."
|1
|Pop
|-
|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern |man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858733660/ ''What's The Use Of Wond'rin?'']
|Amanda Palmer
|Celebrates the command: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." -Ephesians 5:22
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Ke-r2K0ymWc ''Lightning Crashes'']
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJprEyXMrIk''Takin' Care of Business'']
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|Twelve
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s5r2sp''Cat's In The Cradle'']
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|Folk
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iNdbPvrYk ''Jesus Christ'']
|Brand New
|The singer turns to God for advice and assurance.
|thirty (Hot Modern Rock Tracks
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|[[Taylor Swift]]
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and got divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|Pop/Country
|-
| I Won't Back down
| Tom Petty
| Talks about not backing down from a fight. Can be compared to not losing the Iraq War.
|N/A
| Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v7xNSgBkum7o "Pray"]
|[[MC Hammer]]
|Working hard and giving thanks.
|2
|Rap/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OI0GUCI_A ''Obama Nation''] and its sequel [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFfoZaOJ5xo ''Obama Nation Part 3'']
|Lowkey
|A song sharply critical of [[Liberal]] president Barack Obama and his policies. Also criticises those that blindly follow him due to his race: 'It's the substance within, not the colour of your skin'
|N/A
|Rap
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wrsZog8qXg ''Such Great Heights'']
|The Postal Service
|Creationist/Biblical lyrics: ''"And I have to speculate that God himself did make us into corresponding shapes like puzzle pieces from the clay."''
|?
|Indie
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZZG4Pw-M58 ''The Dumber They Come'']
|Eddie Cantor
|A song about how [[Professor values|liberal college education]] destroys romance and femininity.
|?
|Vaudeville
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-MRrFWs--g ''Return to Oz'']
|Scissor Sisters
|A song about the connection between [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use|homosexuality and illegal drug use]],<ref>http://dancemusic.about.com/od/artistshomepages/a/ScisSisIntBD.htm</ref> a subject that the [[lamestream media]] prefers not to talk about.
|?
|Glam Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM7H0ooV_o8 ''Brimful of Asha'']
|Cornershop
|A song which mocks big government: " We don't care about no Government warning/'Bout their promotion of the simple life/And the dams they're building"
|?
|Alternative Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qcMjKxt-dE ''53rd & 3rd'']
|The Ramones
|A song denouncing sodomy.
|?
|Punk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HUGeA2lur4 ''Beat On the Brat'']
|The Ramones
|A song acknowledging the fact that sometimes [[corporal punishment]] is necessary in order to discipline children.
|?
|Punk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHUsIU161w4 ''Feuer Frei'']
|Rammstein
|An anti-pacifist song which acknowledges that there's some merit in war.
|?
|Industrial
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_DVS_303kQ ''Goodbye Horses'']
|Q Lazzarus
|A song that might very well be about the hope Christianity offers the world. The person the singer talks with can be construed as a cynical atheist who has a sad outlook on life due to his lack of belief in a higher power. The singer on the other hand still has hope, as she knows there is a God. In the final lines she sings about flying over horses. This might interpreted to mean that like all of mankind she too experienced physical death, but due her belief in Jesus found her way onto Heaven.
|?
|New Wave
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

Also questionable:

*''Hammer to Fall'' (Queen) - talks about being hopeful for the Soviet Union falling
*''Rocky Raccoon'' (Beatles) - has multiple references to Gideon's Bible
*''Been to Hell'' (Hollywood Undead)-Despite the large amount of swearing, it talks about the destructive nature of Hollywood, including how Hollywood and the quest for fame can cause someone to lose their faith. It also criticizes Hollywood values.
*''Only the Good Die Young'' (Billy Joel)-a boy tries to convince a Catholic girl to have sex with him rather than practice [[abstinence]]. Although it contains a lot of anti-religious dialogue (from the boy's perspective), in the end the girl holds true to her values, and nothing happens between them.
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One''] by Orleans - a very good song about marital fidelity. However, one of the singers, [[John Hall]], later became a Democratic Congressman from New York and sued Republican presidential candidate [[John McCain]] over the use of the song in his campaign.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/group/support-conservative-entertainment Smart Girl Politics]

*[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmnorton/2011/06/07/bigdawg-spotlight-on-the-in-word-the-antidote-to-liberal-arts-political-correctness Breitbart antidote to political correctness]

*[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmnorton/2011/05/23/bigdawg-spotlight-on-urban-funk-rocker-toots-sweet-a-conservative-sound-in-a-liberal-town/ Urban funk rocker and a conservative sound]
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]

Royal

2013-07-14T09:23:39Z

Brenden: Royal does not mean king, Terry!

'''Royal''' is a term that refers to royalty, often a body related to a monarchy. Examples include the Royal Air Force, etc.

[[Category:Stubs]]

User talk:Brenden

2013-07-13T22:01:52Z

Brenden: your loss, cons.

{{Useful links}}
[[User talk:Brenden/Archive]]

== Regarding the Anonymous page ==

I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. [[User:JGrant|Blessings of the Almighty on you :)]] 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

== Seeing as you've blocked me in the past for sometimes having a less-than-cheerful attitude... ==

....you'll love [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/PaulDiFoglio this guy's] stream of edit comments. Hugs and kisses, [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:00, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

== What the hell are you doing? ==

Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.[[User:Brenden|Brenden]] 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

::DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:::[Comments retracted by poster]<del>Thank you, EJamesW </sarcasm>[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)</del>

What does </sarcasm> mean?

Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?

Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)

I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...

[[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

:Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
::My apologies, I failed to take a look at the history, and the tone you took kind of distracted me from looking. Sorry about that.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
==Editing==
Editing is fully restored. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:55, 11 November 2012 (EST)
:Thanks, Mr. Schlafly[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)

==Conservative==
If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)

== Personal Honeypot ==

Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)
:I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)
==Thanks==
Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

:Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)

== Spambots ==

It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)

:I think I might upgrade that to very active! Have you been getting much spam at your honeypot mate? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 19:27, 3 February 2013 (EST)
::It's been ok-ish. I blocked most of the ranges that were targeting my honeypot. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:50, 3 February 2013 (EST)

== I removed your latest round of "personal attacks removed" censorship ==
I think it is poor form to edit talk page comments left by others. If an editor wishes to run afoul of the rules by speaking their mind, it should be their freedom to do so. If that editor happens to be immune to the rules (as with the user in this case), then I think their unfettered comments should stand as testimony to their true nature. Thanks --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:16, 7 February 2013 (EST)
:Well, the last time that specific user left his comments, a lot of people were offended. While I agree, that generally, it is inappropriate to censor users, in certain cases, especially when personal attacks are involved, it should be fine. Furthermore, the use of such tags, causes the poster understand that such attacks are not welcome on Conservapedia.

Thanks for your input anyways, though. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:04, 7 February 2013 (EST)

== Editing should work now ==

Try now - your account has been promoted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 19 February 2013 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:59, 19 February 2013 (EST)

==Maybe you're right==

I still retain my suspicion, but if that contributor wants to reregister we should let him. I probably should have enabled account recreation after the block. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:34, 1 March 2013 (EST)

==AlanE==
Thanks Brenden. I needed that! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:20, 6 March 2013 (EST)
:NP [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:30, 6 March 2013 (EST)

== Reverting admins ==

Hi Brenden. You do not have the authority to undo admin's blocks. If you have an issue, you raise it. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:30, 7 March 2013 (EST)
:KK got it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:47, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

== Block ==

Thanks. [[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 11:56, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:No problem[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:25, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

== CameronD ==

Sorry I had been playing around with my signature I have now corrected it. [[User:CameronD|CameronD]] 13:45, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

== Unleash the <s>Kraken</s> Bot! ==
If you really do have the ability to implement some technical means to protect this wiki from a certain user's flagrant deletion sprees, I implore you to do so. Asking him to stop won't do a thing. He literally is incapable of changing his ways. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:57, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:Well I do hope that asking him to change will help him overcome his irritating habit of deleting pages, I am prepared to create a bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the MW api, sooo, I see a lot of googling, and asking for technical help in my foreseeable future. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:42, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

==User:C Reply==
I have no intention of leaving, but between C's actions and [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] choosing to ignore the problem(as well as any message I write to him now), it's hard to stay motivated to keep trying to make the site better. I'll stick around for now and continue to fight for this site, but I have this sinking feeling that it is only a matter of time before I'm perma-banned. Thanks for the support though, hopefully those of us who actually care will be able to prevail in the end. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 14:24, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
:On a related note... am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in C's repeated use of the 90/10 rule as a reason for banning (including the block of [[User:FWilliamM|FWilliamM]] a mere 40 minutes after your unbanning him) when 38% of his own last 500 edits were to talk pages? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:28, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::I do try to unblock the users unfairly blocked by that admin. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 01:17, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
:::I know you do and my earlier comment wasn't aimed at you. I was just frustrated with his antics last night and needed to express that to someone. Thank you for doing what you can. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 08:32, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

That is enough from both of you. Brendan, you have no business or authority unblocking users because of a pet peeve against Conservative, especially when I look into the matter and discover they are proven trolls previously blocked for hostility. User Fnarrow, your whining about being bullied is now over and done with. You chose to come into the site, and you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise. This site is an encyclopedia; it is not a site where anyone can cause a fight with anyone else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::: Karajou, I've always respected you, and found you to be a fair, and rational person, despite whatever ideological differences we may have. On the other hand, I must protest that contrary to what you said about FNarrow, ''"you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise."'' is actually an incorrect take on what happened. FNarrow was according to his contributions, merely being a productive editor, when s/he was provoked by User:C's ad-hominem attacks, and blatant violation of the Commandments. As per my authority to undo blocks placed by a superior, I feel, (and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Schlafly agrees with me), that blocks placed to censor users, and to subvert the policies here, are worthy of an immediate unblock. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:44, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

::::This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1036560] says a lot in support of my argument; this individual also created three additional accounts via a Philippine proxy in order to cause an attack on user Conservative...and you unblocked two of those socks. What you and FNarrow need to do is not only read the Conservapedia Commandments, but read and heed the warnings at the bottom of my user page. Everyone coming in is going to respect this website and the people in it, or they are out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:04, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Respect,K.? Ha!! Whose wife was implied to be a slut, K; and by whom, and who stood by and let that worm, Cons, get away with it? Who said one thing on Gmail and something else in public when he realised he had to show solidarity with a certain Mexican "gentleman" who backed a coward who has not bothered to do what he said he would do. I am still here, K. Where did Markman go when he realised he had given himself some work to do?

Just one question - why, if lack of citations is such a crime, wasn't I pulled up in 2007? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:55, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Sorry Brenden for smeering your page with my anger. One takes the opportunity when it arises. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:12, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
::@User:Karajou
I don't have the checkuser ability, so I cannot tell if the people I block and unblock are socks. As per respecting the website, and the people (Especially user:C), I do try to respect the person, even if I cannot respect their actions. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:37, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

==Fnarrow infinite block==
I am a friend of Fnarrow and he asked me to post the copy of this email which he sent to cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com on the user talk pages ofa few people whom he said had always been fair to him. <blockquote>
I got banned for a day and then Karajou immediately changed it to infinite for no apparent reason immediately after it expired. I have cut the dead end pages by nearly half during my short time there and feel i have made substantive improvements to other articles during that time. While i have had disagreements with Karajou and Conservative, i have always been respectful and adhered to the Conservapedia commandments. Finally, I never had a chance to respond to my accuser and did nothing to deserve this treatment. Please forward this to Mr. Schlafly for review.
Thank you, Fnarrow
</blockquote>
If my opinion counts for anything, Frank really is a great and passionate guy who could add a lot of valuable knowledge to yosite. That is all, please keep up the great work. [[User:JSandler|JSandler]] 14:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== If you hide another civil discussion I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website ==

If you hide another civil discussion that I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website. Thank you. I am sure Karajou and others would agree with me on this matter if I bring up this matter with other Admins. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:How dare you? You insulted Patmac, and a vast host of other anglicans, you dragged me into this fight, and if you don't tone down your insults, I will bring it up with Mr. Schlafly, who certainly agrees that your words are unnacceptable. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:14, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't consider my post to you daring. And I do mean to carry out what I said I would do should you do it again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::That discussion was civil? Calling user:Patmac a untrue christian, who is also a "lying evolutionist"? Really? I have brought this matter with the site's owner already. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:19, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::::Stating untruths about the conversation is not going to further your cause. In fact, you are making things worse. For example, I expressly did not answer Pacmac's question on whether or not he was a Christian which is why he repeated this question. You are digging for yourself a deeper hole. I would suggest you stop digging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:28, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::Since when is it your right to be implying that any user is not a "True Christian"? And furthermore, can you justify User:Conservative/Patmac dodged this issue?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:32, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Brenden, you shouldn't have pushed it so far. All C probably meant was that "no true Christian" would advocate this or that. You'd have to be an idiot to take that personally (in fact, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that 'be an idiot' was just a figure of speech).

It may seem unfair that sometimes admins get greater leeway when it comes to personal remarks, but getting into a pissing contest over it will never be productive. If you're really worried about fairness, I suggest you consider all the people in totalitarian dictatorships who have NO ACCESS to the Internet and no way to express themselves without a swift ride to prison. Getting blocked on a pro-freedom site for [[personal remarks]] hardly compares.

Chill out, and come back refreshed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:48, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==It is nothing to do with like or dislike ==
It is nothing to do with like or dislike. It is for your own good. This is a fight you will NOT win. Rob Smith tried this and he now edits at ratwiki, he is an ex-person here. Keep this up and you will be as well. Davidspencer 16:23, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:Thank you, David. I'm sorry for my choice of words now, but I must say, what User:Conservative did was not acceptable, and I tried to do my best to halt it before it returned to another user:C vs other sysops wheel war like last week. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:27, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==Thanks Brenden ==
I do appreciate it, but don't want to cause disruption--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 16:41, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==Re:Ryancsh==
I don't see why user page edits should not be understood as talk page edits for purposes of enforcing the 90/10 rule. I'm thinking of indefinitely banning Ryancsh for being a parodist anyway. Look up "Ryan Cash" on google, it seems to be some kind of an internet joke. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 11:25, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
:I searched up Ryan Cash, and saw that the second result points to a certain "Sonichu.com". However, I don't see how a website dedicated to provoking the creator of "sonichu" has any connection with Conservapedia or editing at Conservapedia. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:41, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

==Re:Rafael==

Considering his past record (see relevant block log) I think that if anything his block was not long enough. Increased length of block to one week. If this was his first offense then maybe it could have ended with a warning. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:10, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:Given the fact that you have been chastised for being overly block-happy, I would strongly suggest not touching Rafael again, until Mr. Schlafly condones it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:39, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
==Schmoozing with the enemy==

Good day,

I couldn't help but notice that you are not only frequenting a website dedicated solely for the purpose of attacking Conservapedia (everybody knows which website I'm talking about), but that you are also talking with the other liberals there about me. Care to elaborate? - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 15:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:If you see my goals I stated on my talkpage at that website, you will have your questions answered. As for speaking about you, I don't make assumptions on your motivations, but I have seen your blocking record, and I am frankly less than convinced on your sincerity. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:32, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

==Swordsman==

Look up "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?‎" You'll find Swordsman as there in the discussion about the Catholic Church and evolution. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

==Mark Kirk==

The idea that the stroke damaged his judgement does not sound unreasonable to me. I think that the main problem with the edit you reverted is that it treats this idea as a fact rather than a likely yet unproven possibility. I changed the wording [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&diff=1056953&oldid=1056927 accordingly]. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 04:04, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:The likelyhood of a stroke changing a person's political views are not supported by any reliable neuroscience research. I'm removing it as it seems to be at the best, an unproven claim. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:27, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

==Go to the talk page at the other wiki both of us frequent==

There's a surprise for you there. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 19:55, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:Do you mean Twigo or my talk page? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:59, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
::Your talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 20:01, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Aww thanks :), but I declined it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:42, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

== I'll tell you what ==

Why don't you ask Andy if he thinks it's impossible that damage to the brain can make someone liberal. If he says it's impossible, I'll remove that part of Kirk's article myself. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 20:28, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:You could do that. I encourage you to do so, as a matter of fact. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:42, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

== NKeaton ==

He needs to stop making false accusations against me. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:05, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
:You don't need to say "idiot" in the block comment, especially against a valuable and trusted contributor here. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:29, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
::I call them I like I seem them. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:48, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
:::What?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:55, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
::::LOL should have been "I call them like I see them". - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:59, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

== Markman ==

That's really enough of you and Markman going at it; you shouldn't be reverting his comment on Andy's talk page - he is a user with advanced privileges.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:29, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
:"Checkers, stop barking at Mr. Schlafly this instant!" is not appropriate for anyone to say. Besides, I have the same rank as Markman. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:31, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
::You have the same rank has nothing to do with the fact that you don't treat a user with advanced privileges as you would a new user; nor do you get in blocking wars with a user who has blocking rights. Stop blocking him.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:33, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
:::I won't block him or revert him. However, then wouldn't this logic then extend to me, and shouldn't Markman stop blocking me? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:34, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Yes.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:36, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

==Eg==

I'm going to relent on this issue. It seems as if the block has demoralized and discouraged him from further editing Conservapedia, so I don't see any reason to reinstate his block so long as he doesn't show his ugly mug around here. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 09:39, 26 June 2013 (EDT)
:{{cquote|It seems as if the block has demoralized and discouraged him from further editing Conservapedia, so I don't see any reason to reinstate his block so long as he doesn't show his ugly mug around here.}}

:Do you really believe that is appropriate behaviour, to drive off good faith editors, over a dispute over a pathetic claim of "overrated sports stars"? I'm appalled that you then had the audacity to go on my page, bragging of your misdeeds! Kindly refrain from posting on my talk page. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:44, 27 June 2013 (EDT)

::What is this tomfoolery I am reading? Participating in a wiki is a collaborative effort. You can't just shut people from you talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 18:00, 27 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Thatès rich comming from you. At any rate, I won't stand for your bullying of other users. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:54, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

==RE:you have regular contact with Mr. Schlafly?==

No but I just saw him log in two minutes before my latest block of Rafael (see recent changes). - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 12:33, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
:EDIT: To be a little more specific, he edited [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=1059294&oldid=1059218 mainpageright] on 16:20 while the aforementioned block of Rafael was given on 16:22. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 12:34, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
::Excellent, he should be able to check RC soon. At any rate, you can contact my special purpose account at brendenliasonwithmarkman@gmail.com [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 12:37, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
:::Check your email. In case you have doubts whether or not it's really me (I wouldn't be surprised if someone else already tried to contact you while pretending to be me) then I'll tell you on email how I will verify the authenticity of my account to you. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 11:49, 2 July 2013 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I got it. (I think it's you, at any rate) [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 12:32, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

== The Block log ==

The block log is getting ridiculous - we need to stop this block warring. If someone with blocking rights blocks a user you should generally respect that user's decision, but if you want to stick your neck out and be responsible for Rafael go ahead; I've unblocked him. If you decide you don't want this responsibility then you can block him again.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:04, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

==Email + Help on the other side==

Hey man,

Just curious, are you reading my emails? I remember sending you one a long time ago and you didn't respond. Not that I'm berating you or anything, just asking. Also, this might not be relevant by the time you read this, but can you go to the other wiki we both frequent and unblock me? The recent upset at their elections has raised some antagonism. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:05, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
:Nevermind, problem solved. Also there was no upset, just a mistake in calculating the results. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 15:41, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

== questycaptcha ==

Greetings. I see that you have mentioned using the questycaptcha to reduce spam accounts. We are having an unbelievably serious problem with spam accounts at ameriwiki.org, and I wonder if you could give any advice. We don't allow editing until a user has given an email address, so none of the bot-created accounts go anywhere, but it's still annoying. I believe that CP doesn't require email, but it uses the "fuzzy letters" captcha, which seems to eliminate most of the spam. But then they post the usual "n0t much t0 say about me but blah blah blah go to my website" user page, which people like you then revert and block. To repeat, your problem at CP is nowhere near as pervasive as ours at AW, though it is often malicious. Our captcha at AW appears to be nothing but "write the word 'swordfish' in the box", or things like that. Anyway, I'm wondering if you could give any advice.

BTW, the quote that I put in the above paragraph got blocked by your spam filter, so I had to cloak it with zeros. Nice job! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:30, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

:Good heavens! Now I see that spammers are putting up ads for captcha-breaking services! Amazing! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:33, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
::Yes, I personally have QuestyCaptcha rotate it's questions every week or so. The questions are always geographically unique to my target audience, so they tend to be stuff like "who is the prime minister of Canada", etc.
::On a tangent, I noticed my AW account seems to have disappeared. Did it get lost in a database update or something? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:22, 13 July 2013 (EDT)

User talk:Brenden

2013-07-13T21:22:16Z

Brenden: /* questycaptcha */

{{Useful links}}
[[User talk:Brenden/Archive]]

== Regarding the Anonymous page ==

I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. [[User:JGrant|Blessings of the Almighty on you :)]] 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

== Seeing as you've blocked me in the past for sometimes having a less-than-cheerful attitude... ==

....you'll love [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/PaulDiFoglio this guy's] stream of edit comments. Hugs and kisses, [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:00, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

== What the hell are you doing? ==

Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.[[User:Brenden|Brenden]] 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

::DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:::[Comments retracted by poster]<del>Thank you, EJamesW </sarcasm>[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)</del>

What does </sarcasm> mean?

Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?

Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)

I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...

[[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

:Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
::My apologies, I failed to take a look at the history, and the tone you took kind of distracted me from looking. Sorry about that.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
==Editing==
Editing is fully restored. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:55, 11 November 2012 (EST)
:Thanks, Mr. Schlafly[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)

==Conservative==
If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)

== Personal Honeypot ==

Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)
:I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)
==Thanks==
Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

:Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)

== Spambots ==

It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)

:I think I might upgrade that to very active! Have you been getting much spam at your honeypot mate? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 19:27, 3 February 2013 (EST)
::It's been ok-ish. I blocked most of the ranges that were targeting my honeypot. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:50, 3 February 2013 (EST)

== I removed your latest round of "personal attacks removed" censorship ==
I think it is poor form to edit talk page comments left by others. If an editor wishes to run afoul of the rules by speaking their mind, it should be their freedom to do so. If that editor happens to be immune to the rules (as with the user in this case), then I think their unfettered comments should stand as testimony to their true nature. Thanks --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:16, 7 February 2013 (EST)
:Well, the last time that specific user left his comments, a lot of people were offended. While I agree, that generally, it is inappropriate to censor users, in certain cases, especially when personal attacks are involved, it should be fine. Furthermore, the use of such tags, causes the poster understand that such attacks are not welcome on Conservapedia.

Thanks for your input anyways, though. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:04, 7 February 2013 (EST)

== Editing should work now ==

Try now - your account has been promoted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 19 February 2013 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:59, 19 February 2013 (EST)

==Maybe you're right==

I still retain my suspicion, but if that contributor wants to reregister we should let him. I probably should have enabled account recreation after the block. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:34, 1 March 2013 (EST)

==AlanE==
Thanks Brenden. I needed that! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:20, 6 March 2013 (EST)
:NP [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:30, 6 March 2013 (EST)

== Reverting admins ==

Hi Brenden. You do not have the authority to undo admin's blocks. If you have an issue, you raise it. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:30, 7 March 2013 (EST)
:KK got it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:47, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

== Block ==

Thanks. [[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 11:56, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:No problem[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:25, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

== CameronD ==

Sorry I had been playing around with my signature I have now corrected it. [[User:CameronD|CameronD]] 13:45, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

== Unleash the <s>Kraken</s> Bot! ==
If you really do have the ability to implement some technical means to protect this wiki from a certain user's flagrant deletion sprees, I implore you to do so. Asking him to stop won't do a thing. He literally is incapable of changing his ways. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:57, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:Well I do hope that asking him to change will help him overcome his irritating habit of deleting pages, I am prepared to create a bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the MW api, sooo, I see a lot of googling, and asking for technical help in my foreseeable future. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:42, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

==User:C Reply==
I have no intention of leaving, but between C's actions and [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] choosing to ignore the problem(as well as any message I write to him now), it's hard to stay motivated to keep trying to make the site better. I'll stick around for now and continue to fight for this site, but I have this sinking feeling that it is only a matter of time before I'm perma-banned. Thanks for the support though, hopefully those of us who actually care will be able to prevail in the end. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 14:24, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
:On a related note... am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in C's repeated use of the 90/10 rule as a reason for banning (including the block of [[User:FWilliamM|FWilliamM]] a mere 40 minutes after your unbanning him) when 38% of his own last 500 edits were to talk pages? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:28, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::I do try to unblock the users unfairly blocked by that admin. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 01:17, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
:::I know you do and my earlier comment wasn't aimed at you. I was just frustrated with his antics last night and needed to express that to someone. Thank you for doing what you can. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 08:32, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

That is enough from both of you. Brendan, you have no business or authority unblocking users because of a pet peeve against Conservative, especially when I look into the matter and discover they are proven trolls previously blocked for hostility. User Fnarrow, your whining about being bullied is now over and done with. You chose to come into the site, and you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise. This site is an encyclopedia; it is not a site where anyone can cause a fight with anyone else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::: Karajou, I've always respected you, and found you to be a fair, and rational person, despite whatever ideological differences we may have. On the other hand, I must protest that contrary to what you said about FNarrow, ''"you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise."'' is actually an incorrect take on what happened. FNarrow was according to his contributions, merely being a productive editor, when s/he was provoked by User:C's ad-hominem attacks, and blatant violation of the Commandments. As per my authority to undo blocks placed by a superior, I feel, (and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Schlafly agrees with me), that blocks placed to censor users, and to subvert the policies here, are worthy of an immediate unblock. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:44, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

::::This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1036560] says a lot in support of my argument; this individual also created three additional accounts via a Philippine proxy in order to cause an attack on user Conservative...and you unblocked two of those socks. What you and FNarrow need to do is not only read the Conservapedia Commandments, but read and heed the warnings at the bottom of my user page. Everyone coming in is going to respect this website and the people in it, or they are out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:04, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Respect,K.? Ha!! Whose wife was implied to be a slut, K; and by whom, and who stood by and let that worm, Cons, get away with it? Who said one thing on Gmail and something else in public when he realised he had to show solidarity with a certain Mexican "gentleman" who backed a coward who has not bothered to do what he said he would do. I am still here, K. Where did Markman go when he realised he had given himself some work to do?

Just one question - why, if lack of citations is such a crime, wasn't I pulled up in 2007? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:55, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Sorry Brenden for smeering your page with my anger. One takes the opportunity when it arises. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:12, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
::@User:Karajou
I don't have the checkuser ability, so I cannot tell if the people I block and unblock are socks. As per respecting the website, and the people (Especially user:C), I do try to respect the person, even if I cannot respect their actions. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:37, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

==Fnarrow infinite block==
I am a friend of Fnarrow and he asked me to post the copy of this email which he sent to cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com on the user talk pages ofa few people whom he said had always been fair to him. <blockquote>
I got banned for a day and then Karajou immediately changed it to infinite for no apparent reason immediately after it expired. I have cut the dead end pages by nearly half during my short time there and feel i have made substantive improvements to other articles during that time. While i have had disagreements with Karajou and Conservative, i have always been respectful and adhered to the Conservapedia commandments. Finally, I never had a chance to respond to my accuser and did nothing to deserve this treatment. Please forward this to Mr. Schlafly for review.
Thank you, Fnarrow
</blockquote>
If my opinion counts for anything, Frank really is a great and passionate guy who could add a lot of valuable knowledge to yosite. That is all, please keep up the great work. [[User:JSandler|JSandler]] 14:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== If you hide another civil discussion I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website ==

If you hide another civil discussion that I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website. Thank you. I am sure Karajou and others would agree with me on this matter if I bring up this matter with other Admins. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:How dare you? You insulted Patmac, and a vast host of other anglicans, you dragged me into this fight, and if you don't tone down your insults, I will bring it up with Mr. Schlafly, who certainly agrees that your words are unnacceptable. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:14, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't consider my post to you daring. And I do mean to carry out what I said I would do should you do it again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::That discussion was civil? Calling user:Patmac a untrue christian, who is also a "lying evolutionist"? Really? I have brought this matter with the site's owner already. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:19, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::::Stating untruths about the conversation is not going to further your cause. In fact, you are making things worse. For example, I expressly did not answer Pacmac's question on whether or not he was a Christian which is why he repeated this question. You are digging for yourself a deeper hole. I would suggest you stop digging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:28, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::Since when is it your right to be implying that any user is not a "True Christian"? And furthermore, can you justify User:Conservative/Patmac dodged this issue?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:32, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Brenden, you shouldn't have pushed it so far. All C probably meant was that "no true Christian" would advocate this or that. You'd have to be an idiot to take that personally (in fact, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that 'be an idiot' was just a figure of speech).

It may seem unfair that sometimes admins get greater leeway when it comes to personal remarks, but getting into a pissing contest over it will never be productive. If you're really worried about fairness, I suggest you consider all the people in totalitarian dictatorships who have NO ACCESS to the Internet and no way to express themselves without a swift ride to prison. Getting blocked on a pro-freedom site for [[personal remarks]] hardly compares.

Chill out, and come back refreshed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:48, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==It is nothing to do with like or dislike ==
It is nothing to do with like or dislike. It is for your own good. This is a fight you will NOT win. Rob Smith tried this and he now edits at ratwiki, he is an ex-person here. Keep this up and you will be as well. Davidspencer 16:23, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:Thank you, David. I'm sorry for my choice of words now, but I must say, what User:Conservative did was not acceptable, and I tried to do my best to halt it before it returned to another user:C vs other sysops wheel war like last week. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:27, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==Thanks Brenden ==
I do appreciate it, but don't want to cause disruption--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 16:41, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==Re:Ryancsh==
I don't see why user page edits should not be understood as talk page edits for purposes of enforcing the 90/10 rule. I'm thinking of indefinitely banning Ryancsh for being a parodist anyway. Look up "Ryan Cash" on google, it seems to be some kind of an internet joke. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 11:25, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
:I searched up Ryan Cash, and saw that the second result points to a certain "Sonichu.com". However, I don't see how a website dedicated to provoking the creator of "sonichu" has any connection with Conservapedia or editing at Conservapedia. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:41, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

==Re:Rafael==

Considering his past record (see relevant block log) I think that if anything his block was not long enough. Increased length of block to one week. If this was his first offense then maybe it could have ended with a warning. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:10, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:Given the fact that you have been chastised for being overly block-happy, I would strongly suggest not touching Rafael again, until Mr. Schlafly condones it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:39, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
==Schmoozing with the enemy==

Good day,

I couldn't help but notice that you are not only frequenting a website dedicated solely for the purpose of attacking Conservapedia (everybody knows which website I'm talking about), but that you are also talking with the other liberals there about me. Care to elaborate? - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 15:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:If you see my goals I stated on my talkpage at that website, you will have your questions answered. As for speaking about you, I don't make assumptions on your motivations, but I have seen your blocking record, and I am frankly less than convinced on your sincerity. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:32, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

==Swordsman==

Look up "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?‎" You'll find Swordsman as there in the discussion about the Catholic Church and evolution. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

==Mark Kirk==

The idea that the stroke damaged his judgement does not sound unreasonable to me. I think that the main problem with the edit you reverted is that it treats this idea as a fact rather than a likely yet unproven possibility. I changed the wording [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&diff=1056953&oldid=1056927 accordingly]. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 04:04, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:The likelyhood of a stroke changing a person's political views are not supported by any reliable neuroscience research. I'm removing it as it seems to be at the best, an unproven claim. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:27, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

==Go to the talk page at the other wiki both of us frequent==

There's a surprise for you there. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 19:55, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:Do you mean Twigo or my talk page? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:59, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
::Your talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 20:01, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Aww thanks :), but I declined it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:42, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

== I'll tell you what ==

Why don't you ask Andy if he thinks it's impossible that damage to the brain can make someone liberal. If he says it's impossible, I'll remove that part of Kirk's article myself. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 20:28, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:You could do that. I encourage you to do so, as a matter of fact. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:42, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

== NKeaton ==

He needs to stop making false accusations against me. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:05, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
:You don't need to say "idiot" in the block comment, especially against a valuable and trusted contributor here. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:29, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
::I call them I like I seem them. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:48, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
:::What?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:55, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
::::LOL should have been "I call them like I see them". - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:59, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

== Markman ==

That's really enough of you and Markman going at it; you shouldn't be reverting his comment on Andy's talk page - he is a user with advanced privileges.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:29, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
:"Checkers, stop barking at Mr. Schlafly this instant!" is not appropriate for anyone to say. Besides, I have the same rank as Markman. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:31, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
::You have the same rank has nothing to do with the fact that you don't treat a user with advanced privileges as you would a new user; nor do you get in blocking wars with a user who has blocking rights. Stop blocking him.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:33, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
:::I won't block him or revert him. However, then wouldn't this logic then extend to me, and shouldn't Markman stop blocking me? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:34, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Yes.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:36, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

==Eg==

I'm going to relent on this issue. It seems as if the block has demoralized and discouraged him from further editing Conservapedia, so I don't see any reason to reinstate his block so long as he doesn't show his ugly mug around here. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 09:39, 26 June 2013 (EDT)
:{{cquote|It seems as if the block has demoralized and discouraged him from further editing Conservapedia, so I don't see any reason to reinstate his block so long as he doesn't show his ugly mug around here.}}

:Do you really believe that is appropriate behaviour, to drive off good faith editors, over a dispute over a pathetic claim of "overrated sports stars"? I'm appalled that you then had the audacity to go on my page, bragging of your misdeeds! Kindly refrain from posting on my talk page. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:44, 27 June 2013 (EDT)

::What is this tomfoolery I am reading? Participating in a wiki is a collaborative effort. You can't just shut people from you talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 18:00, 27 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Thatès rich comming from you. At any rate, I won't stand for your bullying of other users. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:54, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

==RE:you have regular contact with Mr. Schlafly?==

No but I just saw him log in two minutes before my latest block of Rafael (see recent changes). - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 12:33, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
:EDIT: To be a little more specific, he edited [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=1059294&oldid=1059218 mainpageright] on 16:20 while the aforementioned block of Rafael was given on 16:22. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 12:34, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
::Excellent, he should be able to check RC soon. At any rate, you can contact my special purpose account at brendenliasonwithmarkman@gmail.com [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 12:37, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
:::Check your email. In case you have doubts whether or not it's really me (I wouldn't be surprised if someone else already tried to contact you while pretending to be me) then I'll tell you on email how I will verify the authenticity of my account to you. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 11:49, 2 July 2013 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I got it. (I think it's you, at any rate) [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 12:32, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

== The Block log ==

The block log is getting ridiculous - we need to stop this block warring. If someone with blocking rights blocks a user you should generally respect that user's decision, but if you want to stick your neck out and be responsible for Rafael go ahead; I've unblocked him. If you decide you don't want this responsibility then you can block him again.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:04, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

==Email + Help on the other side==

Hey man,

Just curious, are you reading my emails? I remember sending you one a long time ago and you didn't respond. Not that I'm berating you or anything, just asking. Also, this might not be relevant by the time you read this, but can you go to the other wiki we both frequent and unblock me? The recent upset at their elections has raised some antagonism. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:05, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
:Nevermind, problem solved. Also there was no upset, just a mistake in calculating the results. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 15:41, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

== questycaptcha ==

Greetings. I see that you have mentioned using the questycaptcha to reduce spam accounts. We are having an unbelievably serious problem with spam accounts at ameriwiki.org, and I wonder if you could give any advice. We don't allow editing until a user has given an email address, so none of the bot-created accounts go anywhere, but it's still annoying. I believe that CP doesn't require email, but it uses the "fuzzy letters" captcha, which seems to eliminate most of the spam. But then they post the usual "n0t much t0 say about me but blah blah blah go to my website" user page, which people like you then revert and block. To repeat, your problem at CP is nowhere near as pervasive as ours at AW, though it is often malicious. Our captcha at AW appears to be nothing but "write the word 'swordfish' in the box", or things like that. Anyway, I'm wondering if you could give any advice.

BTW, the quote that I put in the above paragraph got blocked by your spam filter, so I had to cloak it with zeros. Nice job! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:30, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

:Good heavens! Now I see that spammers are putting up ads for captcha-breaking services! Amazing! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:33, 9 July 2013 (EDT)
::Yes, I personally have QuestyCaptcha rotate it's questions every week or so. The questions are always geographically unique to my target audience, so they tend to be stuff like "who is the prime minister of Canada", etc.
::On a tangent, I noticed my AW account seems to have disappeared. Did it get lost in a database update or something? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:22, 13 July 2013 (EDT)

User:Conservative/messageregardingreadingandorrespondingtosocalledevolutionistssuchaspatmacandfergusmason

2013-07-13T21:15:42Z

Brenden: Created page with "I couldn't help but notice that you posted a flurry of posts to user:Karajou's talk page regarding how you won't be reading/wasting time being bothered by those persons. As a bit..."

I couldn't help but notice that you posted a flurry of posts to user:Karajou's talk page regarding how you won't be reading/wasting time being bothered by those persons. As a bit of friendly advice, I would recommend simply not even bringing any mention of them, or even hinting of your awareness of them. Everybody gets tired of the same response, and I'm certain that once convinced of your indifference, they will find someone else to bother. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:15, 13 July 2013 (EDT)

User:Brenden/spammers

2013-07-09T12:43:51Z

Brenden: Created page with "List of known spam operators targeting Conservapedia and other sites. To be updated based on my activity. Please feel free to add to it as you please. #kelvin.thechamp@gmail.com..."

List of known spam operators targeting Conservapedia and other sites. To be updated based on my activity. Please feel free to add to it as you please.

#kelvin.thechamp@gmail.com
<nowiki>http://bestblackhatforum.com/User-kelvinthechamp</nowiki>
Funnily enough, he advertised himself here.

User talk:PeggyC

2013-07-09T12:34:55Z

Brenden: Created page with "{{warning}}~~~~"

{{warning}}[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 08:34, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

Asiana Flight 214

2013-07-09T12:32:49Z

Brenden: The investigation isn't even completed, so pinning the blame on Obama is short-sighted

'''Asiana Flight 214''' was a [[Boeing]] 777 which crashed at [[San Francisco]] International airport on 6 July 2013. The plane was en route from [[South Korea]].
It is possible that half of the fatalities occurred due to injuries sustained while being run over by rescue vehicles. Currently, the causes of the crash are under investigation.
[[Category: Aviation]]
[[Category: Obama Administration]]

Conservapedia:AFD Islam and tolerance

2013-07-05T21:03:30Z

Brenden:

The article in question is a single qoute, without any context. The alternative is to move it into templatespace. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:41, 5 July 2013 (EDT)
:Let me quote the CP Commandments: "Any content you create or change [...] must be family-friendly, clean, '''concise''', and without gossip or foul language. [emphasis added]". It manages to succinctly summarize a complex subject with a few short sentences, rather than engaging in excessive [[Talk pollution|liberal jibbar jabbar]]. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:52, 5 July 2013 (EDT)
::Indeed, but articles should also be useful by themselves. In this case, it is not. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:03, 5 July 2013 (EDT)

Conservapedia:AFD Islam and tolerance

2013-07-05T20:41:52Z

Brenden: Created page with "The article in question is a single qoute, without any context. The alternative is to move it into templatespace. ~~~~"

The article in question is a single qoute, without any context. The alternative is to move it into templatespace. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:41, 5 July 2013 (EDT)

Template:Islam and tolerance

2013-07-05T20:41:15Z

Brenden:

{{delete}}

"The true faith, based on God's final revelation, must be protected from insult and abuse; other [[faith]]s, being either false or incomplete, have no right to any such protection."<ref> [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1990/09/the-roots-of-muslim-rage/304643/3/ The Roots of Muslim Rage] - [[Bernard Lewis]], Sep. 1, 1990 (in ''The Atlantic'')</ref>

==Notes==
<references />

[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Template:Islam and tolerance

2013-07-05T20:40:59Z

Brenden:

{{delete|qoute without any context. Alternative is to move into a template}}
"The true faith, based on God's final revelation, must be protected from insult and abuse; other [[faith]]s, being either false or incomplete, have no right to any such protection."<ref> [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1990/09/the-roots-of-muslim-rage/304643/3/ The Roots of Muslim Rage] - [[Bernard Lewis]], Sep. 1, 1990 (in ''The Atlantic'')</ref>

==Notes==
<references />

[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Template:Islam and tolerance

2013-07-05T20:40:38Z

Brenden: The commandments do not have any provision for articles to short to be even called stubs.

{{db|qoute without any context. Alternative is to move into a template}}
"The true faith, based on God's final revelation, must be protected from insult and abuse; other [[faith]]s, being either false or incomplete, have no right to any such protection."<ref> [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1990/09/the-roots-of-muslim-rage/304643/3/ The Roots of Muslim Rage] - [[Bernard Lewis]], Sep. 1, 1990 (in ''The Atlantic'')</ref>

==Notes==
<references />

[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Islam]]

User talk:Ed Poor

2013-07-05T19:29:02Z

Brenden: /* Understanding Islam */

Archive:
[[/1|1]]
[[/2|2]]
[[/3|3]]
[[/4|4]]
[[/5|5]]
[[/6|6]]
[[/7|7]]
[[/8|8]]
[[/9|9]]
[[/10|10]]
[[/11|11]]
[[/12|12]]
[[/13|13]]
[[/14|14]]
[[/15|15]]
[[/16|16]]
[[/17|17]]
[[/18|18]]
----

[[Image:Ed poor grinning.jpg|right|thumb|114px|Ed Poor on campus]]



== Writing Plan ==

Hello Mr. Poor,
I would like to submit a writing plan. While I haven't been asked for one, I feel this would best help keep me on task and contribute the most productively. You seem to know an awful lot about this wiki stuff, and I'm still new at it, so if you could help me that would be great.
I think I'd first like to help contribute to the various book articles around the site by adding in examples of the influence of Christianity, as a lot of books have Christian overtones that aren't currently listed. I'm thinking I'd like to start by drawing parallels between the story of Jesus in the Gospels with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Please let me know if this would be acceptable.--[[User:JeremiahJ|JeremiahJ]] 18:10, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Probably not. Please email me a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:02, 17 January 2011 (EST)

== Request ==

Hello Mr. Poor, I have submitted a request [[Talk:Atheism#Addition_of_Information_on_Charity_and_External_Links_Request|here]] but it was never attended to. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 23:19, 28 February 2011 (EST)

== Image Upload Request ==

Hello Ed Poor, I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering if you could upload [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Young_Galaxy_Accreting_Material.jpg this image] for use in the article I recently created. I look forward to hearing your response. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 03:32, 7 March 2011 (EST)
:Hello Ed Poor, could you please add [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] to [[Template:Nb Atheism|this template]]? I really appreciate it! With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 11:14, 7 March 2011 (EST)
::Hello Ed Poor, I need two more images for the article I created which are available [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Independent_assortment_%26_segregation.svg here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lennox.jpg here]. Recently, [[User:JMR10]] uploaded my previous one, for which I am thankful. Could you ask him to do the same for these two or could you please do these for me? I highly appreciate it. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 19:40, 7 March 2011 (EST)

== I seem to have messed up the Ada article ==

My proxy keeps dropping stuff, so the picture at the top is busted. Also, I had to cut down the reference, because the captcha can't make it through. It should have a left bracket, and h,t,t,p, etc., and a right bracket after the "pdf". I wonder if you could please fix it for me. I will contact Andy about getting my IP range restored.

What I was going to put in the talk page (and will do once things get straightened out) is that the two cited articles are very shallow, having only 7 and 3 sentences, respectively. They both refer to a "plan", but that's because the word "program" hadn't been coined in the computer context. She really was the first person to write "code".

I'm sorry about this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

:I read her notes, and it doesn't look like a [[computer program]] to me. A charitable view might be that it's a [[specification|spec]], but there's no flowchart and no [[source code]]. Don't be sorry, just get it right. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:21, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

What did you expect this "source code" to look like? The term "source code" implies both a programming language and "machine code" that the source code is assembled or compiled into. Assemblers, compilers, and programming languages wouldn't be invented for another hundred years (by Grace Murray Hopper, John Backus, and others.) The same goes for the other accoutrements of modern software development, like flow charts and specifications. In fact, even the terms "software" and "program" hadn't been invented.

Furthermore, assuming that you accept that she had to write "machine code", what would you expect machine code to look like for a machine that reads its instructions with rods poking through holes in large punched cards running around on a track, and does its arithmetic by counting teeth on turning gears? It wouldn't look much like Intel 586 code.

The fact is, the lines of Ada's written algorithm were intended to be punched into lines of holes in Babbage's cards, once the "analytical engine" was built, which it wasn't.

By the way, what I was being "sorry" for was not the content of my edit, but the fact that an extremely buggy proxy messed up the article and wouldn't let me fix it, despite several tries. Andy has been working with me to fix the network problems, and DMorris fixed the broken picture and hyperlink while my access was broken. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:39, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:Then it would be more accurate to say that she described an algorithm. That's not the same as a computer program, even if she was hoping that Babbage's machine might be programmed to carry out the algorithm.

:An encyclopedia should be precise and unbiased, not used to create "factoids" for use in publicity campaigns, such as promoting [[women in science]].

:I don't say she had to write machine code, but rather to be the "first programmer" she would have had to produce a [[computer program]]. If you have seen it, please show it to me. Otherwise, I'm going to make an editorial decision that she produced an algorithm rather than a program. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:18, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

:*Let's say that [[Ada Lovelace]] wrote one of the first comprehensive descriptions of an algorithm to generate [[Bernoulli numbers]]. But until I see the actual sequence of instructions, including [[if-then]] or [[loop control]] statements, I'd hesitate to call it an actual [[computer program]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:17, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

==The anti-Semitism of liberals==
I love how libs reveal their true selves. No matter what we say or do in describing them, they come here just to confirm it all. So when they want to emphasize "Jew" in "karajou", I'll be more then happy to get a gold Magen David to wear around my neck, join my brothers and sisters in the synagogue every week, and show everyone else just how hate-filled and intolerant these liberals really are. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:20, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

== Please help! ==

Hi! I tried to add the information for Edo to the Tokyo article and for some reason,. it stripped a bunch of stuff out when I saved. Now when I try and revert the edit I made, I keep getting a internal server 500 error. Please can you revert for me? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:19, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:It's ok, I fixed it! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

::I'm glad it worked out for you. My Japanese name is "Edo". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:04, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

== Nice speed on reverts ==

You beat me to every one! Nicely done--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:05, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks. I'll pass that on to my secret bot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:10, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks for noticing me ==

I must be doing something right. Every time I mention alternate viewpoints, and no one sees fit to revert my edits, I get vandalism to my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:48, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush ==

I'm trying to reorganize the information, not leave it out. If you notice, I'm working on the article quite a bit. May I please revert your revision? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:05, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:Sure. I'm frequently too bold and hasty. And that's the wonderful thing about a wiki. Nothing is ever really deleted; it's all in the article history. Go for it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:09, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Technical question ==

I'm lobbying for a separate namespace for the Conservapedia Bible Project. The idea is that each verse gets its own ''article'', which can be used rather as a template. I see a couple of advantages:
*verses can be quoted more easily: instead of copying the whole verse, only a short link (like <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki> ) is neccessary to get a neat result: <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki>
*thereby, the use of the CBP is encouraged over other translations.
*if there is a change in the CBP, the afflicted verses don't have to be tracked down manually, but the change is applied automatically throughout the wiki.

To accomplish this, a new namespace has to be created. That shouldn't be too difficult, as there are only a few exemplary pages prefixed with ''CBP:'' at this moment.

But after this, the namespace has to be filled with the existing translated verses. My question: is your bot up to this task?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

== madonna ==

Hi, please strongly reconsider your desire to create a "kinder article." In stating that madonna is a person who has changed to being more spiritual you are buying to the liberal media's lies. It sounds like a madonna fan attempting to weave their bias in, which of course you are not. I think you may want to do more research, and read my recent additions as she is still, if not more so, a wicked and hateful person who has sucked millions of children into raunchy culture, dated murderers and mocked our Lord Jesus Christ who gave his life for us. Madonna deserves only the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 13:14, 14 July 2011 (EST)

:And I just had a long conversation with some Wikipedians in Central Park last month, about whether CP is more neutral than WP. Now you want "conservative bias" to denounce [[Madonna Ciccone]]? Not even Wikipedia's BLP policy would allow that.

:I wonder whether you are a liberal '''tempting me''' to add bias, just so you can accuse us of being biased. Well, if so, I choose not to cooperate, my dear elf. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::I think Legolas here might be a parodist. Would you mind looking into him? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Ed, your compassion sounds a little misplaced to me. Do you also visit the Fred Phelps, Bernie Madoff, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson pages asking people for some "Christian charity" to tone those down too? Look into me all you want please. I dislike Madonna because she has mocked our lord Jesus Christ. Conservative people have respect for Christ end of story. The reason society has degraded is by giving raunchy people like madonna a free pass and pity. I'm the one who wants to print the ACTUAL history of madonna that the liberal media has left out such her dating the felon Chris Paciello. I only want the truth about her in the article. Why is that so bad? I thought this was the one place that might allow the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 10:34, 17 July 2011 (EST)
:Ed, can you please look into this guy? He is an obvious parodist. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
First of all - Ed is a senior sysop at this site - I don't know why a few of you have taken upon yourself to post on [[User talk:Aschlafly|Andy's talk page]] when Ed is more than capable of dealing with an alleged parodist on his own. Secondly, just because he is posting radical things on a talk page does not make him a parodist. Looking at his contributions, you ''could'' argue that he is edit warring, but since Ed is simultaneously the user in the revert war and an admin, it is up to his judgement as to whether or not a block is deserving. Your collective alarmism has now spread across three talk pages. That's enough.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::@NickP, your very.... quick to call somebody else a parodist. Why not leave that to the pro.'s to decide?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Several others have also pointed out the fact that he acts very suspicious. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:13, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Saying he "acts suspicious" and saying he's a 100% no way im wrong about this Parodist is two completely different things.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:16, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I prefer what Wikipedia old-timers used to call "soft security". Just help me fix the articles in question. Everything will sort itself out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:34, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

==EdBot==
Ed, I left three (actually six) problem Categories that need some sort of merging at [[User_talk:EdBot]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:Sorry, EdBot did not survive the MediaWiki upgrades. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Does that mean it's all got to be done manually? Moving 200 entries into another Category?

:::Only if they really have to be moved. (Meanwhile, if anyone has an idea how a bot can "log in" with the new MediaWiki software, let me know.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot#Logging_in This] should help. Indeed, the whole [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot page] is quite interesting. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== A request concerning recent events ==

Hi Ed,

I'm very sorry to come to you with this, but I honestly don't know where else to turn at this point. You have always struck me as the voice of reason and level-headedness here.

Simply put: the current altercation on Andy's talk page is out of control. I recognize that I have no authority to tell sysops what they should or shouldn't do, but it seems to me that basic common courtesy calls for not filling up Andy's talk page with arguments and accusations. Moreover, the very public nature of the dispute is encouraging other users to join in. Some of them are doubtless sincere; others, I suspect, may in fact be parodists seeking to fan the flames (I notice a LOT of recently created accounts.)

Regardless, the fact remains that Andy's talk page has been turned into a general forum for accusations and arguments. At this point, it's degenerated to the level where people are making absolutely vicious personal attacks against certain of the participants. (Kudos to JamesWilson for promptly reverting the most egregious of these.)

You know the other sysops better than most of us; you talk to them; I would certainly hope they trust and respect your opinion. Is there anything you can do to persuade them to take a step back, cool down, and wait for Andy to respond at this point? Everyone involved has made their positions clear; further acrimony can serve no useful purpose.

I'm sorry to trouble you with this, but I really feel that this is both inconsiderate to Andy and deleterious to the Conservapedia project as a whole.

Respectfully,

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for the vote of confidence, but shouldn't I check with Andy before barging in? It may be that he prefers to let everyone air their opinions. It is not just his courage but his wisdom and compassion that attracted me to this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==[[User:MRellek]]==
Ed, per the site owner, Administrators [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 "instructions...are to be followed"] is no longer operable. I have emailed you a copy of Mr. Schlafly's approval. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, sorry. I was hasty. Feel free to unban MRellek, if you feel I was out of line. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you, Ed. I'm trying to get the other sysops to do more warnings & shorter blocks; let's get a sense of community here. After all, we've known many of these editors (the RW neighbors) for several years now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I think I got signed up somehow, after jumping into a discussion.

:Can we have non-sysops on the panel? I'd like to invite a friend from Wikipedia to join it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== If I understand correctly, you are the local math expert. ==

If so, maybe you can take a look at [[Relativistic mass|this]] and some of that editor's other contributions. They seem pretty obscure/specialized for the general reader, to me, at least. Thanks! [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 10:15, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not an expert, but I know a lot about high school math. Andy's brother knows much more than I do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== Revert ==

Good morning (afternoon?) Ed, why was my comment reverted? I can't see why it should be? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Gosh, you're quick on the trigger. See your talk page for my response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::I am indeed quick on the trigger, I like Westerns you see..:-) I have responded to you on my talk-page and re asked the question in a more cordial manner. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:59, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

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

The panel proceeding have begun here: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]] You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Farewell ==

Ed, in all sincerity you are by far the most interesting person I have met at Conservapedia. I regret that we couldn't get along better, though we did manage to improve a number of things. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

:We'd have gotten along better if we more goals in common. Building a trustworthy encyclopedia apparently was not one of them.

:In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893745 this drive by attack] you dodged my request for specific instances of the problem you complained of. (Note: saying "all of them" is a a typical liberal dodge. That's like global warming alarmists saying, "Just look at the temperature record; the evidence is all there."

:For those listening in to this fascinating drama, the difference between real science and liberal junk science is that real scientists provide examples of what they're talking about, so that anyone can check it out and see for themselves. Liberals and other pseudoscientists '''pretend''' that they've already made the point.

:It reminds me of Japan, which always (1) says that it "already apologized" for the [[comfort women]] episode while steadfastly (2) refusing ever to admit that it did anything wrong. They are hoping we'll all be too polite to mention that #1 contradicts #2.

:Nice try on the parting shot, but your pretense of trying oh so hard fools no one. You're always welcome to come back if you '''ever''' choose to help this project instead of undermining it with trickery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:41, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

==Pontiac==
Hi Ed, thanks for your help archiving my page. I know you are very experienced with Wikis, but I was wondering why you removed what I wrote about the government shut down of Pontiac destroying American history. A lot of people were really upset about Pontiac's closure and there are lots of websites and articles proving this, why can't it be in the article? I will differ to your judgement because you are so experienced, but just want to understand your reasoning. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 22:46, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

:It can't be in the article until you find a way to make it trustworthy. Use references. You can't just write stuff off the top of your head, because you are not an established author. You are in fact an anonymous person, and we don't even know whether Craig is your real name.

:If there's a lot of proof for your assertion, be sure to provide references, like:
:*The New York Times reported that after GM was taken over by the government, brands like Saturn and Pontiac were sold or eliminated (link and/or date)

:If you need help formatting references, lots of people here can help. But '''you''' must supply them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
==Pictures==
Hi Ed, how do I add pictures? --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:08, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:You can't add pictures, until you've made enough useful contributions to earn upload rights. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:34, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::In addition, Craig, you can use [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]] until you earn uploading privileges. A Sysop will do it for you.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:59, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Ok, I'll work even harder to earn my rights! I also wanted to apologize for being so familiar, my mom pointed out that I should be calling you Mr. Poor. I always call adults by their last names in real life, but on the internet I usually forget. Also thanks Mr. Wilson for your advice about upload requests. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 13:24, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::::No worries. I wouldn't mind if you called me James or Jim, but I'm glad your mother has taught you well. Also, you will need a lot more work to earn uploading privileges, just so you know. Happy editing in the meantime!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

== Edit conflict ==

Just got edit conflicted by you on the Morse code page - what are the odds we'd both be working on it! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

:One thought leads to another ... not such long odds. Sorry about stepping on your work. Feel free to revert, and I'll recover later. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:22, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::Its all OK, I added my work to your version. Great minds think alike, more like an average mind in my case but you catch my drift...:-) [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== signature ==

I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed the format of your signature to use for my own. It's simple and to the point, but looks nice as well, so I thought I would use it as well. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 16:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:I copied mine from someone else, so "[[Pay It Forward]]." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
::Oh, ok. Thanks for letting me know! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== like wikipedia? ==

i looked up [[milk]] and [[butter]] how is this conserivtive? is it like wikipedia at all what can i add? ty. --[[User:Rainbowboiz|Rainbowboiz]] 00:35, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not unless your spelling improves. And we are not so much "conservative" as [[trustworthy]]. Unlike Wikipedia, we really do try to avoid political bias. Add anything that is correct and useful. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:17, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== Meat Loaf ==

I know his stage name is much better known (I'm writing the article on him, obviously), but wouldn't you think using the subject's real name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia? If you think the article should be titled under his stage name, you're the boss, but I thought I might want to point that out. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:14, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

== Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage ==

Please help me as I am fairly new to this wiki. I have attempted to propose a discussion for deletion on this particular page. Before disccussing this, I have followed the instructions on templates via the help index [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_for_deletion]] to add it to a discussion for deletion but this does not seem to work so I have not proceded further - with hindsight I should have guessed there was something wrong by the lack of entries on this page.
My reason for wishing to commence this discussion is that I suspect the article (created by a user who does not appear to have an active talk page) seems to me to be parody and trolling to debase the credibility of this project. In my opinion, most of the logic followed in nearly every assertion is spurious and often uses blatant synthesis that a ten year old could question. It is to such an extent that I don't think an "improved" version would be posible. Of course, others may have different oppinions which is why I am trying to be fair and open it for rational discussion. What is the correct procedure? Thank you in advance - answer to my talk page [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 19:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. Maybe you could post on the talk page, showing a few examples of "spurious" assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:46, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ok I can do this, but I'm surprised that hte Help feature supplies a redundant page on discoussing articles for deletion. I was also under the impression that you had Sysop/Admin powers and would be familiar with such policies as it is a feature on other wikis. [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 13:31, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Actually I know policy fairly well and do have Sysop/Admin powers. Either provide the requested examples, or drop the matter. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:47, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

== Sid 3050 ==

Sid 3050 was blocked for three month for ''trolling''. The only edit he made during the day before his block seems to be to answer to your question in a section above (''So, will it go away if you ignore it?'') - see his [[Special:Contributions/Sid 3050|list of contributions]]. You had personally addressed this comment (''But I'll take a look at Sid's material below now, just to be a good sport.''), so you should be able to judge whether such a comment is ''trolling''. Could you please review Sid's block? In a timely fashion? Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:Sid was trolling. Whether this justifies a three month block is up to the admin in question.

:I'm always open to suggestions for making Conservapedia more trustworthy. If you have anything specific in mind, please speak up.

:Of particular interest to me would be any material relating to the contrast between conservative and liberal viewpoints on American political issues, as well as philosophy, religion and science. To my regret, repeated invitations to include users who are ideological opponents of this project have not met with an enthusiastic response. It's almost as if they wish to conceal their ideological differences; ironically, this could be seen as self-censorship.

:If anyone wants to describe liberal POV here they may, provided only that it is clearly labeled as such - not presented as gospel. This should not be an onerous requirement: it's the same as Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:42, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Help! A user called CortA is currently vandalising articles. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:15, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:OK, Andy blocked him. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Misled by RonLar ==

I was quite astonished by your last actions. I slept over it and want to clarify my earlier remark.

*I'd appreciate if you would be less generous with your slight innuendos (''"thanks for nothing!"'', ''"misled by RonLar"''): these make it difficult to assume ''good faith'' on your side. And they have the annoying tendency to backfire...

*my statement ''"Where is the right place to propose an alternative viewpoint? Surely not in the article itself, but on its talk-page. This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about."'' is hardly misleading - even though it is not written by a native speaker! In fact, it is echoing the sentiments of Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette|editing etiquettes]]:

:::* '''You should discuss changes made by an Administrator before reverting their edits. Administrators are charged with seeing that article content is in line with Conservapedia guidelines. [[Edit war]]ring with an Administrator usually results in a temporary block.'''
:::* '''You should not alter the editorial content of an article away from a [[conservative]], or [[Christian]], or [[family friendly]] "tone" without discussing proposed changes on the talk page.'''
:::*'''Never make substantial edits to an article without discussing your changes first on the talk page. If you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change(s), the changes are just formatting / copy editing, you should proceed.'''

*Inserting an alternative viewpoint is most certainly a ''substantial edit'' - and the etiquettes advise you to discuss such an edit at first on the talk-page.

*So, I made a true statement, in accordance with Conservapedia's policy on editing, and you '''misread''' it. To reiterate: You weren't '''misled''', you simply '''misread''' it. And this misunderstanding (of your part) you took as a reason to erase the whole section and seemingly not to read the rest of my comment? Deleting a section on censorship is always a little bit ironic...

*BTW: whether the article is protected or not is not of any interest for the discussion of censorship! A library does not only censor the books it throws from it shelves, but the books it doesn't allow into it shelves in the first place!

*I put the whole section up [[User:RonLar|here]], so you can read it carefully again. Take your time, but nevertheless, react timely - you said that would be important....

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:05, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:At this point, I think it's become abundantly clear that complaining about censorship will get you nowhere. I realize users will come up and be frustrated by certain site traditions, but that's just the way Conservapedia is run, RonLar.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 13:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::Sorry, I thought you were saying the article was protected.

::Also, I'm astonished to think that you consider adding alternative viewpoints to be something that has to be '''cleared''' with a sysop first. My understanding of project policy is that all contributors are free to describe non-conservative, non-Christian views ... especially on an article describing a controversy between the two sides.

::Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]
[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:38, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::*Apology accepted. Perhaps you could revert your reaction to this misunderstanding by reintroducing the section which you erased from your talk-page?
:::*Please read [[User:RonLar#Again, the previous example of ideological censorship, in detail]] - all of it, not only the first sentence. This should answer some of your questions.
:::*Please address the incident which I mentioned there.
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Eh? I thought you wanted help. Please answer my question: Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:39, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::How is it a sensible use of my time to answer new questions when you seem to ignore my answers to your old ones? Please remember your statements:
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.'' }}
:::::and
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''I asked for an instance of ideological censorship.''}}
:::::Well, you find it here: [[User:RonLar#Again.2C_the_previous_example_of_ideological_censorship.2C_in_detail]] Of course I am willing to answer any question concerning this specific example of censorship, especially those which indicate that you read the whole comment.

:::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Nearly two weeks later: Did you take a look? Or even better, did you read the whole thing? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:17, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== Anti-Clancy cracks? ==

In general I'm a Clancy fan but I think some of the criticism you removed was valid. For example by the time he wrote "The Bear and the Dragon" his standards of research had perceptibly dropped (The AH-64 has a 20mm gun? Really?) and "Red Rabbit" and "The Teeth of the Tiger" were frankly rubbish. Maybe some of the criticisms should stay? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:09, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:Anything can stay if properly sourced: X said Y about Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:10, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::What would be an acceptable source? I have all Clancy's books; would they be acceptable sources for pointing out declining standards of technical accuracy? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:20, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::LOL, '''your''' interpretation of Clancy's writings would be (what is called at Wikipedia) original research. If you don't know what I meant by 'properly sourced', then you're unqualified to contribute anything further to this project. If you do know, you're just toying with me. Godspeed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:23, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I'd do is reference both Clancy's books and technical sources that contradict them, such as the fact that the AH-64 does NOT have a 20mm gun. Like I said I'm generally a Clancy fan - "Without Remorse" may just be the best thriller ever written - but his last few books have been a bit disappointing and his research has definitely slipped. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:28, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::What I would propose is to remove the comments about "The sum of all fears" - a nuclear weapon could be built with a table saw and a small lathe, never mind optical milling equipment - but keep and expand on the comment about the declining level of technical accuracy. The divergence of the Ryanverse from reality isn't important because it IS fiction, but the declining level of research and tendency towards unrealistic assessments of real-world capabilities IS important. For example "The Bear and the Dragon" is utterly unrealistic even in the Ryanverse. If China invaded Russia they'd get about ten feet over the border before being annihilated. The fortifitions on the Sino-Russian border make the Maginot line look like a sand castle on the beach, and they were actually designed by strategic thinkers. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:44, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

On second thought, maybe I'm being too hard on you. I recently started tutoring schoolchildren, and I'm learning to be more patient with their quaint notions. After all, making wrong guesses and getting them corrected is often the best way to learn. Shall I not condescend to grant you the same grace? ;-)

I've read all Tom Clancy's [[Jack Ryan]] and [[John Clark]] novels. I always assumed that any discrepancies were inserted on purpose; Clancy certainly would have no reason to put correct information on how to make a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in his books: what conservative would want to inspire a copycat crime?

If you want to include "criticism" by some published author who says an attack helicopter does or does not have a certain sized gun, go ahead. He's also not very accurate about the software used in the stock market, although it was a key plot element in ''[[Debt of Honor]]''. (Come to think of it, if a man knew everything and wanted to make money betting on horse races, he would know not to put all his winnings on the next race ("[[John Doe]]" TV series pilot). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Language ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Big_Bang_theory Language like this] makes me extremely uncomfortable: "when grownups talk", "woman's logic is strange, don't you think", etc. (especially this in his earlier statements: "and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985")

First, I am not a woman. My identity is very well known and I am quite easy to find. Ottava means eight, and Ottava Rima means Eight Rhyme, a type of rhyming pattern used in Italian epic poetry. Second, his language is condescending, misogynistic, religiously bigoted, etc. Third, his claims about the Big Bang Theory are rather strange, conspiratorial, and nothing I have ever heard by any legitimate scientist. I cannot honestly believe that he is a real conservative but I believe he is a plant just like many of the people who vandalize. His job is to produce some of the most absurd stuff to try and make conservatives look awful. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but his language does not seem like something that is appropriate. I talked to Geoff Plourde about this quite a bit tonight because it bothered me a lot. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Um ==

[[Atheism and obesity]] - is this a joke? It seems to be just a list of fat atheists. It even has random tidbits like "Chuck Norris endorses the Total Gym exercise system.[59]" I know many priests who are overweight, and many religious people who are. I know many atheists who are ultra thing and anorexic.

"Christian and Library of Congress researcher's explanations of reports of UFOs " How would that even deal with atheism and obesity? Yet it is in there.

The page looks like it was created to make Conservapedia and conservatism look really bad. Sigh. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

:User:Conservative is good at attracting readership to this website. The [[Atheism and obesity]] seems to me a bit of payback for the liberals who call Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

::And in his payback, he demeans everyone who is overweight, including myself. I've dealt with mean-spirited behavior from people about weight the majority of my life - there is no acceptable reason for being hostile about the issue. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:53, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== You were looking for ideological censorship? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bestiality&curid=88619&diff=920267&oldid=920266 easy to find] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

:Not as easy as you say. See [[Talk:Bestiality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Senior Admin assistance ==

Hi Ed, I would like to bring something to your attention as a senior administrator. I have been in private communication with User:SamCoulter over the last few weeks. There is nothing in his attitude and comments to me in private and his behaviour here on Conservapedia to suggest this user is anything but sincere. He was recently blocked for the edit [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamCoulter here] (the last edit he made - I will not link directly to it because the topics are extremely offensive and not family friendly). For this effort he was blocked for three months. His edit was a) relevant b) correct according to the article linked and c) was a link which was on the front page already. It seems that some users wanted to quote the article without implying the articles conclusions as they were at loggerheads with a users personal opinion. I don't think the user should have been blocked but now he is I won't remove it but I do believe that 3 months is extremely heavy-handed. I don't want to create controversy so I will not chnage the block myself but I am bringing this up with you and User:Karajou also (I am unable to contact the blocking sysop). Thank you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Keep him blocked. He vandalized twice. In fact, I am going to increase the time blocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Do you have evidence of this vandalism? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::If you want to defend those recent contributions be my guest. If you want to wrangle with me about them, it is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I tell you now '''there was no vandalism''' you are blocking a user for adding sourced and factual material. You are blocking him for no reason! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, but it's actually very easy to avoid a block. I suggest you start coaching new users about courtesy, project goals, etc.

I myself disagree with the project goals of RW, but they haven't given me any long blocks. Why? Because I follow their rules in their house.

Adolescents often have trouble figuring out what the rules are, or trouble realizing the benefits of following them. (In the long run, civil disobedience campaigns against beneficial institutions such as Democracy and Free Markets simply backfire.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:52, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:I respectfully disagree with you. It's incredibly ''easy'' to get blocked on this site, because honestly, it appears to depend on the whim of the blocking editor (doesn't like what's being said because it's contrary to the blocking editor's opinion, got up on the wrong side of the bed, had a fight with someone in real life and are taking it out on editors here at CP.) You yourself just handed out an ''infinite'' block for ''defending'' someone.

:Many editors, myself included, have protested User:Conservative's articles and his method of defending them. If anyone objects, he automatically deems them an atheist/evolutionist, etc., which at least in my case, is far from the truth. I object to several things. First, his use of "obese" as a ''ad hominem'' attack against people whose ideas he disagrees with. I've dealt with bullying behavior about weight most of my life, and have tried to point out to him how hurtful his taunts are, but he thinks it's amusing, and the other sysops here (yourself included) appear to agree. I'm all for a good discussion about ''ideas'', but when the attacks become personal, and all-inclusive, then yes, I'm going to protest.

:Second, most of the articles are just ''badly, badly written''. They meander ''miles'' away from the original topic, they tend to be a bunch of quotes lumped together, and in many of them, the point that he's trying to make is missed completely. The actual subjects might be valid, and important enough to warrent an article on them, but creating 10 articles that say the same thing, and that can (and should) be consolidated into one, '''''well-researched and well-written document''''', is just poor scholarship. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

::Well, thank you for not giving me an excuse to block you! ;-) Very well written . . .

::As I've said elsewhere, [http://ameriwiki.wikkii.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=4073&oldid=4071] I disagree with the stance of "the admin" who is making ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks on atheists; I think it's a misguided attempt to attract readership.

::If anyone's had a '''good''' edit reverted for a bad reason, they can just let me know. Just remember: if anyone is criticizing to condemn, I'm not interested, but if they want me to change things, I'm the man who can do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:03, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

== BrentH's block ==

I see you blocked BrentH for trolling and reverted 2 of his edits. He linked [[Professor]] to an existing article here on CP, [[Professor values]]. Why was that trolling? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:55, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps prior edits?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:01, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::User: Ed Poor did not appreciate the section right above this one--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:14, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:::BrentH made a perfectly reasonable and respectful suggestion. It would appear from the edit history that he was referring to an article about Winona Ryder, created by Ed Poor, which contained one piece of trivia but no basic information regarding the person whatsoever. What BrentH said is simply common sense, and I too cannot see how this can justify a block. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:45, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Indeed, certain longstanding members of this community seem to have rather thin skin. I did not see BrentH's post as offensive or out of line--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:54, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== This is an encyclopedia. ==

You wrote that on my talkpage. ''This is an encyclopedia.''. Well, if it is articles like [[bestiality and Britain]] ahould be deleted because, as I have pointed out numerous times, it has nothing to do with bestiality and Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:27, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:Article deleted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Ed+Poor&page=&year=&month=-1&hide_patrol_log=1]
::Hey thanks Ed. Just for the record though I wasn't "bothered" by the content so much as bothered by the ''lack'' of content. As the commandments say - everything must be true and verifiable which that article clearly wasn't. Many thanks. I must admit - I have a lot of respect for you and karajou. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Ed, evolution was birthed in Britain and secularism has grown rampant in their country. Now their society is a mess and there is rioting in the streets. In addition, the'' Guardian'' just published a puff piece on bestiality. I say enough is enough and it's time their moral rot is exposed. I realize that pointing out that folly and consequences of atheism/evolutionism annoys liberals, but so what. Not only are they grossly and obviously in error, but atheists/evolutionists have shown themselves [[Atheism and cowardice|to be timid little bunnies]]. I restored the article because I feel confident that Conservapedia can stand up to foolish and timid little bunnies. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Enough with the insults conservative. I am neither a liberal nor an atheist and am sick to death of you accusing me of such. The article has nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' about the practice in Britain. I say again '''nothing'''. You poor scholarship is on show and we can ''all'' see it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Ed, a Brit was trying to bring over his deviant farming practices to the United States as can be seen [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7600523/British-man-51-arrested-at-bestiality-farm.html HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You misread the article, Conservative. The Oregon farm is owned by an American. The British man was visiting it. Read [http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-seattle/seattle-convicted-cocaine-smuggler-arrested-likely-into-bestiality-liking-sex-with-animals here] for a version of the story that makes who owned the farm clearer.
[[File:Keldaby goats.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|An exclusive British art gallery was criticised for displaying a highly offensive bestiality oriented painting which featured a [[goat]] just yards from The Ritz hotel and where it could be seen by children.- The Daily Mail online (MailOnline), August 5, 2011 ''The explicit art that shows bestiality with a goat just yards from The Ritz'']]
::::::::There is no way I'd let children any where this site with Conservatives despicable articles all over the place. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Max, I heard Oregon was pretty liberal. It figures the farm was in Oregon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I heard that most states are pretty liberal... But that doesn't make the rumors true. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 22:34, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Oregon voted for Obama plus fairly recently they had the most atheists per capita in the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:Omaha, Nebraska also voted for obama but calling it liberal is very silly--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ Oregon is liberal] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:07, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm slightly confused as to why it's relevant or not that Oregon is liberal. After all the state DOES have a law against bestiality, so that argues against liberals being tolerant of it. --[[User:ColSharp|ColSharp]] 08:33, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::Since when do liberals obey the laws on the books in the first place? This photo [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:1915b7ec753fa9d0352885dc23da4469.jpg] is proof that liberals have no intention of obeying laws regarding littering. They trashed Washington D.C. ''when they got their way'', January 20, 2009. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:10, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:::There's a law in New Jersey about recycling, yet I know several conservatives who refuse to recycle. Why is this? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 13:26, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
:I am disappointed in you most of all Ed. Coming from wikipedia and being the first to jump on others for incivility you ignore when it comes to the ruling chaste of Conservapedia. You should be ashamed. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:48, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I think you assume entirely too much about my dispositions. You really don't know what extent I "cackle" or if I "cackle" at all. You also don't know what value I place on "winning". In fact, you don't even know if I am one person or a team. I/we remain inscrutable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:24, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
::::User:Conservative, this is getting silly. You wrote for instance:
::::::''Actually KhalidM, I have a very outgoing personality and a university professor friend of mine told me that I would make a great administrator because I can be very diplomatic. While I realize that I will never cultivate a large atheist or liberal fan club, I can live with that. Conservative 20:34, 5 October 2011 (EDT) ''
::::So, while your grammatical gender may be undetermined, your number isn't. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== King George I ==

The article of [[King George I]] was deleted as a ''creation of vandals''. On the talk page I read the comment of User:RJJense: ''I added much new text, all of which I wrote, and previously posted on Citizendium.'' I looked up the article at Citizendium and it seemed to be quite informative - certainly not vandalistic! Could it be restored? I'd like to insert a valid link into [[elector]]s.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::I restored the last version by RJJense. I feel confident that his last version was a good article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:34, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks - it really seems so! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

=="New Ordeal"==
Hello, I noticed that you placed the quotation marks around the term "New Ordeal." As you have probably noticed I have been attempting to fix that article. Quite frankly, the article is pretty bad to start with and several of the references that prior authors cited have nothing to do with the topic. Do you know if there is procedure in which this article may be recommended for deletion? --[[User:Padams|Padams]] 15:33, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:Better to mark it as an essay. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

== Block of AugustO ==

I looked at [[Conservapedia:Editor's_guide#If_you_get_blocked]]:

''If you get blocked, it's probably because you (1) broke the rules and (2) ignored hints, requests and/or warnings. So the first thing you should do is review your communications with others here, particularly those who are admins. Have you been trying to get along by following our practices and supporting our goals, or have you been trying to change our ways? If you are new here, it's best to go along to get along. After you have contributed a lot, we'll be more likely to listen to your suggestions, but breaking the rules will just end up with eliminating you from the project. ''

::*I can't think of any rule which I broke
::*I was requested to ''to do some charitable work somewhere instead''. I'm already engaged in such work, so this doesn't apply...
::*I don't try to ''change our ways''. I try to correct factual errors (e.g., ιδού can be translated as ''at this moment'' or that it is right to call ''Carolus Martellus'' the grandson of ''Carolus Magnus''.)

''Perhaps upon reflection you may realize that you'd rather be part of the project than insist on your own way. You might want to apologize and get unblocked. ''

::*I don't insist on my own way and I apologize if anyone feels insulted by my criticism.

''If you want to discuss your block, '''do not create a new account'''. Rather, use one of the following methods to appeal the decision (listed in order of preference). ''

::*Here, I obviously failed.

1. ''Contact the person who blocked you (see below).
::*tried
2. ''If you get no reply after a reasonable amount of time, you may contact any Administrator.
::*tried
3. ''Email cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com giving the name of the Administrator or editor who blocked you, and the date, and it will be forwarded on to them.
::*tried

''If you contact more than one person about this, please do them the courtesy of letting them know who else you have tried contacting. ''
::*This should be obvious from the header of my emails.

''Contacting an Administrator or editor can usually be done by one of the following methods: ''
*''Use the "Email this user" link in the toolbox. This, however, will only work if both you and the Administrator or editor have enabled this on your/their respective accounts.
*''The Administrator or editor may have provided an email address or other contact information (e.g. AIM) on their user page.

::*This section seems to be obsolete: ''email this user'' doesn't work for any of the administrators I tried to reach. And I couldn't get Ed Poor's email address via his user page. So we are in a [[Catch 22]] kind of situation...
::*I emailed to <code>aschlafy@aol.com</code>, <code>conservapedia@zoho.com</code> and <code>cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com</code>. I didn't get any reply (is 1-2 days a ''reasonable amount of time'' to wait? I thinks so...) to my short email which stated: ''I understand that my criticisms of CBP and the World History Lectures are quite unwelcome, but they are hardly trolling! I'd appreciate if you lift my block.''
::*So I decided to create a new account to appeal the block, hoping that the advice against this action is as obsolete as other sections of the ''editor's guide''.
[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:56, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::August, I think you should start a career in sales. You certainly have the persistence to be a good salesman. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:47, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Ed Poor, the block of AugustO is now more than a week old. I tried to reach you via various channels - could you please lift the block as the stated reason ("trolling") doesn't apply? [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:09, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

:Please get a [[writing plan]] from him and get it to me, and I'll consider it. Meanwhile, any sysop is free to unblock him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:01, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
::Is that any official Sysop, or anyone with Block rights? I'd be happy to unblock Mr O so that he can post his writing plan.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:25, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
:::On second thoughts, perhaps I'll just go ahead. Please reverse my action if I'm overstepping the mark.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:33, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

*Thanks for the unblock!
*I read the article on the [[writing plan]], and I'll try to provide you with one. This would be easier if a ''sample plan'' were provided. But nonetheless, here it is:

Mainly I'm interested in the CBP. Mind you, I'm not ''Junker Jörg'', I'm not capable to create a translation on my own which stands for hundreds of years. But I think that translating the Bible in a group, and extensively discussing your work is a marvelous way to get a greater insight into the ''Book of books''. While doing so, I try to dig into what Conservative calls the ''ANE culture'', as you can see [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], where I try to shed light on timekeeping during the Roman empire.

When I came here, I thought that there would be a group of likewise interested individuals, but at the moment there seems to be only one other editor with similar interests.

As my approach to the CBP generates quite a few edits on talk-pages, I balance these with edits to articles. These tend to by connected somehow with my namesakes (August of Saxony, Ernest August of Hanover), the history - or just happen on pages where I read something which puzzled me :-)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== Abortion issue ==

It would be a great idea to merge the articles. In fact, if you were interested in expanding the article, I might be interested in helping.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:28, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, please help me organize this. We should give prominence to conservative views, but let's steer away from censoring liberal views. It would be nice if liberals could see '''why''' conservatives believe differently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:43, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::OK!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:48, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::I merged the articles and added a bit on abortion and political ideology. How is it?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:53, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

==Thanks for the change but==
perhaps it should be bed bugs (plural), and now when i make an edit and it goes thru, if i try to make another one i get "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it" but no one has. Going back to page and trying anew results in the same. 3.1: longetivity should be longevity.

Jesus is Lord, thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 07:58, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here ==

Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback [http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Panel_members.2C_please_give_your_feedback_below HERE]

Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:05, 16 November 2011 (EST)

:I have explained my ideas in private email to you and Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)

== a few messages to you ==

There are a few messages to you here: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Air_superiority [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:14, 26 May 2012 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for picking up some of my "wiki litter" that I left behind (redirects to non-existent pages). I will try to be more diligent as far as not littering in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:You're welcome. And don't bother yourself: it's better for you to focus your time on building the wiki, while less talented contributors like myself do the routine housekeeping.

:If I had your writing skill, I'd be making whole article like you do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:34, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

== A message to you from Cipe ==

Fixing a MediaWiki message:

Hello,

Could you perform the edit I described [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=992864#Edit_request here, on very bottom of the page]? I asked Aschlafly but he's probably busy now.

Best [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 15:33, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
::I know the basics of Wiki coding and not the advanced level coding. I would ask someone else. Try Ed Poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:32, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Unfortunately, I cannot edit Ed's talk page. Could you suggest someone different? Or message him?

:::The change is rather small and requires only copy-and-paste. More directly: you can copy contents of this: [[User:Cipe/MW_fix]] to: [[MediaWiki:Revision-info]]. Even if my suggestion is wrong, it can be reverted, so there is no danger. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 16:41, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Okay, I did it. But where can I see the results? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:53, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Thank you very much. You'll see it when checking older revision. Here is an example: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546].

I noticed that MediaWiki has a different message when you're checking current revision. I'll prepare fix in a moment. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:The message seems to have logged me out. I think it needs fixing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::I also got logged out, but only once. I can consistently see the new message now. Perhaps the software logs out when a edit to MediaWiki is made. Could you please copy [[User:Cipe/MW fix 2]] to [[MediaWiki:Revision-info-current]]? I promise it's the last change :) It is shown for a permalink to current revision. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:08, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I don't think that's it. I think you need to put the '''www.''' in front of '''www.conservapedia.com''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:09, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::::It seems to work. I can see the messages: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546 for past revisions] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=992065 for current revision]. Thanks for changing. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you for unlocking your talk page ==

I really appreciate being able to get in contact with you directly when the circumstances arise. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you ==
Now he can try to justify what he said about the article. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:29, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

== File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg ==

Do you think it would be appropriate to use this image in the [[Current TV]] article? It's already in Gore's main article, so why not include it in the article about his obscure TV network on channel 9800 on my TV? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== apology. ==

Hey, I just wanted to apologise for the comments I made related to you, they were impolite and unnecessary. I don't have anything against you or anything, I just posted something that I thought was relevent without thinking how it would be taken by anyone other than myself, as it happened they were rude and quite personal. I acknowledge that I behaved quite badly, and in future I will try to avoid giving you, or others, offense. So..... virtual handshake?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 06:18, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

:Oh, don't be so dramatic. Just comment on the articles and issues of the day, and forget about personalities. That's how this project's supposed to run. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
::lol. Nah it's difficult to tell over the internet how people are reacting, so for all I knew you could have been quite insulted or something, and I had to make sure that I was being very clear. Anyway, cool[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 01:03, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure you get it: We don't want personal remarks on this wiki, clear or not. You need to be clear only about one thing: what you intend to write about an article topic. You must not comment on other users in any way. Is '''that''' clear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== On Personal Attacks ==

Dear Mr. Poor,

As someone who has been the subject of personal comments (see [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987753&oldid=987715], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987827&oldid=987777], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987956&oldid=987955], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=990739&oldid=990566]), I would like to share my opinion on Conservapedia's policy on personal attacks.

I think it is very appropriate to make '''relevant''' comments on editing and other wiki behavior to determine what the best practices are with regards to editing and other actions and, if necessary, to instruct users who may not know better about such practices. For example, I have informed two administrators about redacting the automatically-generated deletion log entry to remove sensitive material. I have also asked one administrator to include source information in that user's uploaded images, requests with which this user has complied. Likewise, if someone has a habit of posting comments on talk pages without signing them, it is appropriate to inform them of how to sign posts. Further, if someone is about to violate 90/10, a warning is definitely appropriate. None of these have to do with the real-life '''personality''' that these editors, many of whom are brothers and sisters in Christ, have; these comments focus on on-wiki '''behavior'''.

Further, I think that if someone is going to make a statement regarding real-life facts or Conservapedia's commandments, policies, and best practices, it is appropriate to debate this statement '''without going into personality details'''. Such debate may very well include Socratic or rhetorical questioning as a argumentative device.

Of course, Mr. Schlafly is the owner of the site, so he has the final say in this, but I'm sure he would agree with what I have written. Although attacks on another editor's real-life personality should generally be removed, I do not see the need to remove good-faith debate and discussion over user '''behavior''' at Conservapedia.

Thank you for reading this. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:36, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:Yeah, thanks, Greg. If I err on the side of "absolutely nothing about the person" to an absurd point, please continue to help me out. I'm mainly opposed to comments like, "You're a jerk" or "I don't have to follow the rules."

:Nothing wrong with '''friendly''' personal comments, like, "Thanks for pointing out that a rigid, absolutist enforcement of the rules may not be wise." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Hey Ed ==

I saw your Arbcom case over at Wikipedia just today looking through for cases of bias there. :) Wikipedia's - nuts, huh? Lol. I ran into the Obama bias team over there in Scjessey, Wikidemon, and company, back in late 2009. It's become so hopelessly biased by now you've just got to laugh. They know they're keeping all controversy out of the Obama page and how biased they are, and don't care. Well, all my facts are at Conservapedia's services now. :) Anyway, just saying it's nice to see another ex-Wikipedian here I guess - hope we get some more! :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 01:15, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

==Tehpwn3r==
'User names based on your real name or initials are '''preferred'''' does not state that you will be blocked. [[User:Conservative|Also]].--[[User:Wishnaka|Wishnaka]] 19:51, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

*Inappropriate user name. It has been a general principle that one's user name be "based on one's real first name and last initial", though there are a number of reasons why that is not always practical. The point is that we don't like the kind of foolish "handles" that are often used in various blogs and social web sites. If you run afoul of this by accident, you will be asked to create a new account, and doing so will not be considered sockpuppetry. Of course, some user names are essentially just vandalism, and are treated that way.

== Randall7 ==

If you don't object, I suggest shortening his block to maybe 3 days. His remark, while rude and impertinent, did have some substance, and a hard block doesn't serve to do anything but cause more unhappiness. Thanks for considering,
[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:48, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

:If you unblock him, you're responsible. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:54, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

::I recommend keeping the week. And don't > dont. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:01, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Thanks for pointing out the typo.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:35, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
==Michael Baumgartner==
Dear Mr. Poor,
Please do a careful side-by-side comparison of [[Michael Baumgartner]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054 the Wikipedia article]. I did a google search on "Michael Baumgartner" and came up with a number of sources including the Wikipedia article. I took notes from all of the sources, and wrote a new article based on my notes. I honestly believe that the article uses a different set of sources, covers ideas in a different order, and covers the topic differently than Wikipedia. Please take another look, and if you agree, please restore [[Michael Baumgartner]]. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:05, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
*I understand the workload you face. Could you please look at the article and reconsider? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:51, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
*:Already restored in good faith; I trust you, and I'm not going to compare it closely. I'll leave that to others. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:54, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

== My condolences ==

On the death of the Rev Dr Moon. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 18:54, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
==Thanks==
Thanks for the welcome. I wonder if you could help me. I tried [[Special:MovePage/William. J. Fulbright]] but apparently I don't have permission. The page should be at [[J. William Fulbright]], the name of the founder of the Fulbright scholarship program.
:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:26, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== Sun Myung Moon ==

You changed the first sentence of the protected article on [[Sun Myung Moon]] from the present to the past tense. Could you take care of the rest of the article, too? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:35, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
*Feel free to take care of that yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:01, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
::I took care of it. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:21, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Thanks to both of you! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:32, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

== Requesting Assistance ==

Mr. Poor, I'm relatively new here and don't completely know my way around. Would you please look at my comment concerning [[Talk:American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel|American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel]]. If my view is in line with the site, I'm quite certain that a template or procedure is needed at this point. If my views are not in line with the site, please feel free to remove that comment as you see fit. You seem experienced here, so your guidance is requested. --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] 00:03, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

== [[Psychological manipulation]] ==

I've noticed that you moved/redirected the above article to [[Essay: Psychological manipulation in the Bible]] on grounds "not a general article; case study uses a Bible story". I've got somewhat confused about this step, because IMHO the article is general and only the case study section itself contains a "Bible story". In fact the rest is a combination of various sources, some of them far from having anything to do w/ Bible at all. I was by far not completely done with that article and now I actually do not know how to continue working on it. It says now "This Is An Original Work. Contributors should add their signatures to the end section. If published, a notice will be posted and, if desired, contributors will be recognized." but that was not my idea at all, I would be more than happy if anyone could help to extend that, in my opinion, general article. If I could suggest anything then I would like to suggest to move only the 'case study' section to the essay realms and keep the rest as general article with hyperlink to that essay in appropriate, perhaps 'See Also' section. I also deem as deficiency that article does not appear in the Psychology category now, I believe it belongs there.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:35, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

==[[Objections to evolution]]==
As for your rationale for redirect on 'Objections to evolution', namely "I thought we already had plenty of articles opposing the Theory of evolution", I agree with you that "we have", but still would dare to oppose the redirect on grounds that 'Objections to evolution' is an article that brainwashes people at WP and enjoys special defence by witch-hunters who heavily suppress any different points of view there thus I believe it is of significant importance to have available alternative view on the same topic under the very same title.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:50, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

== Quote Templates ==

I was doing some ''random page'' editing and found that there was a whole load of quote templates you created a while ago that link to nowhere and nothing seems to link to them. It seems the template for linking these quotes never got off the ground. I'm proposing that these either be deleted or put into some sort of quote page as I don't think there much use at the moment (except for possibly taking up server space). Kind Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 02:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

==[[Unificationism]]==
I am not surprised to see you make changes to the Unificationism page in defense of your church, but why did you remove the part in which Moon told an interviewer, "God is living in me and I am the incarnation of himself." "The whole world is in my hand and I will conquer and subjugate the world." [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19459920?print=true]

Are you saying the BBC made that up? [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:23, 14 November 2012 (EST)

:You can put that back in. Sorry for the delayed answer; my day job keeps me pretty busy.

:Be advised, though, that Rev. Moon himself disputed the ''conquer and subjugate'' quote, telling Newsweek interviewers that he had been quoted out of context. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:35, 20 November 2012 (EST)

== Way to stop the spammers ==

From Aschlafly's talk page
Yesterday after I prayed an idea came to me (most likely from god) to stop the spammers from registering the spam accounts. If we can move away from user captcha and instead use a question that requires some knowledge (for example what team does tim tebow sit on the bench for or which team did he turned around) as the spambots will be completely flummoxed by this. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:16, 19 November 2012 (EST)

:The questycaptcha is excellent for this purpose. It stops ocr bots, and most paid spammers. The code would be:

require_once( "$IP/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php" );
$wgCaptchaClass = 'QuestyCaptcha';
$arr = array (
"A question?" => "An answer!",
"What is this wiki's name?" => "Conservapedia",
'Who is Tim Tebow' => 'An athlete',
foreach ( $arr as $key => $value ) {
$wgCaptchaQuestions[] = array( 'question' => $key, 'answer' => $value );
}
Which you would place in /rootfiledirectory/localsettings.php[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:54, 19 November 2012 (EST)''

: Given your considerable experience in operating and maintaining wiki's like Wikipedia and convservapedia, do you think you would be able to implement this ? Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 05:12, 23 November 2012 (EST)

==A serious Biblical matter==

Aschlafly wrote the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space ([[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). First he wrote:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.'''"}}
[[User:Iduan]] toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it'''."}}

I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.

I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.

I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person '''in a Biblical matter''' (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:26, 25 November 2012 (EST)

:If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:37, 5 December 2012 (EST)
:*''"Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? "'' As I tried to convey with the phrase "this wouldn't have been to problematic", there is nothing wrong with the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. But I think it ''is'' problematic that the ''insight'' of the essay spills over into a page in the main space, i.e., [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], and becomes a ''fact'' during this process.
:*''"If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree."'' It's the other way round: stating the ''insight'' in an article in the main space without making it clear that the only source for this idea is Andrew Schlafly is lending it an improper credibility. If you read an unsourced, unmarked statement in an encyclopedia, the reader generally takes it as a kind of common knowledge, even more so if he is e.g., a high-school pupil.
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:28, 6 December 2012 (EST)

Conservapedia is a mix of opinion and fact. Each is clearly marked. Talk pages are filled with unsourced claims, and we make very few efforts to police such talk.

If there is currently an unsourced, unmarked statement in an article that needs attention, please point it out to me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:09, 12 December 2012 (EST)

:Thank you - if unsourced, unmarked statements are reintroduced into the article, I'll point them out to you! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 12 December 2012 (EST)

== Hello ==

Im new here and need some help. I figured I would go to you since you seem very involved in the community. I recently tried to instate an article about R*tional Wiki and suddenly it was deleted. I thought since we had an article about Wikipedia that we could write about wikis. I also noticed that it had been deleted several times by the same people. Why? The words are spam filtered to. I feel that we need to write about the faults and propaganda of this completely biased website. Not to mention they completely badmouth you in the most rude ways. Please help...--[[User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 14:18, 31 December 2012 (EST)

== Mass Wedding ==

I was wanting to know what is the significance of mass weddings in the unification church ? I see your church has recently conducted it's first mass wedding since the very untimely death of the great Sun Myung Moo. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:05, 17 February 2013 (EST)

== Not sure how to respond to messages. ==

I am not sure how to answer the message you sent me. There does not seem to be a way to respond attached to the message you sent. Do I just respond in this open forum? Thanks.

== Math ==

Greetings, Ed. We haven't communicated in quite a while.

The reason I am writing is that I saw your recent [[Essay:Campaign_to_make_Conservapedia_unusable]]. I know that this has long been an issue, and that you and I have both put a lot of effort into making math/science articles accessible. I have one comment about it: ''Your audience for this essay is just yourself.'' All the people who made things inaccessible—Foxtrot, Lemonpeel, Jaques, etc, are long gone. So, if you want the situation to improve, instead of writing an essay, you're just going to have to make the improvements yourself.

Actually, I'm not sure what articles you have in mind for your criticism. If it's all the topology stuff ([[Regular_space]], [[Sequentially_compact]], [[Hausdorff_space]], ...), you have my sympathy, and you will just have to delete them. No one will improve them. But I strongly advise you ''not'' to delete them. They aren't doing any harm, and no one reads them (except me :-). An encyclopedia is not judged by how esoteric its most esoteric articles are, but by how well its mainstream articles are written, and how well those mainstream articles cover the field. I think the mainstream math articles at Conservapedia, like integers, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers, are pretty good.

Which brings me to my specific point. It isn't true that no one edits math articles any more. There was a small amount of activity on integers and natural numbers recently. Perhaps this is what led you to write the essay. I don't think there was anything over-the-top about the recent edits, and I think you sometimes over-react to things like this. I believe that the recent edits in that area were well-intentioned, and trying to do a good job.

Giving a really good definition of the integers or natural numbers, in the way that you and I would like, at the appropriate level but with real clarity, is ''impossible''. Saying "evenly divisible by 1" doesn't work, because the reader who doesn't know what an integer is will have no conception of what division is or what "evenly divisible" means. Saying "has no fractional part" doesn't work either. I can see what the author intended--numbers are things like "3.7", and ".7" is the fractional part. So, having no fractional part means it is something like just 3. That's correct, but it relies on having an intuitive notion of real numbers, that is, things like 3 and 3.1 and 3.7 and 3.14159.... (Speaking of which, happy pi day!!!) Now most people have an intuitive feel for numbers with fractions well before they have to think about a formal definition of natural numbers. I know I did. That is, I knew about "3" in the context of "3.7 without the .7", or "the biggest markings on a ruler, rather than all the small ones."

So how do you write the article? You do the best you can, giving an imprecise defintion in terms of "numbers that you count with", or something like that. (By the way, I really really liked your "mathisfun" web link explaining these things on an elementary level, and I used it (crediting you) in my article at Ameriwiki.) So the right thing is probably to define "counting numbers", as in the web link, and accepting that that's the best you can do. Then address, very lightly, the issue of how that might be different from "natural numbers", and whether zero is included, and so on. It's not worth making a big deal about. Just pick some definitions, and stick to them. Mention that maybe not everyone agrees. Don't worry about students getting a bad grade on an exam because of a nit-picking difference--people taking exams will presumably have attended a class and gotten the instructor's view on this, if the instructor thinks it's important. The way you addressed the issue in the natural number article is just right.

Yeah, the stuff about integers being "the only integral domain whose positive elements are well ordered and in which order is preserved by addition" is over the top. Either take it out or move it to the very bottom. Other than that, I think the natural number / integer articles are in pretty good shape.

One more thing: Don't be put off by the fancy "N" symbol. The people are not trying to show off. The symbols are cool, and the students will think so. When I was in junior high, I thought that the summation and integral symbols were really cool, long before I knew what they meant. Let the students see them.

And I still say that the Peano axioms would be a good thing to have at Conservapedia. Nowhere near as complicated as "integral domain whose positive elements are well ordered", and really interesting for the target audience. You may copy my Peano article from Ameriwiki if you wish.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:34, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
:I just wanted to add my thoughts as a math graduate student who has made several edits to our math articles. As someone who plans on becoming a professor, I think it is fundamental that, as an educational resource, Conservapedia has accessible (to the extent possible) math material. However, we are not limited in space like a print encyclopedia, so there is certainly room for us to have more in-depth coverage of math topics for more advanced scholars. It's not my intention to make Conservapedia unusable as an educational resource; if you think that my edits are not helpful, please feel free to discuss them with me. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:20, 15 March 2013 (EDT)

::You may have missed my point, which is that 99% of our readers are concerned with math that is below the college level. I want the majority of our editorial effort in math to focus on what these readers need. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:30, 17 March 2013 (EDT)

Ed: I take exception to your implication that I "missed your point" about the intended audience of CP, or how to write for it. Be assured that I absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely understand these issues. If you have any question about this, please see my articles on [[Limit (mathematics)]], [[Algebra]], [[Compass and straightedge]], and [[Cramer's rule]]. ''These are all topics that I studied in high school'', and I'm sure you did too. In particular, I put an enormous amount of work into the limit article.

In any case, this stuff is entirely in your hands now. If you have any problems with the math articles, you have the administrative power to delete any articles that you think are inappropriate, like the [[Kolmogorov space]] article. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:57, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

:Well, thanks, brother wolf, for exposing your neck so meekly. But I have no desire to be top dog, if you'll excuse me for mixing metaphors. I'm glad you understand and work hard, and I hope you will help me make high school math (and below) accessible to the average reader - not just those in the top 1% like you and me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:47, 5 April 2013 (EDT)

I must confess that I don't understand your metaphors very much -- brother wolf? exposing my neck? I'm pretty clueless about contemporary culture. But I know what "top dog" means. There's no doubt that you are a top dog, being an administrator. Also, I'm flattered to be considered in the top 1%, but, remember, there have been a lot of really sharp people here. So I'm not sure about being in the top 1%.

In any case, good luck, and have fun. And don't hesitate to delete stuff that you consider inappropriate. Really.

I'll come by and look around and say hello from time to time. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:50, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

== Carbon Dioxide ==

I have redone Brenden's edits in a number of different edits. I hope this helps you. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 07:01, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

:It did. See my subsequent edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:23, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

== Understanding Islam ==

Hi Ed, thanks for this entry: [[Islam and tolerance]]. I followed the reference link to the news story "The Roots of Muslim rage", and read the article. I thought it was really interesting, and as I am trying to better understand their beliefs and attitude towards us, (those of Christian faith and in Western Nations) I wanted you to know this was helpful to me, thanks. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 18:36, 15 April 2013 (EDT)
:I put the article up for deletion; please contest me on it's talk page. Thanks, [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:29, 5 July 2013 (EDT)

== Reminder ==

Some of your newer articles need some categories. I don't really know much about subject matter so would probably be better if you do it. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:03, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

:Feel free to place any category at all, when I'm too rushed to do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:18, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

:: Normally I would, just not to familiar with some of subject matter. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:22, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

==Christian Chivalry==
I redirected your article on [[Christian chivalry]] to the already existing page [[Chivalry]] since they're the same concept and the other page was already much more in-depth. Hope that was alright. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:20, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

:Did you complete the merge before reducing the page to a redirect? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:16, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

I'm not an admin, I don't think I can do a full merge like that... I figured since it was just a sentence and the sentiment of that sentence was already covered in the other article that the redirect would be sufficient... sorry. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 22:26, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

:If you did your best in good faith, then no apology is needed. :-)

:I'll take a look later on, and if I think that quote is relevant I'll tack it on to [[Chivalry]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:28, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

==[[Talk:Gun control#New Infographic]]==
As you are one of the main contributors to the [[Gun control]] page, I'm writing here to ask you to follow the link I posted in the heading of this section and read the data I found. I think it could be very helpful to the article, but as I said there I'm far from an expert in interpreting that kind of data. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:59, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

:I'm interested in describing both sides in the [[Firearms debate]]. I don't think we have to overemphasize one side. Put in anything you like. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:59, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

==fnarrow's reply to your terms==
I'm just copy and pasting what he sent me, please don't shoot the messenger.
<blockquote>[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], I agree to your terms unequivocally and will do everything I can on the future to not allow my emotions to get the better of me in the future. That said, I just want to take a second to point out that 2 of the 6 examples you gave of my behavior, (4 and 5 I believe, i do not have the other page open as I type this email) were not posted by me but were part of a comment posted by another user in response to my comments. The other 4 I do not deny and I agree that they were out of line. To that end, I would like to point out that if you or [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] look at the final interaction between myself and [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] in the "why complaints will go nowhere" section of that same page, you will see that we had settled our differences peacefully. It wasn't until after that that i was banned for earlier statements made in the heat of the moment and out of exasperation regarding the situation at the time they were made. I do not contest the justice of the 1 day block, but when it was immediately followed by the infinite block before I had a chance to respond, apologize or anything else, that was when I felt I had been treated unfairly and asked my friend to join the site as a conduit for contact. (thanks again John!) While I therefore still think the infinite block was unwarranted, i do apologize for my actions and will not allow it to happen again. Thanks for your time and i look forward to helping the site grow from this point forward. --fnarrow
</blockquote> btw, I'm not 100# sure what a "sock" is, assure you that to my understanding of the term I am not one. I have neither the time nor the inclination to edit your wiki and only made this account at my friend's request since he had no other contact anyone here. [[User:JSandler|JSandler]] 22:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

:Karajou said I could unblock Fnarrow. I hope this turns out okay. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:29, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

== Fnarrow ==

Would you be able to restore Fnarrows user and talk page whilst your at it mate ? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:30, 29 April 2013 (EDT)
:(this is [[User:fnarrow|fnarrow]], I'm using [[User:JSandler|John(jsandler)'s]] phone at the moment as my IP is still blocked even though my user page shows that I have been unblocked by [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]... Can that be fixed?) I wanted to thank everyone for helping me understand what happened and helping me get reinstated. I look forward to working with you all more in the future. Also, as [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] already posted, is it possible to have my user page and talk page content restored? Most of it can be deleted now that issues have been settled, but I'd like to recover other parts. Thanks again, [[User:fnarrow|fnarrow]] 14:00, 29 April 2013 (EDT)
::Ed, yes I can post again, I had assumed you had unblocked me... but I guess not based upon your comment on my talk page. Anyway, can you restore the content which was deleted from my user page and talk page? I don't know how to do that... Also, since you're a very knowledgeable Conservative and I consider myself to be a fairly knowledgeable Libertarian I'd be willing to work with you on the [[Conservatives and libertarians]] page you created if you're still looking for someone to help with that project. Let me know. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

I unblocked your username. Someone else seems to have unblocked your IP address; I don't know how to do that.
I'll leave your user and talk pages as C left them - ask him if he wants them undeleted. I'm just unblocking you, in light of your promise to chill out and be more focused on articles.

Please start the [[Conservatives and libertarians]] page, and I'll join in. Thanks! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:41, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

:I think we can do that although I am not good with wikis. From what i Understand, Libertarians are conservative when it comes to economics, gun ownership, small government, defence etc but are closer to liberals on other social issues. The way I understand it, libertarians believe the law should protect person and property, but go no further than that. I will do some research in the next few days, write a beta copy and forward to you for review/editing if thats ok

::Excellent, Patmac. I'll add that to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

== Homosexuality article and General protection idea/proposal ==

The [[homosexuality]] article seems to be a bit broken. The table of contents is in the wrong position. Could you or another sysop please fix this ? Also I had an Idea re article protection. Would it be possible to protect some article so that only those users with '''edit''' and '''sysop''' rights edit them. This would allow those pages to be edited and improved by trusted and known users whilst stopping liberal trolls and thugs pushing their POV and vandalizing them. I think that something like this would help improve the quality and accuracy of the encyclopedia as it would allow for updates, improvements, tweaks and general formatting improvements to be made to our most popular articles [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:45, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

:For questions about rights (which involve software tweaks), talk to Andy. I can always unprotect an article at least temporarily. But if you want a longterm solution, I'm the wrong man to ask. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:41, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

== Odysseus ==

*You should highlight quotes by including them in apostrophes: see [[Help:How to Code]] for a simple introduction - and follow [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Odysseus&diff=1052312&oldid=1052300 this link] for an example.
*If you include a link to a source just by using simple square brackets (like <nowiki>[http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/odysseus.htm]</nowiki>), it appears only as a number (like <nowiki>[1]</nowiki>) in the text, similar to footnotes. But unlike those, it isn't listed in the references. To get it listed there, you have to include your link into <nowiki><ref>...</ref></nowiki> - tags. (see [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Odysseus&diff=1052314&oldid=1052313 this link] for an example)
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:31, 15 May 2013 (EDT)
::Perhaps either AugustO or Ed Poor can help me, but other than on recent wikis where the quotation mark and the italic notation can be easily confused, I have never seen italic font used as a stand-alone indication of a block quotation. I have seen italic used for titles of books or for emphasis or for foreign language words, but not as a replacement for quotation marks. Any sources for this alternative would be appreciated. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:56, 15 May 2013 (EDT)
:A very good question! Conservapedia states in its [[Conservapedia:Formatting conventions]]:
::''Italic sections of text are usually used to portion off a portion of text, indicating it is integral to the sentence without being part of its continuation. ''
:But while wikipedia don't like when you put quotes in italics
::''For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics. (See Quotations below.) This means that (1) a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation, and (2) italics are no substitute for proper quotation formatting. ''
:Conservapedia doesn't address the matters (as far as I could see). Instead, Conservapedia offer some templates which try to do the job.
:*<nowiki>{{Quote}} or {{Q}}</nowiki>
{{Q|the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.}}
:This template expects an author, so it can't be used in our special case:
{{Q|the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.|John Taylor Gatto}}
:Note how the text gets italicized, and is included in quotation marks: but this template is only used eleven times on this wiki.
:*<nowiki>{{Quote box}}</nowiki>
{{Quote box|the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.}}
:*<nowiki>{{Quotebox}}</nowiki>
{{Quotebox|the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.}}
:*<nowiki>{{Quotebox2}}</nowiki>
{{QuoteBox2|quote=the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.|source=John Taylor Gatto}}
:''QuoteBox2'' is used ten times on Conservapedia, ''Quotebox'' 422 times, ''Quote box'' only 1 time. Clearly they aren't very popular.
:*<nowiki>{{Cquote}}</nowiki>
{{Cquote|the Greek hero who spent ten years fighting his way home, spurning wealth, fame, and the promise of immortality to reclaim his family.}}
:This is the most popular version, used over 1500 times.
:My conclusion:
:#The main feature of a quotation are - surprise, surprise - the quotation marks. Especially for short quotes, they shouldn't be omitted. I haven't used them regularly in the past (see the first quotations in this section), but I'll do so henceforth.
:#Conservapedia is mute on the use of italics to mark a quote. But perhaps we should follow wikipedia's lead and just don't do so
:#Indenting via ::: alone is not enough to mark a section as a long quote, at least <nowiki><blockquote> .. </blockquote></nowiki> should be used - this indents the quote from the left and the right margin. A longer quotation should use one of the templates - best probably <nowiki>{{cquote}}</nowiki>.
:Any thoughts? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:50, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

::My thought is that the last time we discussed a formatting issue, I tried to throw my weight around, and it didn't end on a cheerful note. So why don't I just follow whatever you recommend? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:24, 15 May 2013 (EDT)
:::Thanks to both of you. I just want to say that I have never, ever thought of italics as conveying the limits of a quotation. I always assumed that someone had put a printout of wiki-marked up text into an OCR scanner and it just got confused between double apostrophes and a quote mark. I agree with your bottom line. Thanks [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:40, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

== Neutral third party's viewpoint sought ==

Hi Ed. I'd like to get your views on the discussion between another user and me that took place on my talk page. It looks as if you recently blocked him over another matter. I think he just tried to bully me for no good reason, but I'd like to hear what a senior admin thinks. Thanks for weighing in if you get the chance. [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 00:14, 18 May 2013 (EDT)

Ed, I believe RontheDon and Bamorris9 are parodists--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 11:52, 20 May 2013 (EDT)

== Propositional calculus ==

I started that article. It's a topic that you have, on several occasions (remember the "wff N proof" game?) expressed an interest in. I urge you to fill it out. Though I have a degree in mathematics, I do not know how to explain this topic at a high-school level, and I do not write about topics that I can't explain at a high-school level.

I also notice no activity on any "sciency" (STEM?) stuff over the last few months, from you or anyone else. Have you lost interest? I hope not. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:00, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

== Susan Rice ==

Hi can you please help me to expand the article [[Susan E. Rice]]--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:29, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

:I dont know how to put in a Officeholder-template. Can you please do it. Here are all informations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice --[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 13:32, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

== Edward Snowden ==

It should read [[Edward Snowden]]. That was my mistake. I might even have heard someone else mispronounce that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:04, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

== Lukashenko ==

Hi can you please uploud this picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%90.%D0%93.%D0%9B%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%88%D1%8D%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0_(%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BA%D0%B0).jpeg ? Thanks--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 09:18, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

:For the [[Belarus]] article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

:No for the [[Alexander Lukashenko]]-article please.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 10:50, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

I guess you mean [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/%D0%90.%D0%93.%D0%9B%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%88%D1%8D%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0_%28%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BA%D0%B0%29.jpeg this picture.] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 24 June 2013 (EDT)

:yes and please uploud a picture of [[Nicolas Maduro]]. Like [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Canciller_de_Venezuela_y_Ofrenda_Floral_a_Bol%C3%ADvar_%284%29.jpg this] here--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:25, 24 June 2013 (EDT)

:When will you uploud them?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 08:55, 3 July 2013 (EDT)

Islam

2013-07-05T19:27:56Z

Brenden: remove link to single qoute

[[File:Madina Haram at evening .jpg|center|800px|thumb|Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the Mosque of the Prophet) in [[Medina]], [[Saudi Arabia]], the site of [[Muhammad|Muhammad's]] tomb.]]

'''Islam''' is a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[Abrahamic religion]] based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]] (or often [[Mohammed]] and other variants), a seventh century [[Arab]] who, according to Muslim belief, was an agent of divine action. Muhammad also claimed birth to the descendents of Abraham. Muhammed claimed to have received revelations from Allah via the archangel Gabriel, which were written in the [[Qur'an]] ([[Koran]]) - thus forming the core teachings of Islam.

==Overview==
The word "Islam" means "submission" (to [[Allah]]) in [[Arabic language|Arabic]]. Islam as originally designed in the Qur'an presents itself as an Abrahamic faith and has [[Moses]] in it<ref>Brannon Wheeler. Moses in the Qur'an and Islamic Exegesis. Routledge, 2002.</ref> as well as [[Jesus]] as a prophet in Islam,<ref>Muhammad Ata ur-Rahim, Ahmad Thomson. Jesus: Prophet of Islam. TTQ, INC., 2003.</ref> but not as God's son. Islam has been criticized for some time, due to its demanding of strict submissiveness especially of women, and its predisposition to being violent suspicious of other faiths and attacking other faiths deemed a threat to Islam, as a result there have been over 20,000 terrorist attacks committed by extremist Muslims since 2001.<ref>http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/</ref> A more recent strain of Islam has combined European totalitarianism and a virulent anti-Semiticism. This version is called [[Jihadism]], [[Islamism]], radical Islam or militant Islam. Without the historic institution of the Caliph, this form degenerates into terrorist stateless activity that strikes at the heart of civilized man. Moderate Muslims have denounced the Jihadist terrorists and believe that mainstream Islam has become corrupted over the years that there needs to be an [[Islamic Reformation]] similar to that of the [[Protestant Reformation]].<ref>Michaelle Browers, Charles Kurzman. An Islamic Reformation? Lexington Books, 2004.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.danielpipes.org/954/distinguishing-between-islam-and-islamism|title=Distinguishing between Islam and Islamism|author=Daniel Pipes|date=June 30, 1998}}</ref>

There are small groups of largely Westernized Muslims who publicly reject Islamism. Such moderate Muslim conservatives are in the [[Republican Party]], known as the [[Muslim Republicans]].<ref>http://www.muslimrepublicans.net/</ref> One of America's Founding Fathers, [[Thomas Jefferson]], who was a religious [[libertarian]], declared: "''freedom for the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination''."<ref>John A. Garraty, Story of America Beginnings to 1877, (1992) Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pg 706.</ref>

Issues of Islam have arisen in the 2012 US Presidential campaign. Republican Presidential candidate [[Mitt Romney]] has said that: "''Radical, violent Islamists pose a threat to Americans and others around the world.''" and that "''they take a very different view of Islam than the Muslims I know.''" Romney has said that when he lived in Detroit he knew Muslims, as Detroit has a large Muslim population, and says "''They are peace-loving and America-loving individuals. I believe that very sincerely. I believe people of the Islamic faith do not have to subscribe to the idea of radical, violent jihadism.''<ref>http://www.muslimrepublicans.net/</ref> Former Republican presidential nominee candidate [[Ron Paul]], a libertarian conservative, says that America should not fear Islam and said that America should just embrace people of all faiths.<ref>http://www.muslimrepublicans.net/</ref> American conservative author Margaret Hoover believes that the Republican Party needs to recognize Muslim Republicans, noting an example of Muslim Republican youth Suhail Khan who she describes as "''one of thousands of Muslim Americans who work to promote Christian-Muslim understanding''".<ref>Margaret Hoover, ''American Individualism: How a New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party'', Random House Digital, Inc., 2011, pg 202.</ref> Candidates for the Republican nomination like [[Newt Gingrich]] and [[Rick Santorum]] strongly criticized Islamic extremism.<ref>http://www.muslimrepublicans.net/</ref>

[[Multiculturalism|Multiculturalists]] ignore or minimize violence in the history of Islam and exaggerate Christian atrocities to advance a [[moral equivalence]]. Proponents of this view often cite the [[Crusades|Great Crusades]]--an unsuccessful attempt by Western Christians to retake parts of the [[Byzantine Empire]] that had been conquered by Islamic armies--and various religious wars which were later fought in Europe between branches of Christianity. However, they brand critics of Islamism “racists” and “[[Islamophobia|Islamophobes]]” for exposing today’s threats by [[jihadism|jihadists]].<ref>http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/charity.html</ref>

A follower of Islam is called a "[[Muslim]]" or "Moslem", a term which means "one who submits (to Allah)". The older terms "Mohammedan" and "Muhammedan" ("follower of Muhammad"), have fallen out of use.<ref> Additional archaic terms for Muslims include "Hagarene", and "Saracen". Saracen as a term for Muslims was limited to the Crusade era, although it makes frequent re-appearances in pre-modern polemics. Hagarene was a more common term in pre-modern works, as it denotes the biblical connection of Hagar the mother of Ishmael who is reported as the patriarch of Islam. Additional names for Muslims in pre-modern and Medieval works are generally derived from misspellings.</ref>

==Theology==
There are no clergy, but there are religious teachers, or [[Imam]]s, who have their followings. All Muslims are supposed to follow the teachings of Muhammad, whom they believe to be Allah's ('''الله''' in [[Arabic]]) last and greatest [[prophet]]. The teachings of Muhammad are transmitted through the [[Qur'an]], the Hadith, and the Sunnah. The Sunnah is a general term for "the life and doings of the Prophet", which all Muslims are called on to replicate. The faith teaches that the Archangel [[Gabriel]] appeared to Muhammad in a cave reciting verbatim a revelation from Allah. The first word that Gabriel says to Muhammad is "Iqra" or "Recite/Proclaim",which is found in the 96th Sura of the Qur'an.

Muslims believe that God revealed the Qur'an (or Koran) to Muhammad. The key miracle of Islam comes from the historical condition of the illiterate and uneducated Muhammad, as the Qur'an is composed in an erudite and complex form of Arabic prose and poetry<ref>Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- Taught man that which he knew not.(Surah 96:1-5)</ref>. The Qur'an was not written down in a systematic fashion until a decade after Muhammad died, preferable transmission being through oral recitation. The Qur'an is considered by muslims to be the pure and holy word of God, uncreated and eternal. In Islamic theology the term uncreated is very important, as it implies that there is no author for the Qur'an, only the delivering of the word to Muhammad who delivered it to the Sahab and the Salaf (The Companions and the Pure), who delivered it to the scribe delegated to record it in the reign of the Caliph Uthman bin Affan.

==Origins==
Like Christianity and Judaism, Islam originated in the Middle East. Islam claims to trace its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, rather that he restored the original faith of Abraham and the prophets that followed as recorded in the lost books of the Tawrat and Injil.

Based upon this belief, the [[Bible]], both the [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s, is believed to have become corrupted through the [[Bible translations|translations and misinterpretations]] accumulated over several millenia. The criticism of the [[Torah]] centers around the reconstruction of the existing Biblical text required after the "[[Babylon]]ian captivity". The criticism of the New Testament centers in the many disputed gnostic texts which contradict the orthodox biblical canon. Interestingly, Islamic jurisprudence accepts that the Injil was complete and whole up until the revelation of Muhammad. Therefore there is some inconsistency in the claims made against the New Testament. For more information, see [[The Bible versus the Qur'an]].
[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Mecca]], one of the holy cities of Islam.]]

==Today==
Islam is the worlds second largest religion, with over 1.6 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to conversions, high birth rates, and redefinitions of the term 'Muslim'. Conversions to Christianity (from ''any'' faith or lack thereof) outnumber those to Islam, but cannot keep up with the birthrate discrepancy.<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm World Christian Encyclopedia]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/AlJazeerahAfrica.php Translation of AL-Jazeerah interview between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani]</ref>

[[Indonesia]] has the largest Muslim population in the world.

==Historical Background==

According to Islamic belief, in approximately 610 A.D., [[Muhammad]], a 40-year-old merchant of the Quraysh tribe in [[Mecca]], located in the Hijaz (now eastern [[Saudi Arabia]]), was commanded by the angel [[Gabriel]] (or Jibreel) to "recite" the message of Allah (The Muslim god). Gabriel said mankind had lost sight of Allah's previous messages to earlier prophets, [[Adam]], [[Noah]], [[Abraham]], [[Moses]], [[Solomon]], and [[Jesus]], among others, and that Muhammad was to spread Allah's message to all people so that mankind would know how to live, how to show respect for Allah, and how to prepare for the judgment day.

The message to Muhammad was to be God's last and fullest revelation, a direct copy of the Umm Al Khitab, the mother of all books located in heaven next to God; Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets." Muhammad won some converts to Islam in his local area, but his [[monotheist]] preaching threatened to undermine the profitable [[polytheist]] pilgrim traffic supporting many Meccan merchants. In 622 A.D., the merchants drove Muhammad and his followers out of Mecca to the city of Yathrib (later renamed [[Medina]], or the city - as in the city of the prophet). This flight (hijra) from Mecca to Medina marks the beginning of the Muslim lunar calendar, and is celebrated each year in the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Muhammad's forces, composed of the sahaba (companions) from Mecca ,and the Ansar (allied tribes from Yathrib) started attacking the trade caravans going in and out of Mecca, cutting off its economic lifeline. After a series of battles between the Meccans and Muhammad's forces, Mecca finally accepted Muhammad's ultimatum to succumb and convert to Islam. The city welcomed the prophet back in 630. Muhammad died in 632.
[[File:Islam750.jpg|thumb|590px]]

Tribal elders in a traditional council called the "Shura" elected [[Abu Bakr]] to be Muhammad's successor, or [[Caliph]] (Khalifa). Abu Bakr united the tribes of the Arabian peninsula during his two years as head of the new faith. Upon his death, the elders elected [[Umar ibn al-Khattab]] the next Caliph. During Umar's ten year reign, Islam invaded and spread through conquest and negotiation into [[Egypt]], [[Syria]], [[Palestine]], [[Iraq]], and parts of [[Iran]]. Umar was assassinated by a Persian (modern day Iran) in 644, and was succeeded by [[Uthman ibn Affan]], who continued the invasions to spread Islam into [[North Africa]], [[Cyprus]], the rest of Iran, [[Afghanistan]], and parts of [[India]] and [[Pakistan]]. Over the next two centuries, Islamic armies continued to expanded Islam's empire into sub-Saharan Africa, [[Spain]], South-east and Central Asia, and [[Turkey]].

The Muslim armies conquered and superseded the ancient Sassanid and Byzantine empires which had ruled before. Within a generation of Muhammad's death Muslim armies occupied an empire stretching from the Nile river to the far off Iranian province of khorasan. Reasons for the rapid conquest are varied and obscure. The Arab armies were more akin to tribal war bands raiding and settling where and when they could. The Byzantine and Sassanid empires had been at war for centuries. The constant simmering conflict between Constantinople and Persia reached a climax in the early 7th century. The Sassanids conquered briefly Egypt and the Levant threatening the central Byzantine heartland of Anatolia. Under the military reforms of the emperor Heraclius, the Byzantine army consolidated and counter attacked, recapturing all that they had lost and capturing the Sassanian capital of Ctesiphon in 628.

This brief end of the Roman-Persian wars disrupted the frontier areas which had predicated their economies on raiding and mercenary activities. Two major areas in Arabia were directly affected. The Lackmid tribe and the Gassanid tribe both acted as mercenaries for the Persians and Romans. The official religion of both tribes analogically mirrored that of their overseers. Monophysite Christianity was common, particularly of the Jacobite sect. The death of Muhammad and the subsequent Ridda wars occupied these warrior tribes until the reign of Caliph Umar. Additionally, there was great religious unrest in the levant and Egypt. These areas resented the ruinous taxes and the harsh orthodoxy imposed by the emperor in Constantinople.

The same climate was present in the Sassanid realm with the rise of the dualism of the Manicheans. Under the Caliph Umar ,the Arab tribes which had concluded the infighting following the death of Muhammad were allowed to raid into the Byzantine and Sassanid fronteirs. The weakened state of both regimes from both military and economic exhaustion and religious unrest made them fertile picking grounds for the tribal warbands. The Arabs were chiefly successful in holding these areas in that they upheld a lightweight regime of low taxes based in the Islamic laws and distant government. Rather than employing an army of bureaucrats and nobility, the early Arab empire was more favorable towards maintaining the existing government structures under the leadership of Arab tribes. In this atmosphere it is hardly surprising to note the reports from both Muslim and Christian sources of peaceful capitulation and invitation of the invading forces.

==Divisions Within Islam==
Uthman was assassinated in 656 A.D. by soldiers who then installed Ali ibn Abu Talib, Muhammad's son-in-law, as [[Caliph]]. Ali's followers believed Muhammad had chosen Ali to be Muhammad's heir, and had disagreed with the selections of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman as Caliphs. Ali's claim to the position was challenged by Muawiyah, a kinsman of the murdered Uthman. Five years later, Ali was assassinated by Kharjites, religious dissidents who broke away from the main body of Muslims because they rejected Ali's accepting arbitration to resolve his leadership dispute with Muawiyah. Ali's supporters, or the Shiah al-Ali (or Shiat Ali, partisans of Ali) believed that Ali was the true Caliph and was, in part, divinely inspired. Ali's sons, Hassan and Husayn followed as [[Shia]] Caliphs, Hassan dying in 669 or 670 A.D., possibly by poisoning, and Husayn slain by soldiers of his rival, the [[Sunni]] Caliph Yazid, in 680 A.D.

The Shia Muslim community has divided further as followers coalesced around several of Ali's descendants or successors, called [[Imam]]s. The "twelvers," predominant in Iran, believe the twelfth Imam is in hiding and will reveal himself just before judgement day. Ismailis rejected the seventh Imam and practice a spirituality that seeks hidden meaning in scripture. Ismailis ruled much of [[North Africa]] as the [[Fatimid Dynasty]] of [[Egypt]] in the tenth through the twelfth centuries, and today are found primarily in [[Pakistan]], [[Afghanistan]], and [[India]]. The Sunni majority reject the premise that men can be divine, including Muhammad, Ali, or Jesus, and did not accept any of the Imams who followed Ali. Sunnis remain more committed to traditions and less inclined to accept Shia mysticism. Today, about 15% of the world's Muslims are Shia and 85% are orthodox Sunni.

There are other factions within Islam. Sufis, a name possibly derived from the wool garments they wear, developed around mystical practices and trance-induced revelations. Sufis are found today in [[Turkey]], [[Syria]], and parts of [[Africa]]. Other movements have taken reform tracks, such as the Unitarians of [[Saudi Arabia]], also called [[Wahhabi]]s after their 18th century reformist founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The conservative Wahhabis are found today in Saudi Arabia and [[Qatar]]. Today the Wahhabi line has a tendency to produce extremists, such as [[Osama Bin Laden]]. Some critics would argue that the [[Taliban]] of Afghanistan took conservative reform to an extreme. Other sects or break-away groups include, among others, the Alawis found in Syria and Turkey, the [[Druze]] in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel, the Ibadhis (Kharjites) in Oman and Africa, the Ahmadiya of Pakistan, and the Zaydis of Yemen.

==Religious Guidance==
During his lifetime, Muhammad's companions learned and later transcribed the verses (surrahs) of the Qur'an as Muhammad spoke them. In Islam, the teachings of Mohammed were believed to be direct divine revelation from God.

The third Caliph, Uthman, collected and codified the various versions of the surrahs into one written Qur'an that became the standard Arabic text used by the world's Muslims today. The Qur'an is longer than the Bible and written in general order of longest chapters to shortest rather than in any order of when they were spoken, sometimes making the work appear to be confusing. In all there are 114 chapters. Most of the later recorded sayings of Mohammed, which were also more warlike, actually appear earlier in the text. Present-day Muslims look first to the Qur'an as a guide to life, then to the [[Sunnah]], or the way of the Prophet (his life as an example for others) as recorded by his early companions, and then to the [[Hadith]], a collection of the Prophet's sayings, comments, advice, and descriptions.

Frequently, Muslims disagreed over how to interpret certain passages in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, or the Hadith in their search for the ideal life and perfect path to heaven. From these interpretations Sunni Muslims developed four schools of law, or interpretations of law, named after their founders or early leaders: the Hanbali, considered the most strict school and predominant today in Saudi Arabia; Shafi, the school of widest acceptance, found in Egypt, parts of Palestine-Syria, south Arabia, and the Far East; Maliki, prevalent in North Africa, Sudan, and Nigeria; and Hanafi, considered the most moderate school, predominant in Ottoman Turkey and today found primarily on the Levant and Indian subcontinent. Frequently, Muslim countries have two separate legal systems, one for civil, criminal, or commercial law, and a second, and separate, system for religious law. Religious courts and their judges (qadis) might handle issues dealing with marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, religious education, charitable or religious property (Waqf), or family matters. Among Middle Eastern countries, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen have Shariah courts serving alongside their secular courts or have adopted [[Sharia]]h (Islamic law) as the basis of their legal systems.

====Clergy====
Sunni Islam does not have a priesthood or clerical hierarchy to conduct religious services or interpret scripture, but it does have prayer leaders, called Imams, and religious scholars, called Ulama, who often are educated men familiar with the Qur'an and able to offer commentaries on Qur'anic verses. Sunni Muslims also respect the teachings and interpretations of scholars, judges, and academics who may interpret laws, write treatises on Sharia (religious law) or Hadith, and issue Fatwas, religious declarations intended to enlighten or guide Muslims.

Shia Islam has a hierarchy that resembles a priesthood. Mullahs are prayer leaders, but usually do not interpret religious law. Mujtahids are religious scholars who may interpret law or passages from the Qur'an or Hadith. The lower order of Mujtahids are called Hojjatolislam. Ayat Allah (literally sign of God, also Ayatollah) is a higher order of Mujtahid who may issue Fatwas, or religious edicts, in addition to leading Islamic schools, interpreting religious law and the Qur'an, and offering sermons or discourses on proper Islamic behavior.

===Five Pillars of Islam===
*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. 'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh, a loose English translation reads "''There is none worthy of worship except God, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of God''" This testament can be seen as the foundation of all of the other tenets of Islam.

*'''[[Salat]] (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to God five times each day while facing [[Mecca]].

*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]].

*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the daylight hours of the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul. Some Muslim sects allow military, police and emergency services personnel to receive an exemption from fasting from an imam, on the grounds that their work supports the community or national good.

*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

==Other Aspects of Islam==
[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Pages from the Qur'an, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]
====Jihad====
Jihad is the "effort" or "struggle" each Muslim faces in the everyday trials of life, such as the effort to get better grades in school, or the striving to achieve better results from a job, or the struggle to avoid sinful temptations. Jihad also can be applied to warfare; participating in jihad in Allah's cause was the third most important good deed listed in the Hadith, after prayer and honoring one's parents. Jihad often was a rallying cry for the military spread of Islam in the seventh through tenth centuries against non-Muslims.

====Osama bin Laden and Fundamentalists====
[[Osama bin Laden]], a follower of a particular brand of Islam popular in Saudi Arabia, has stated that Islam is at war with the United States and its allies. Some observers maintain that the number of Islam fundamentalists is growing and poses a threat to the West.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.danielpipes.org/255/islamic-fundamentalists-are-the-new-big-threat-to-the-west|title=Islamic Fundamentalists are the New Big Threat to the West|author=Daniel Pipes|newspaper=Philadelphia Inquirer|date=Sept 16, 1994}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.city-journal.org/html/rev2006-06-04td.html|title=All or Nothing: The quest for a moderate Islam may be futile.|date=June 4 2006|author=Theodore Dalrymple|newspaper=Cite Journal}}</ref> But other observers differentiate between conservative "fundamentalists" and the "extremists" who follow murderers such as bin Laden or other terrorists.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://townhall.com/columnists/dineshdsouza/2008/09/15/who_speaks_for_islam/page/full/|title=Who Speaks For Islam|author=Dinesh D'Souza|newspaper=Townhall|date=Sept 15, 2009}}</ref> In several major Islamic nations, bin Laden had the support of the majority of people in the early years after the 9/11 attacks. As he lost battles with the West and started to target fellow Muslims his popularity waned.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/04/30/on-anniversary-of-bin-ladens-death-little-backing-of-al-qaeda/|title=On Anniversary of bin Laden’s Death, Little Backing of al Qaeda|date=April 30, 2012|publisher=Pew Research Center}}</ref>

====People of the Book====
Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book" in the Qur'an and are considered earlier forerunners to Islam and viewed as brothers as long as they pay an extra tax when under Islamic rule. Islam, tracing its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael instead of Isaac as the Jews did, believes that they are the descendants of God's promise. Islam believes that both the Old and New Testament were corrupted and corrected by the Qur'an, but there is still an earlier link between the three religions. The view of Jews and Christians varied within different parts of the Qur'an and Islamic history. Much of current Islamic culture, even in places that were once very tolerant such as Egypt, has seen an upsurge in persecution and violence against Christians and Jews.

====Women in Islam====
[[File:Muslim girls at Istiqlal Mosque Jakarta Indonesia.jpg|left|thumb|240px|Muslim girls at Istiqlal [[Mosque]], Jakarta.]]
In pre-Islamic times women's rights were defined by tribal laws which differed amongst the tribes. Some women had absolute equity and the ability to hold power, while some women were treated worse than chattel; bride prices, unlimited polygamy, and female infanticide were a common theme. [[Sharia law|Islamic law]] offered a path for which Muslim men could regulate women in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence on the Arabian peninsula. Treated merely as individual sex objects, women were granted very limited rights but as distinct legal individuals; forced to marry who their parents tell them to, women are required not to directly object in order for the marriage contract to have some form of validity.

Unlike the pre-Islamic times where unlimited polygamy occurred, [[Sharia law]] limits [[polygamy]] to a maximum of four wives at any one time, though the use of "temporary" marriage in effect rendered this restriction meaningless. Once married, only men are entitled to divorce any time they please. The reality of traditional Sharia law as applied in the modern era has shocked the modern conscience.<ref>Linda Rae Bennett, ''Women, Islam and Modernity'' (2005)</ref> These restrictions on women were put into place over a thousand years ago, and there has been little progress since. Women are still not allowed to drive a [[car]], they cannot ride [[bicycle]]s, are unable to [[vote]], have been prohibited from traveling abroad without permission, and they can't use public facilities when men are present.

[[File:Sharia.jpg|right|thumb|220px|Muslim woman tortured under Sharia law.]]
Women in Islam are treated as inferiors to men in almost every regard. In [[Sharia]], the testimony of one man equals that of five women. Women are required to cover the head and body in public, by wearing the hijab. Hijab is applied in different ways: a small scarf around the head and western street clothes may be acceptable in Cairo or Damascus but a full length opaque [[Burqa]] was enforced in Taliban Afghanistan. As of 2008, [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iran]], and [[Pakistan]] are the most significant Middle Eastern countries where the government requires women to wear some form of restrictive garb, though cultural pressure in most Islamic countries offers women little choice but to submit to the dictat of hijab. Women who disgrace their family are put to death in "[[honor killing]]s"; buried halfway or sometimes up to their neck so they cannot run, women, who are in most cases victims, are stoned to death.

=====Islamic dress is a regular grounds for conflict in multicultural education=====

Treatment of women varies widely by country. In the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia women are forbidden from driving a car, traveling in public without their husband or a male family member as an escort, leaving their home without wearing Islamic dress, working or voting. Though not formally forbidden from owning property, they have no way of obtaining this as work is forbidden and only males are permitted to inherit - should a man die, his brothers, sons and father will all inherit before his wife. These restrictions are part of Sharia law and enforced by the police and a special Islamic office. Pakistan has similar restrictions, but to a lesser extent. In contrast, [[Turkey]] has a majority Muslim population and yet grants women some rights similar to those of men including property ownership, employment, and education to university level.

Muslim apologists suggest the extremely repressive policies of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cultural rather than religious, though these are the countries were traditional Islam is strongest. They point to the more moderate Islam practiced in Turkey as a demonstration that Islam and womens' rights are compatible, ignoring the efforts of traditionalists in Turkey to end the few freedoms women were granted by men.

Muslim women's status is controversial. Whilst Muslim men control and oppress Muslim women by compelling them to remain hidden behind the veil, sequestered in the home, and ignorant of the world by denying them access to education and worldly opportunities, Islamic apologists defend some practices. These men claim that many of the restrictions on women, such as the veil, are cultural traditions that pre-date Islam and are intended to protect women from predatory men. Unfortunately, such Muslim men ignore the fact that if a predatory man or group of rapists were to sexually assault a Muslim woman in Islam, she would be punished under Sharia law for "allowing" such an act to occur, and she would likely receive hundreds of lashes and years of jail time; the predatory man or men commonly go unpunished.

====Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem====
Muhammad's home city of Mecca was the site of his earliest preaching and conversions, and is the location of the Kaaba, traditionally held to be the foundation stone of the first mosque built by Adam and later restored by Abraham, and now the focus of the annual pilgrimage (hajj). Some historians suggest that the Kaaba, a black stone probably meteoric in origin, was venerated by pre-Islamic polytheistic religions.

At first, Jerusalem was Islam's holy city and the focus of prayers, but Mecca became the center of Islam after Muhammad's return in 630. Medina, because of its early association with Muhammad and as the site of Muhammad's tomb, is second in importance to Mecca. Jerusalem is revered by Muslims as the site of Solomon's temple, Abraham's near sacrifice of his son Ishmael, and the scene of Muhammad's miraculous midnight journey, the latter two now enshrined in the [[Dome of the Rock]] mosque. According to the Qur'an (Surrah 17:1, Isra) and Hadith, Muhammad and Gabriel were taken on winged mules from Mecca to Jerusalem, where they ascended through the seven heavens to the presence of Allah. During the visit, Muhammad learned, among other points, that Muslims were to pray five times each day and to honor Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets.

====Restrictions====
Observant Muslims are not supposed to eat pork and in general do not have dogs as pets; both swine and canines are considered unclean. Muslims can have dogs for safety. Muslims are prohibited from drinking alcoholic beverages, gambling, and from collecting interest on financial transactions.

===Female Genital Mutilation and Honour Killings===
FGM (also known as female circumcision) is mentioned in Hadith as an "honorable" condition for a woman, and act to carry out. It is a pre-Islamic tradition in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world, though not in Coptic Egypt as some Islamic apologists claim. Female circumcision is not called for nor is it supported by the Qur'an.

Another pagan practice practice continued in Islamic countries is [[honor killing]], in which a brother, father, or uncle "restores" or "defends" a family's honor by killing the sister, daughter, or niece that "dishonored" the family through supposedly, "promiscuous" behaviour. This "promiscuous" activity often includes women from Islamic societies living in the West aspiring to a more open lifestyle. The "honor killing" is more ancient, and pagan in origin, but tolerated and practised more or less openly in some Muslim societies. Honor killings are not supported by the Qur'an and are directly commanded against with the Surah "Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind."

==Islam and Christianity==
''See also: [[Dhimma]]'' 
While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or in the Resurrection, they consider Him and His mother to be of God's most important prophets (Marian and Isa) otherwise known as Mary and Jesus. However, the Qur'an warns against worshipping Jesus, Muhammad, and other humans for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref>

The Qur'an states that non-believers will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified (same as similar statements in the Bible and the Torah):

{{cquote|Surely, disbelievers are those who said:
'Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).' But there is no god but One, Allah.
And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.

Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness? For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The Messiah , son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a Siddiqah (i.e. she believed in the words of God and His Books ).
They both used to eat food (as any other human eat).
Look how We make the signs clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)."
}}
::(Qur'an 5:73-75)

However, Islam does recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since both refer to one God only, and recognize Abraham (Ibrahim in Arabic) as a founding prophet.

==Sharia==
[[Image:StarCresent.png|thumb|right|220px|The Star and Crescent is a symbol of Islam. It is featured in the national flag of [[Algeria]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[Malaysia]], [[Tunisia]], [[Mauritania]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Turkey]], amongst others]]
[[Sharia]] is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical Qur'an; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of God by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, marriage, divorce, and social issues. Most Islamic scholars regard Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established during the early stages of the Islamic Empire, though a few scholars also believe contemporary legal cases can and should shape the law, though such thinkers may be subject to ridicule and even threats from Islamists.

Sharia law proscribes often brutal punishments for acts, that, in the western world, are relatively minor. For example, under sharia law, converting from Islam is punishable by death,<ref>[http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html]</ref> whilst women found guilty of adultery is punishable by stoning to death, which often includes many rape victims, as Sharia courts often regard a rape victim as guilty of adultery unless she can provide four witnesses to the act of rape.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6148590.stm</ref> In cases involving the death penalty of corporal punishment, methods of carrying out the punishment are often barbaric, and include public beheading, chopping off of the hand, and flogging.<ref>http://saudiwoman.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/punishment-in-saudi-arabia/</ref> Many Islamist groups have been attempting to have Shariah courts set up in European countries, initially to rule over civil cases between Muslims in Europe.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html</ref>

==Terminology==
Additional archaic terms for Muslims include, but are not limited to, "Hagarene" and "Saracen." The term Hagarene was more common in post-crusade Europe as it made specific reference to the biblical mother of Ishmael. Ishmael in the Muslim faith plays an analogous theological role to Isaac. Muslims do not use it today to avoid confusing worship of [[Muhammad]] with worship of [[Allah]]<ref>Schimmel, (1992)</ref>

==Ex-Muslims==
[[Michelle Malkin]] highlights a group of Ex-Muslims hoping to change the terms of debate about Islam in Europe. Maryam Namazie, the head of the British group said "Too many things in the media and government policies have been geared to pandering to the political Islamic movements and Islamic organizations." <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/ex-muslims-stand-up-in-britain/ Ex-Muslims stand up in Britain]</ref> Ex-Muslims include Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mark A. Gabriel, Walid Shoebat, and Mosab Hassan Yousef.

==Critics==
Most contemporary critics of Islam are either atheists or nominally religious: [[Ibn Warraq]] (author), [[Wafa Sultan]] (psychiatrist), [[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]] (author), [[Hugh Fitzgerald]] (of JihadWatch), [[David Horowitz]] (author), [[Oriana Fallaci]] (author), [[Geert Wilders]] (politician), [[Sam Harris]] (author), [[Pamela Geller]] (blogger), [[Bill Maher]] (comedian) and the crowd at they Ayn Rand Institute. The notable exception is [[Robert Spencer]], who while a devout Catholic, criticizes Islam as a political ideology. Political critics include [[Herman Cain]] and [[Rick Santorum]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.news-press.com/article/20130323/NEWS0119/303230016/Santorum-delivers-warning-about-radical-Islam-during-Naples-appearance|title=Santorum delivers warning about radical Islam during Naples appearance|date=March 23, 2013|newspaper=Fort Meyers News Press|author=Lindsay Downey}}</ref>. Neither [[Ronald Reagan]] (who help mujahideen fight atheistic communists) nor [[George W. Bush]] (“Islam means peace”) saw Islam as the problem. Commentators note that the conservative response to fundamental Islam is a far cry from the complete and unequivocal condemnation of Communism during the heyday of the Cold War.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.liberty-and-culture.com/conservatives.html|title=The Conservative Response to the Islamic Threat.|author=Jason Pappas|date=Sept 5, 2004}}</ref> Dinesh D’Souza argues that Muslims are God-fearing conservatives.<ref>{{cite book|author=Dinesh D’Souza|title=The Enemy At Home|year=2007|publisher= Doubleday}}</ref>

<ref>''Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain'' [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back] </ref>

== See also ==
[[Image:Africa islam 87.jpg|thumb|Islam in Africa]]
*[[Arab American]]
*[[Islamic republic]]
*[[Islamophobia]]
*[[Qur'an]]
*[[Jihadism]], an extremist, take on Islam
*[[Ramadan]]
*[[In the midst of a Maelstrom: the Holy Spirit and silence: an essay]] encounter of Israeli Messianic Jew and Egyptian Muslim in Alexandria
*[[List of countries by number of Muslims]]

==Further reading==
* Armour, Rollin. ''Islam, Christianity, and the West: A Troubled History'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Christianity-West-Troubled-History/dp/1570754071/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342713&sr=1-32 excerpt and text search]
* Armstrong, Karen. ''Islam: A Short History'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-Modern-Library-Chronicles/dp/081296618X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Berkey, Jonathan P. ''The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Formation-Islam-Religion-Society-600-1800/dp/0521588138/ref=sr_1_27?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342713&sr=1-27 excerpt and text search]
* Campo, Juan Eduardo. ''Encyclopedia of Islam'' (2009), basic introduction
* Esposito, John J. ''The Oxford History of Islam'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]
* Glasse, Cyril. ''The New Encyclopedia of Islam'' ( 2nd ed. 2008)
* Lewis, Bernard. ''Islam in History: Ideas, People, and Events in the Middle East'' (2001), by leading conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-History-People-Events-Middle/dp/0812695186/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342525&sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]
* Martin, Richard C. et al. ''Encyclopedia of Islam & the Muslim World'' (2003), more advanced
* Newby, Gordon. ''A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-Encyclopedia-Islam-Gordon-Newby/dp/1851682953/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342942&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Robinson, Chase F. ed. ''The New Cambridge History of Islam'' (Volume 1) (2009), summarizes advanced scholarship
* Ruthven, Malise, and Azim Nanji. ''Historical Atlas of Islam'' (2004)
* Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Islam: An Introduction''. (1992)
* Sonn, Tamara and Mary Williamsburg. ''A Brief History of Islam'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Blackwell-Histories-Religion/dp/1405109009/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342302&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]
* Wheatcroft, Andrew. ''Infidels: A History of the Conflict Between Christendom and Islam'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Infidels-History-Conflict-Between-Christendom/dp/0812972392/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259342525&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]

==External links==
*[http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html Islam and Christianity] - excellent article comparing and contrasting the two.
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ Qur'an online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ Sahih Bukhari (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/ Sahih Muslim (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/ Sunan Abu-Dawud (Hadith collection) online in English]
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/ Malik's Muwatta (Hadith collection) online in English]
* Congressional Research Service, "Islam: A Primer", Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain and the source of part of this article [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back]
*[http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2011/01/islamists-torch-pope-in-effigy-again.html Islamists Torch Pope in Effigy, Again]
*[http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/2010/december/849_kind-strangers.html Muslims Saving Jews During World War II.] By Shane Dixon Kavanaugh.
*[http://differencesbetween.com/islam-and-muslim/ Difference Between Islam and Muslim]
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ A Turkish Delight: they think so in Israel too!]
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ Turkey's Islamic scholar, Rabbi Meir Lau, and Cain speechless before Abel]

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

[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Template:Islam and tolerance

2013-07-05T19:27:15Z

Brenden: Propose for deletion

British Broadcasting Corporation

2013-07-05T19:24:27Z

Brenden: /* Liberal bias */ Anti-Americanism isn't necessarily liberal in the UK, especially since as a British organization, it has no vested interest in the well-being of the united states.

<big>''"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"''-</big> Andrew Marr- BBC reporter.

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.

BBC was given a royal charter in 1927 as a public body; it replaced a private, commercially run British Broadcasting Company, which began in 1922. The royal charter and license, constitute the BBC as a public corporation with a mandate to provide broadcasting as a public service. BBC is funded by an annual license fee levied on the majority of UK residents owning a television set regardless of income. The BBC's monopoly on lasted from 1922 until 1973 and the introduction of commercial radio. It monopolised television from 1936 to 1954, when the Television Act allowed for the establishment of commercial stations financed by spot advertising.

The BBC is criticised for political bias by members of the Conservative Party for particularly [[liberal]] ideology, and for being overly [[politically correct]] and overly supportive and selective in its coverage of the [[Labour Party]]. And likewise those in the Labour Party accuse it of having an inbuilt Conservative bias and being overtly hostile to the working class. Analysts have accused the numerous extremist links to this BBC indicates a possible propaganda media network connection to [[Al Qaeda]]. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472430/WikiLeaks-Leaked-files-accuse-BBC-of-being-part-of-a-possible-propaganda-media-network.html BBC part of 'possible propaganda media network', Telegraphe UK, April 25, 2011]</ref> In general, the BBC succeeds in broadcasting material that have offended varying elitists, Conservatives, and Liberals alike.

== Broadcasting ==
The BBC operates eight national television channels (nine including the High-Definition service- BBC HD)[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Question Time'', ''Eastenders'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.

Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref> of £135.50 (about $250 ) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such the license fee is often criticised as being a tax.

BBC programming is free of commercial advertising. However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes. BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless free of commercial advertising - with the exception of sporting events, during which it is still permitted to display commercial advertising. Cricket matches were a previous source of contention as adverts projected onto the field of play are only visible to television viewers. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However, since the funding is determined by the government, the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. This arrangement means the government has to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given.<ref>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5006.htm</ref> This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case.

Whilst there is a vocal minority campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.

== Ownership ==
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people. The BBC was most recently given a ten-year royal charter in 2006 that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence.

Control rests with the 12-person BBC Trust, which replaced the Board of Governors in 2007. Trust members are paid and are appointed by the British prime minister and are supposed to represent the interests of a broad cross-section of the British listening and viewing public. Day-to-day management is handled by the board of management, headed by the director general; its members are appointed by the board of governors.

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.

News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.

News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.

==Internet==
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.

Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to its ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.
==History==
From its inception in 1922, J. C. W. Reith, the first director-general of the BBC, envisioned the organisation as an integral advocate of patriotism and the empire at home.

===Second World War===
From June 1940 to March 1941, the writer J. B. Priestley (1894-1984), broadcast a widely popular series of Sunday-night radio talks, 'Postscripts to the News.' He became the best known, most gifted, and probably most popular BBC commentator, for he had caught the mood of the British people during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. His forced departure was controversial and harmful to the BBC. Priestley blamed Prime Minister Churchill's negative reaction to his left-wing views on postwar reconstruction. Actually his firing was mainly due to Ministry of Information and BBC reluctance to allow an extended forum to a 'demagogic' personality who might attract a personal following, as [[Father Coughlin]] had done in the United States in the 1930s. The upshot was employment of a wider range of speakers and careful avoidance of controversy.

The BBC played a major role in promoting the British Empire worldwide during [[World War II|The Second World War, 1939-45]]. The BBC became the voice of Britain, reflecting as well as constructing the nation's history, culture, and tradition. At first the BBC worked aggressively to deflect criticism and insure that the Empire appeared as a source of strength. It presented British imperialism as a benefit to both Britain and the colonised areas. However, as the war progressed and postwar objectives became a concern, the focus of the BBC expanded to include the importance of maintaining Britain as an imperial power.<ref> Thomas Hajkowski, "The BBC, the Empire, and the Second World War, 1939-1945," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 2002 22(2): 135-155 </ref>

Special programs were directed to peoples controlled by the Nazis; listening to the short-wave broadcasts was illegal but widespread. The German-language Austrian Service was directed by Patrick Smith, who emphasised the 'separateness' of Austria from Germany and on 'freedom and independence' as the Austrian goal. As victory approached the BBC stressed the need for Austrians themselves to take part in their own liberation. There were interviews with Austrian prisoners of war held in Britain.

Until 1944, broadcasts by the BBC's Hungarian service avoided describing the plight of the Jews in Hungary for fear that it would create an anti-Semitic backlash against one of the few Jewish populations in Europe which, though persecuted, was still allowed to live. Shortly after the Nazi occupation of Hungary in March 1944 the rounding up and deporting of Jews to death camps began. For the next four months, until Hungarian regent Horthy suspended the deportations, the Hungarian service repeatedly broadcast news of the deportation of Jews and urged Hungarians to obstruct, delay, and hinder the deportations in the name of humanity and Hungarian patriotism. Altering BBC Hungarian service policies regarding the Final Solution would perhaps have done little to slow the [[Holocaust]] in Hungary.<ref> Gabriel Milland, "The BBC Hungarian Service and the Final Solution in Hungary," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 1998 18(3): 353-373 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> The BBC Home Service rarely mentioned the massacre of Jews for many reasons, including the restraints formally imposed by a government at war, the notions that such reports simply would not be believed (or, being incomprehensible, written off as propaganda) or might spur a latent anti-Semitism, and the fact that people were not interested in gloomy stories but wanted to hear about the war effort.<ref>Jeremy D. Harris, "Broadcasting the Massacres: an Analysis of the BBC's Contemporary Coverage of the Holocaust." ''Yad Vashem Studies'' 1996 25: 65-98 </ref>

===Cultural Impact===
====Monopoly years====
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly hold on British electronic media. As such its content was highly influential.

'Children's Hour', begun in the late 1920s, was intended as a medium for democracy and the production of exemplary citizens through the dissemination of idealised middle-class values. In time, this approach proved to be out of touch with the listening habits and working class context of many 'Children's Hour' listeners.

Music broadcasts for schools were begun in 1924, and did much to disseminate new ideas, especially through 'music and movement' programs and the enormously popular 'Singing Together' during the Second World War. However, the more formal programs, designed to teach the rudiments of music and notation, were less successful, and Sir Walford Davies's idea of tune building by children was abandoned in 1934. Radio's ability to teach music formally appeared severely limited, and serious doubts as to its precise function in relationship to music teachers were constantly voiced and never answered.<ref>Gordon Cox, "School Music Broadcasts and the BBC 1924-47," ''History of Education'' 1996 25(4): 363-371 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

Scottish broadcasters forged a unique and specifically Scottish tradition of radio programming in the 1920s, led by the Aberdeen studies of the BBC. However its role was weakened by a policy of centralisation in London after 1932. Radio drama based on collaboration with local theatre companies was especially strong, included much original work, and made a major contribution to the development of professional theatre in Scotland. The centralisation of radio broadcasting in London reflected the shift in the organisation of the British state toward greater involvement in the everyday lives of its citizens during the interwar years.<ref> Adrienne Scullion, "BBC Radio in Scotland, 1923-1939: Devolution, Regionalism and Centralisation." ''Northern Scotland'' 1995 15: 63-93 </ref>
====Competitive years====
Since the late 1970s the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.

The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.

==Accusations of Bias==

The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards and against multiculturalism and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.

The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.

While the BBC had been accused of bias many times in its history, a liberal bias became prevalent during the reign of Prime Minster [[Margaret Thatcher]], likely as a direct result of her government's efforts to streamline the corporation and make it more efficient. Before her reign, the BBC's overall ideology had fluctuated quite often between being pro-Conservative and pro-Liberal, mostly depending on which party was in power.

It is also perhaps noteworthy that, as a public sector organization, the BBC does have features of a [[socialist]] institution and it is believed that this may be reflected in some of its broadcast content.<ref>http://biased-bbc.com/2012/04/20/a-socialist-win-is-a-bbc-win/</ref>

===Bias against the US and Israel===
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]].<ref>[[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411977/Yes-biased-religion-politics-admit-BBC-executives.html]]</ref> At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</ref> The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.

However, the BBC was also criticised by some for refusing to show a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza following the fighting in the region in December 2008 - January 2009. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4789700/BBC-Trust-chairman-attacks-politicians-over-Gaza-appeal-pressure.html</ref>

===Liberal bias===
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
*has an "institutional Left-wing bias" (its 'Play for Today' series in the 1960s/70s was known as the '[[Trotskyist|Trot]] Slot')
*has "a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*fails to reflect concerns about pornography and family-unfriendly broadcasting (1960s Director General Hugh Carleton-Greene notoriously refused ever to meet broadcasting standards campaigner [[Mary Whitehouse]] and would commonly refer to her in opprobrious terms)
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world

[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the "liberal media consensus". Jay also said his ex-colleagues "were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007</ref>Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as "[[liberal]]" than "[[conservative]]". <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007</ref>

===Regional bias===
The BBC is based in [[London]], in the South East of England. It often faces accusations of being London-centric, with events in the North of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland having a reduced profile. A perceived disproportionately private school education is often claimed to be illustrated in the output, with a disproportionate emphasis on private school events and sports. Recently, this London emphasis is shifting, with many high profile BBC programs including Doctor Who being produced in Wales<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/arts/map/doctor-who-wales/</ref>, and production of some programs and channels being moved to Salford in 2012. <ref>http://www.mediacityuk.co.uk/</ref>

It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English<ref>[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]</ref>. In September 2008, the BBC launched BBC Alba, a [[Gaelic]] service consisting of a digital TV channel, a radio station and an online portal<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/alba/</ref>.

===Other===
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to "[[freedom fighter]]s". <ref>[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&only&rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007</ref>

The BBC cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007</ref>

The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007</ref>

[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of "parroting" [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007</ref>

While it is true that the BBC does display bias, private news institutions are also guilty of leaning liberal or conservative. For instance, a recent Pew survey found that 46% of the stories about Obama on Fox were negative compared to 6% that were positive and the rest neutral. When it came to the liberal leaning news outlet MSNBC, and their coverage of Romney, 71% of their stories were negative compared to 3% positive stories and the rest neutral.<ref>http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/winning_media_campaign_2012</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.
*[http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]
==Bibliography==
* Briggs, Asa, and Peter Burke. '' A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Media-Gutenberg-Internet/dp/0745623751/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom'' (Oxford University Press, 1961).
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume I: The Birth of Broadcasting'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Birth/dp/0192129260/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume II: The Golden Age of Wireless,'' (1995)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume III: The War of Words'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Words/dp/0192129562/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume IV: Sound & Vision'' (1979)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume V: Competition'' (1995)
* Crisell, Andrew ''An Introductory History of British Broadcasting.'' 2nd ed. London: Routledge. (2002)
* Nicholas, Siân. ''The Echo of War: Home Front Propaganda and the Wartime BBC, 1939-45.'' (1996) 307p.
* Hickman, Tom. ''What Did You Do in the War, Auntie? The BBC at War, 1939-45.'' (1995) 224p.
* Scannell, Paddy, and Cardiff, David. ''A Social History of British Broadcasting, Volume One, 1922-1939'' (Basil Blackwell, 1991).
* Smith, Anthony, and Richard Paterson. ''Television: An International History'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Television-International-History-Anthony-Smith/dp/0198159285/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197416369&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
* [http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]

[[Category:Broadcasters]][[Category:Television]][[Category:Radio]]

British Broadcasting Corporation

2013-07-05T19:23:12Z

Brenden: /* Accusations of Bias */

<big>''"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"''-</big> Andrew Marr- BBC reporter.

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.

BBC was given a royal charter in 1927 as a public body; it replaced a private, commercially run British Broadcasting Company, which began in 1922. The royal charter and license, constitute the BBC as a public corporation with a mandate to provide broadcasting as a public service. BBC is funded by an annual license fee levied on the majority of UK residents owning a television set regardless of income. The BBC's monopoly on lasted from 1922 until 1973 and the introduction of commercial radio. It monopolised television from 1936 to 1954, when the Television Act allowed for the establishment of commercial stations financed by spot advertising.

The BBC is criticised for political bias by members of the Conservative Party for particularly [[liberal]] ideology, and for being overly [[politically correct]] and overly supportive and selective in its coverage of the [[Labour Party]]. And likewise those in the Labour Party accuse it of having an inbuilt Conservative bias and being overtly hostile to the working class. Analysts have accused the numerous extremist links to this BBC indicates a possible propaganda media network connection to [[Al Qaeda]]. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472430/WikiLeaks-Leaked-files-accuse-BBC-of-being-part-of-a-possible-propaganda-media-network.html BBC part of 'possible propaganda media network', Telegraphe UK, April 25, 2011]</ref> In general, the BBC succeeds in broadcasting material that have offended varying elitists, Conservatives, and Liberals alike.

== Broadcasting ==
The BBC operates eight national television channels (nine including the High-Definition service- BBC HD)[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Question Time'', ''Eastenders'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.

Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref> of £135.50 (about $250 ) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such the license fee is often criticised as being a tax.

BBC programming is free of commercial advertising. However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes. BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless free of commercial advertising - with the exception of sporting events, during which it is still permitted to display commercial advertising. Cricket matches were a previous source of contention as adverts projected onto the field of play are only visible to television viewers. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However, since the funding is determined by the government, the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. This arrangement means the government has to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given.<ref>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5006.htm</ref> This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case.

Whilst there is a vocal minority campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.

== Ownership ==
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people. The BBC was most recently given a ten-year royal charter in 2006 that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence.

Control rests with the 12-person BBC Trust, which replaced the Board of Governors in 2007. Trust members are paid and are appointed by the British prime minister and are supposed to represent the interests of a broad cross-section of the British listening and viewing public. Day-to-day management is handled by the board of management, headed by the director general; its members are appointed by the board of governors.

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.

News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.

News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.

==Internet==
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.

Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to its ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.
==History==
From its inception in 1922, J. C. W. Reith, the first director-general of the BBC, envisioned the organisation as an integral advocate of patriotism and the empire at home.

===Second World War===
From June 1940 to March 1941, the writer J. B. Priestley (1894-1984), broadcast a widely popular series of Sunday-night radio talks, 'Postscripts to the News.' He became the best known, most gifted, and probably most popular BBC commentator, for he had caught the mood of the British people during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. His forced departure was controversial and harmful to the BBC. Priestley blamed Prime Minister Churchill's negative reaction to his left-wing views on postwar reconstruction. Actually his firing was mainly due to Ministry of Information and BBC reluctance to allow an extended forum to a 'demagogic' personality who might attract a personal following, as [[Father Coughlin]] had done in the United States in the 1930s. The upshot was employment of a wider range of speakers and careful avoidance of controversy.

The BBC played a major role in promoting the British Empire worldwide during [[World War II|The Second World War, 1939-45]]. The BBC became the voice of Britain, reflecting as well as constructing the nation's history, culture, and tradition. At first the BBC worked aggressively to deflect criticism and insure that the Empire appeared as a source of strength. It presented British imperialism as a benefit to both Britain and the colonised areas. However, as the war progressed and postwar objectives became a concern, the focus of the BBC expanded to include the importance of maintaining Britain as an imperial power.<ref> Thomas Hajkowski, "The BBC, the Empire, and the Second World War, 1939-1945," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 2002 22(2): 135-155 </ref>

Special programs were directed to peoples controlled by the Nazis; listening to the short-wave broadcasts was illegal but widespread. The German-language Austrian Service was directed by Patrick Smith, who emphasised the 'separateness' of Austria from Germany and on 'freedom and independence' as the Austrian goal. As victory approached the BBC stressed the need for Austrians themselves to take part in their own liberation. There were interviews with Austrian prisoners of war held in Britain.

Until 1944, broadcasts by the BBC's Hungarian service avoided describing the plight of the Jews in Hungary for fear that it would create an anti-Semitic backlash against one of the few Jewish populations in Europe which, though persecuted, was still allowed to live. Shortly after the Nazi occupation of Hungary in March 1944 the rounding up and deporting of Jews to death camps began. For the next four months, until Hungarian regent Horthy suspended the deportations, the Hungarian service repeatedly broadcast news of the deportation of Jews and urged Hungarians to obstruct, delay, and hinder the deportations in the name of humanity and Hungarian patriotism. Altering BBC Hungarian service policies regarding the Final Solution would perhaps have done little to slow the [[Holocaust]] in Hungary.<ref> Gabriel Milland, "The BBC Hungarian Service and the Final Solution in Hungary," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 1998 18(3): 353-373 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> The BBC Home Service rarely mentioned the massacre of Jews for many reasons, including the restraints formally imposed by a government at war, the notions that such reports simply would not be believed (or, being incomprehensible, written off as propaganda) or might spur a latent anti-Semitism, and the fact that people were not interested in gloomy stories but wanted to hear about the war effort.<ref>Jeremy D. Harris, "Broadcasting the Massacres: an Analysis of the BBC's Contemporary Coverage of the Holocaust." ''Yad Vashem Studies'' 1996 25: 65-98 </ref>

===Cultural Impact===
====Monopoly years====
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly hold on British electronic media. As such its content was highly influential.

'Children's Hour', begun in the late 1920s, was intended as a medium for democracy and the production of exemplary citizens through the dissemination of idealised middle-class values. In time, this approach proved to be out of touch with the listening habits and working class context of many 'Children's Hour' listeners.

Music broadcasts for schools were begun in 1924, and did much to disseminate new ideas, especially through 'music and movement' programs and the enormously popular 'Singing Together' during the Second World War. However, the more formal programs, designed to teach the rudiments of music and notation, were less successful, and Sir Walford Davies's idea of tune building by children was abandoned in 1934. Radio's ability to teach music formally appeared severely limited, and serious doubts as to its precise function in relationship to music teachers were constantly voiced and never answered.<ref>Gordon Cox, "School Music Broadcasts and the BBC 1924-47," ''History of Education'' 1996 25(4): 363-371 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

Scottish broadcasters forged a unique and specifically Scottish tradition of radio programming in the 1920s, led by the Aberdeen studies of the BBC. However its role was weakened by a policy of centralisation in London after 1932. Radio drama based on collaboration with local theatre companies was especially strong, included much original work, and made a major contribution to the development of professional theatre in Scotland. The centralisation of radio broadcasting in London reflected the shift in the organisation of the British state toward greater involvement in the everyday lives of its citizens during the interwar years.<ref> Adrienne Scullion, "BBC Radio in Scotland, 1923-1939: Devolution, Regionalism and Centralisation." ''Northern Scotland'' 1995 15: 63-93 </ref>
====Competitive years====
Since the late 1970s the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.

The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.

==Accusations of Bias==

The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards and against multiculturalism and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.

The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.

While the BBC had been accused of bias many times in its history, a liberal bias became prevalent during the reign of Prime Minster [[Margaret Thatcher]], likely as a direct result of her government's efforts to streamline the corporation and make it more efficient. Before her reign, the BBC's overall ideology had fluctuated quite often between being pro-Conservative and pro-Liberal, mostly depending on which party was in power.

It is also perhaps noteworthy that, as a public sector organization, the BBC does have features of a [[socialist]] institution and it is believed that this may be reflected in some of its broadcast content.<ref>http://biased-bbc.com/2012/04/20/a-socialist-win-is-a-bbc-win/</ref>

===Bias against the US and Israel===
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]].<ref>[[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411977/Yes-biased-religion-politics-admit-BBC-executives.html]]</ref> At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</ref> The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.

However, the BBC was also criticised by some for refusing to show a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza following the fighting in the region in December 2008 - January 2009. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4789700/BBC-Trust-chairman-attacks-politicians-over-Gaza-appeal-pressure.html</ref>

===Liberal bias===
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
*has an "institutional Left-wing bias" (its 'Play for Today' series in the 1960s/70s was known as the '[[Trotskyist|Trot]] Slot')
*has "a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*promotes anti-American sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*fails to reflect concerns about pornography and family-unfriendly broadcasting (1960s Director General Hugh Carleton-Greene notoriously refused ever to meet broadcasting standards campaigner [[Mary Whitehouse]] and would commonly refer to her in opprobrious terms)
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world

[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the "liberal media consensus". Jay also said his ex-colleagues "were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007</ref>Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as "[[liberal]]" than "[[conservative]]". <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007</ref>

===Regional bias===
The BBC is based in [[London]], in the South East of England. It often faces accusations of being London-centric, with events in the North of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland having a reduced profile. A perceived disproportionately private school education is often claimed to be illustrated in the output, with a disproportionate emphasis on private school events and sports. Recently, this London emphasis is shifting, with many high profile BBC programs including Doctor Who being produced in Wales<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/arts/map/doctor-who-wales/</ref>, and production of some programs and channels being moved to Salford in 2012. <ref>http://www.mediacityuk.co.uk/</ref>

It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English<ref>[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]</ref>. In September 2008, the BBC launched BBC Alba, a [[Gaelic]] service consisting of a digital TV channel, a radio station and an online portal<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/alba/</ref>.

===Other===
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to "[[freedom fighter]]s". <ref>[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&only&rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007</ref>

The BBC cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007</ref>

The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007</ref>

[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of "parroting" [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007</ref>

While it is true that the BBC does display bias, private news institutions are also guilty of leaning liberal or conservative. For instance, a recent Pew survey found that 46% of the stories about Obama on Fox were negative compared to 6% that were positive and the rest neutral. When it came to the liberal leaning news outlet MSNBC, and their coverage of Romney, 71% of their stories were negative compared to 3% positive stories and the rest neutral.<ref>http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/winning_media_campaign_2012</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.
*[http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]
==Bibliography==
* Briggs, Asa, and Peter Burke. '' A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Media-Gutenberg-Internet/dp/0745623751/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom'' (Oxford University Press, 1961).
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume I: The Birth of Broadcasting'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Birth/dp/0192129260/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume II: The Golden Age of Wireless,'' (1995)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume III: The War of Words'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Words/dp/0192129562/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume IV: Sound & Vision'' (1979)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume V: Competition'' (1995)
* Crisell, Andrew ''An Introductory History of British Broadcasting.'' 2nd ed. London: Routledge. (2002)
* Nicholas, Siân. ''The Echo of War: Home Front Propaganda and the Wartime BBC, 1939-45.'' (1996) 307p.
* Hickman, Tom. ''What Did You Do in the War, Auntie? The BBC at War, 1939-45.'' (1995) 224p.
* Scannell, Paddy, and Cardiff, David. ''A Social History of British Broadcasting, Volume One, 1922-1939'' (Basil Blackwell, 1991).
* Smith, Anthony, and Richard Paterson. ''Television: An International History'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Television-International-History-Anthony-Smith/dp/0198159285/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197416369&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
* [http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]

[[Category:Broadcasters]][[Category:Television]][[Category:Radio]]

British Broadcasting Corporation

2013-07-05T19:19:32Z

Brenden:

<big>''"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias"''-</big> Andrew Marr- BBC reporter.

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.

BBC was given a royal charter in 1927 as a public body; it replaced a private, commercially run British Broadcasting Company, which began in 1922. The royal charter and license, constitute the BBC as a public corporation with a mandate to provide broadcasting as a public service. BBC is funded by an annual license fee levied on the majority of UK residents owning a television set regardless of income. The BBC's monopoly on lasted from 1922 until 1973 and the introduction of commercial radio. It monopolised television from 1936 to 1954, when the Television Act allowed for the establishment of commercial stations financed by spot advertising.

The BBC is criticised for political bias by members of the Conservative Party for particularly [[liberal]] ideology, and for being overly [[politically correct]] and overly supportive and selective in its coverage of the [[Labour Party]]. And likewise those in the Labour Party accuse it of having an inbuilt Conservative bias and being overtly hostile to the working class. Analysts have accused the numerous extremist links to this BBC indicates a possible propaganda media network connection to [[Al Qaeda]]. <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472430/WikiLeaks-Leaked-files-accuse-BBC-of-being-part-of-a-possible-propaganda-media-network.html BBC part of 'possible propaganda media network', Telegraphe UK, April 25, 2011]</ref> In general, the BBC succeeds in broadcasting material that have offended varying elitists, Conservatives, and Liberals alike.

== Broadcasting ==
The BBC operates eight national television channels (nine including the High-Definition service- BBC HD)[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Question Time'', ''Eastenders'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.

Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref> of £135.50 (about $250 ) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such the license fee is often criticised as being a tax.

BBC programming is free of commercial advertising. However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes. BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless free of commercial advertising - with the exception of sporting events, during which it is still permitted to display commercial advertising. Cricket matches were a previous source of contention as adverts projected onto the field of play are only visible to television viewers. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However, since the funding is determined by the government, the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. This arrangement means the government has to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given.<ref>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5006.htm</ref> This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case.

Whilst there is a vocal minority campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.

== Ownership ==
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people. The BBC was most recently given a ten-year royal charter in 2006 that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence.

Control rests with the 12-person BBC Trust, which replaced the Board of Governors in 2007. Trust members are paid and are appointed by the British prime minister and are supposed to represent the interests of a broad cross-section of the British listening and viewing public. Day-to-day management is handled by the board of management, headed by the director general; its members are appointed by the board of governors.

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.

News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.

News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.

==Internet==
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.

Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to its ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.
==History==
From its inception in 1922, J. C. W. Reith, the first director-general of the BBC, envisioned the organisation as an integral advocate of patriotism and the empire at home.

===Second World War===
From June 1940 to March 1941, the writer J. B. Priestley (1894-1984), broadcast a widely popular series of Sunday-night radio talks, 'Postscripts to the News.' He became the best known, most gifted, and probably most popular BBC commentator, for he had caught the mood of the British people during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. His forced departure was controversial and harmful to the BBC. Priestley blamed Prime Minister Churchill's negative reaction to his left-wing views on postwar reconstruction. Actually his firing was mainly due to Ministry of Information and BBC reluctance to allow an extended forum to a 'demagogic' personality who might attract a personal following, as [[Father Coughlin]] had done in the United States in the 1930s. The upshot was employment of a wider range of speakers and careful avoidance of controversy.

The BBC played a major role in promoting the British Empire worldwide during [[World War II|The Second World War, 1939-45]]. The BBC became the voice of Britain, reflecting as well as constructing the nation's history, culture, and tradition. At first the BBC worked aggressively to deflect criticism and insure that the Empire appeared as a source of strength. It presented British imperialism as a benefit to both Britain and the colonised areas. However, as the war progressed and postwar objectives became a concern, the focus of the BBC expanded to include the importance of maintaining Britain as an imperial power.<ref> Thomas Hajkowski, "The BBC, the Empire, and the Second World War, 1939-1945," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 2002 22(2): 135-155 </ref>

Special programs were directed to peoples controlled by the Nazis; listening to the short-wave broadcasts was illegal but widespread. The German-language Austrian Service was directed by Patrick Smith, who emphasised the 'separateness' of Austria from Germany and on 'freedom and independence' as the Austrian goal. As victory approached the BBC stressed the need for Austrians themselves to take part in their own liberation. There were interviews with Austrian prisoners of war held in Britain.

Until 1944, broadcasts by the BBC's Hungarian service avoided describing the plight of the Jews in Hungary for fear that it would create an anti-Semitic backlash against one of the few Jewish populations in Europe which, though persecuted, was still allowed to live. Shortly after the Nazi occupation of Hungary in March 1944 the rounding up and deporting of Jews to death camps began. For the next four months, until Hungarian regent Horthy suspended the deportations, the Hungarian service repeatedly broadcast news of the deportation of Jews and urged Hungarians to obstruct, delay, and hinder the deportations in the name of humanity and Hungarian patriotism. Altering BBC Hungarian service policies regarding the Final Solution would perhaps have done little to slow the [[Holocaust]] in Hungary.<ref> Gabriel Milland, "The BBC Hungarian Service and the Final Solution in Hungary," ''Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television'' 1998 18(3): 353-373 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> The BBC Home Service rarely mentioned the massacre of Jews for many reasons, including the restraints formally imposed by a government at war, the notions that such reports simply would not be believed (or, being incomprehensible, written off as propaganda) or might spur a latent anti-Semitism, and the fact that people were not interested in gloomy stories but wanted to hear about the war effort.<ref>Jeremy D. Harris, "Broadcasting the Massacres: an Analysis of the BBC's Contemporary Coverage of the Holocaust." ''Yad Vashem Studies'' 1996 25: 65-98 </ref>

===Cultural Impact===
====Monopoly years====
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly hold on British electronic media. As such its content was highly influential.

'Children's Hour', begun in the late 1920s, was intended as a medium for democracy and the production of exemplary citizens through the dissemination of idealised middle-class values. In time, this approach proved to be out of touch with the listening habits and working class context of many 'Children's Hour' listeners.

Music broadcasts for schools were begun in 1924, and did much to disseminate new ideas, especially through 'music and movement' programs and the enormously popular 'Singing Together' during the Second World War. However, the more formal programs, designed to teach the rudiments of music and notation, were less successful, and Sir Walford Davies's idea of tune building by children was abandoned in 1934. Radio's ability to teach music formally appeared severely limited, and serious doubts as to its precise function in relationship to music teachers were constantly voiced and never answered.<ref>Gordon Cox, "School Music Broadcasts and the BBC 1924-47," ''History of Education'' 1996 25(4): 363-371 online in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

Scottish broadcasters forged a unique and specifically Scottish tradition of radio programming in the 1920s, led by the Aberdeen studies of the BBC. However its role was weakened by a policy of centralisation in London after 1932. Radio drama based on collaboration with local theatre companies was especially strong, included much original work, and made a major contribution to the development of professional theatre in Scotland. The centralisation of radio broadcasting in London reflected the shift in the organisation of the British state toward greater involvement in the everyday lives of its citizens during the interwar years.<ref> Adrienne Scullion, "BBC Radio in Scotland, 1923-1939: Devolution, Regionalism and Centralisation." ''Northern Scotland'' 1995 15: 63-93 </ref>
====Competitive years====
Since the late 1970s the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.

The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.

==Accusations of Bias==

The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards multiculturalism and minority interests, as well as both pro- and anti-government bias.

The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.

While the BBC had been accused of bias many times in its history, a liberal bias became prevalent during the reign of Prime Minster [[Margaret Thatcher]], likely as a direct result of her government's efforts to streamline the corporation and make it more efficient. Before her reign, the BBC's overall ideology had fluctuated quite often between being pro-Conservative and pro-Liberal, mostly depending on which party was in power.

It is also perhaps noteworthy that, as a public sector organization, the BBC does have features of a [[socialist]] institution and it is believed that this may be reflected in some of its broadcast content.<ref>http://biased-bbc.com/2012/04/20/a-socialist-win-is-a-bbc-win/</ref>

===Bias against the US and Israel===
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the High Court of England and Wales. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]].<ref>[[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411977/Yes-biased-religion-politics-admit-BBC-executives.html]]</ref> At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</ref> The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.

However, the BBC was also criticised by some for refusing to show a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza following the fighting in the region in December 2008 - January 2009. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4789700/BBC-Trust-chairman-attacks-politicians-over-Gaza-appeal-pressure.html</ref>

===Liberal bias===
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
*has an "institutional Left-wing bias" (its 'Play for Today' series in the 1960s/70s was known as the '[[Trotskyist|Trot]] Slot')
*has "a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*promotes anti-American sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*fails to reflect concerns about pornography and family-unfriendly broadcasting (1960s Director General Hugh Carleton-Greene notoriously refused ever to meet broadcasting standards campaigner [[Mary Whitehouse]] and would commonly refer to her in opprobrious terms)
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world

[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the "liberal media consensus". Jay also said his ex-colleagues "were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007</ref>Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as "[[liberal]]" than "[[conservative]]". <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007</ref>

===Regional bias===
The BBC is based in [[London]], in the South East of England. It often faces accusations of being London-centric, with events in the North of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland having a reduced profile. A perceived disproportionately private school education is often claimed to be illustrated in the output, with a disproportionate emphasis on private school events and sports. Recently, this London emphasis is shifting, with many high profile BBC programs including Doctor Who being produced in Wales<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/arts/map/doctor-who-wales/</ref>, and production of some programs and channels being moved to Salford in 2012. <ref>http://www.mediacityuk.co.uk/</ref>

It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English<ref>[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]</ref>. In September 2008, the BBC launched BBC Alba, a [[Gaelic]] service consisting of a digital TV channel, a radio station and an online portal<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/alba/</ref>.

===Other===
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to "[[freedom fighter]]s". <ref>[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&only&rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007</ref>

The BBC cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007</ref>

The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007</ref>

[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of "parroting" [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007</ref>

While it is true that the BBC does display bias, private news institutions are also guilty of leaning liberal or conservative. For instance, a recent Pew survey found that 46% of the stories about Obama on Fox were negative compared to 6% that were positive and the rest neutral. When it came to the liberal leaning news outlet MSNBC, and their coverage of Romney, 71% of their stories were negative compared to 3% positive stories and the rest neutral.<ref>http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/winning_media_campaign_2012</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.
*[http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]
==Bibliography==
* Briggs, Asa, and Peter Burke. '' A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Media-Gutenberg-Internet/dp/0745623751/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-10 excerpt and text search]
* Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom'' (Oxford University Press, 1961).
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume I: The Birth of Broadcasting'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Birth/dp/0192129260/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. '' History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume II: The Golden Age of Wireless,'' (1995)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume III: The War of Words'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Broadcasting-United-Kingdom-Words/dp/0192129562/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197415587&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
** Briggs Asa. ''The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume IV: Sound & Vision'' (1979)
** Briggs Asa. ''History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom: Volume V: Competition'' (1995)
* Crisell, Andrew ''An Introductory History of British Broadcasting.'' 2nd ed. London: Routledge. (2002)
* Nicholas, Siân. ''The Echo of War: Home Front Propaganda and the Wartime BBC, 1939-45.'' (1996) 307p.
* Hickman, Tom. ''What Did You Do in the War, Auntie? The BBC at War, 1939-45.'' (1995) 224p.
* Scannell, Paddy, and Cardiff, David. ''A Social History of British Broadcasting, Volume One, 1922-1939'' (Basil Blackwell, 1991).
* Smith, Anthony, and Richard Paterson. ''Television: An International History'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Television-International-History-Anthony-Smith/dp/0198159285/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197416369&sr=1-6 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
* [http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ Biased BBC]

[[Category:Broadcasters]][[Category:Television]][[Category:Radio]]

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

2013-07-05T19:17:00Z

Brenden:

The '''Canadian Broadcasting Corporation''' or '''CBC''', is the national public broadcaster in [[Canada]]. Founded as a series of radio stations to play on [[Canadian National]] trains, as a promotional feature, the CBC was created on November 2, 1936 by an Act of Parliament. The CBC operates on a similar basis to its distantly related British cousin, the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]].

==Accusations of Liberal Bias==
The CBC is accused of having a predominantly liberal bias, by the current government of Canada, and by right-wing media outlets in the United States. While the CBC is mandated to present an entirely non-partisan viewpoint, most scholars agree that the CBC instead opts for the position of consensus - hence its opposition to opponents of Global Warming and its predominantly hostile take on Creationism and Intelligent Design, earning it harsh reviews from groups with interests in creationism.

==Content==
The CBC provides Canadian material, focusing on Canadian culture and arts. These programmes are included in all television packages. Aside from the cultural content, the CBC also provides sporting coverage, which has garnered itself a surprisingly large audience outside of Canada.
==See Also==
*[[BBC]], the so called bigger brother to the CBC.
==External Links==
*[http://www.cbc.ca Official Site]

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Canada]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Fox News Channel

2013-07-05T18:42:50Z

Brenden: /* Fox News Canada */ Links per MoS - not linking acronyms when the full name is provided

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|right|175px]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is a 24-hour general news service covering breaking news as well as political, business and entertainment news. The average age of its viewership is 65 years old, and even 70 years old for its [[O'Reilly Factor]]. Much of Fox News Channel is self-serving "happy talk," telling its elderly audience what it wants to hear, or selling O'Reilly's latest book.

The Fox News Channel heavily promotes [[RINO Backers]] -- commentators who may appear to be [[conservative]] but side with [[RINO]]s just when it matters most. Examples include [[Bill O'Reilly]], [[Sean Hannity]], [[Karl Rove]], and [[Rush Limbaugh]], who savaged [[Todd Akin]] for making a [[pro-life]] statement pointing out that pregnancy from rape is rare due to feminine biology. The Fox News Channel gave Karl Rove a platform to raise money against [[pro-life]] Republican candidates.

Even center-right pundit [[Sarah Palin]] is too [[conservative]] for Fox News Channel, as when it canceled some of her interviews at a key political moment in August 2012,<ref>"[[Sarah Palin]]: 'Fox canceled my interviews.''" [http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/sarah-palin-fox-cancelled-my-interviews-133729.html]</ref> and then refused to renew her contract. And Fox News believes that the former [[Guatemala|guatemalan]] president [[Efraín Ríos Montt]] was a dictator.<ref>http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/01/28/former-guatemalan-dictator-efrain-rios-montt-to-stand-trial-on-genocide-charges/</ref>

More generally, the Fox News Channel heavily favors [[neoconservatives]] and generally avoids or even sides against [[liberals]] on most political issues. The Fox News Channel is particularly weak in criticizing the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[abortion]]. The Fox News Channel often helps elect less conservative [[Republican]]s, as when it repeatedly featured and promoted [[John McCain]] and [[Chris Christie]] while excluding their more [[conservative]] primary opponents. It drifted further from the [[Conservative Movement|conservative movement]] by petulantly declaring that [[conservative]] [[Newt Gingrich]] would not be accepted back.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/ailes-newt-cant-come-back-to-fox-120421.html</ref>

==Founding==
The Fox News channel was started in 1996 by [[Rupert Murdoch]] and [[Roger Ailes]], who perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. [[Mainstream media]] "[[political correctness]]" was banished. As an example, Fox news [[anchor]]s call [[terrorist]]s what they are, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News has dominated the ratings of other cable news outlets.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, including the three major broadcast news shows, combined. It is by far the most profitable news network in the world, on track to earn more than $700 Million in 2010.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html New York Times, January 9, 2010]</ref> But the profit motive may cause some of the hostility Fox News has to the [[conservative]] positions on important social issues.

Indeed, for over 100 consecutive months, FNC has been the most-watched cable news channel in the country. FNC is available in more than 90 million homes. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
Critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda|propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''Outfoxed'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

Rolling Stone magazine charged that Ailes has “built the most formidable propaganda machine ever seen outside of the [[Communist]] bloc.” Ailes responded accusing NBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times, and the rest of running a liberal propaganda machine. {{cquote| If they did fair and balanced news, we’d be out of business.}}

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

Although it is true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated; it is equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with price-gouging and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. Greta Van Susteren's politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentators, such as news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for the Fox News Channel as well. For example, conservatives have complained about [[Fox News and homosexuality|how Fox News has covered the homosexuality issue]]. In 2006, the [[conservative]] reporter [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote that "Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]]’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami."<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref> In addition, their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

=== Fox News Liberals ===
Fox News is accused of being blatantly biased towards the right, during its supposedly non-partisan news reports. These accusations stem from alledged injection of opinion in news stories, selectively preventing liberals a chance to be represented on the channel, and supposed support for the Republican Party. Opponents to this theory cites the fact that Fox News employs the following [[liberal]]s;

*[[Juan Williams]]
*[[Alan Colmes]]
*[[Kirsten Powers]]
*[[Shepard Smith]]
*[[Geraldo Rivera]]
*[[Mara Liasson]]
*[[Bill Schulz]]
*[[Susan Estrich]]
*[[Bob Beckel]]
*[[Santita Jackson]]
*[[Simon Rosenberg]]

A 2009 national survey showed that 46% of those who watch FOX News “just about every day” are [[Democrat]]s or Independents. [[Dick Morris]] interpreted the numbers and determines, ''"Could it be that the [[Obama Administration]] is concerned about FOX News not because it is 'an arm of the Republican Party' but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?"'' <ref>[http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/fox-news-reaches-across-party-lines/ FOX NEWS REACHES ACROSS PARTY LINES, Dick Morris.com, October 19, 2009]</ref>

=== The Five ===
The show that replaced Glenn Beck's ratings dominance is 'The Five', described as a “roundtable ensemble of five rotating FOX personalities...." <ref>[http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/fox-news-to-replace-beck-with-the-five/, Fox News to Replace Beck With ‘The Five’, NYTimes, June 30, 2011]</ref>

Most often, the show pits Bob Beckel, a consistent defender of every Democratic Party talking point, against a panel of conservative or libertarian opponents. 'The Five' features Bob Beckel, Greg Gutfeld, [[Juan Williams]], [[Dana Perino]], [[Andrew Napolitano]], Geraldo Rivera, Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling, Monica Crowley, and Kimberly Guilfoyle.

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year. [Citation Needed]

[[Glenn Beck]] dominated the ratings before leaving the network in June 2011. Beck broke every single record for the 5 P.M. timeslot. The leftist mob learned to hate him with a passion and [[Center For American Progress]]' senior fellow [[Van Jones]] is taking credit for Beck's retirement.

April 2009 statistics showed three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with Greta Van Susteren is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Fox News Canada ==
Liberals have successfully painted Fox News as being blocked in [[Canada]] because of laws against lying, the premise is false. While they don't operate in Canada because of the legal tactics of direct competitor and wholly-owned government entity [[CBC|Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]] (CBC), Fox News does have a broadcast presence by selling programs to third party independent media companies like Bell, Rogers and 20 other companies. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184837,00.html Where in the World is FOX?, Fox News, march 1, 2011]</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the Rev. Franklin Graham, [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on Pat Ireland and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a Pew Foundation study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fringe views Versus Fox News ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist Brian Anderson. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' oil-for-food initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these conservatives in the media. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Obama Administration versus Fox News ==
[[Barack Hussein Obama]] has thin skin when it comes to criticism of his policies. The entire [[mainstream media]] has thrown its support to Obama and refuses to questions his policies. Fox News is the lone station that will criticize Obama fairly. Obama said, <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_critic_fox_news/2009/06/19/227121.html Media Critic: Fox Only Press Doing Its Job] NewsMax, June 19, 2009</ref>
{{cquote| “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.” }}

The President has praised MSNBC and berated Fox News. Considering that MSNBC devoted itself to attacking George W Bush and his administration, this is hypocritical on Obama's part. To sum it up, all other major news networks have let themselves become servile heralds of the liberal agenda, while Fox news is the only station that will call Obama out on anything he does.

Media critic David Zurawik said “Thank goodness at least one TV outlet, Fox, is questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt,” and "...ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and the others allow their news operations to be used by the White House for partisan political reasons."

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|400px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The contract will pay him over 23 million dollars in 2009. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business Channel]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.
{{cquote|'''At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. ''Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.'' The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates.''' --- The New York Times, 1/9/2010 <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html?pagewanted=all Ailes: Fox News Chief at the Pinnacle of Media and Politics ]</ref> }}

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref> Snow died July 12, 2008, after an unsuccessful battle with colon cancer.

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his own opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Shepard Smith.

==Sarah Palin==
The network confirmed in January of 2010 that the former [[Alaska|Alaskan]] governor [[Sarah Palin]] had signed a multiyear contract to appear on the news station periodically. Potentially in a format similar to LtCol (ret) Oliver L. North's "War stories" documentary series. <ref>http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sarah-palin-to-contribute-to-fox-news/?scp=2&sq=Palin&st=cse</ref>

==Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld==
Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld is a hybrid news / comedic satire show hosted by Greg Gutfeld. The show appears on Fox News at 3:00 a.m. EST on weekdays. Their ratings are remarkable for the time slot. <ref>[http://www.mediaite.com/online/red-eye-resurgence-more-demo-viewers-watch-fox-at-3am-than-cnn-at-8pm/ Red Eye Resurgence: More Demo Viewers Watch Fox At 3am Than CNN at 8pm, October 5th, 2009]</ref>
{{cquote|
The ratings came out for September and Red Eye is up over 30% in total viewers and up 50% in the key demo (25-54) since July. They have more overall viewers than every CNBC show, every MSNBC show that is on before Hardball, most of HLN, and American Morning on CNN.}}

September 2010 marks the third anniversary of RedEye w/ Greg Gutfeld. It was noted that their rating for 3:00 a.m. EST beat out [[CNN]],

{{cquote|This time, the show had better ratings in the A25-54 demographic than Campbell Brown at 8pmET and Larry King at 9pmET, and tied Anderson Cooper at 10pmET (Monday-Thursday).}}
==Fox News Channel and Homosexuality ==

''see also:'' [[Fox News and homosexuality]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

Currently, the Fox Broadcasting Company website declares concerning the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] (NLGJA):
{{cquote|NLGJA Annual Conference and Job Fair
Fox News is a regular exhibitor at these annual Job Fairs. News Corp sponsored the opening reception for first time attendees in 2006, as well as sponsoring workshops on Journalism in various colleges in 2007.<ref>http://www.fox.com/diversity/outreach/lgbt.htm</ref>}}

In 2010, the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] declared that [[Kelly Wright]], a Fox News Channel representative, attended NLGJA's 15th Annual New York Benefit.<ref>http://www.nlgja.org/news/NYE2010.htm</ref> According the Fox News Channel website: "Kelly Wright is co-anchor of "FOX & Friends Weekend" as well as a general assignment correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC)."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> Wright is a graduate of the [[Christian]] university [[Oral Roberts University]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> In January of 2010, the [[pro-life]] website published by Jill Stanek claimed Kelly Wright is a pastor.<ref>http://www.jillstanek.com/pregnancy/foxs-kelly-wrig.html</ref> According to [[Christianity]] and the [[Bible]], [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality is a sin]].
[[Image:Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Photo.jpg|thumb|Reverend [[Louis Sheldon]] of the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ]]
The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] states the following regarding the Fox News Channel and the issue of [[homosexuality]]:
{{cquote|The [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] has hundreds of members and is heavily funded by Hearst newspapers, Knight-Ridder, [[CBS News]], [[CNN]], Gannett, [[NBC]], [[Los Angeles Times]], [[Fox News]], and more. Major newspapers throughout the U.S. have homosexual activists on their staffs who filter what you read about homosexuality.<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf</ref>}}

[[Accuracy in Media]] declared concerning the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|Media organizations which underwrote the convention included NBC News, Times Inc., Turner Broadcasting, Knight-Ridder, the Washington Post and Fox News Network. That’s right - Fox News. This is supposed to be a conservative network. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and USA Today all sent recruiters to the event, to hire open gays as journalists. Fitzpatrick comments, "By treating the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association as a legitimate counterpart to black and Hispanic journalists’ associations, these media organizations showed that they agree with the notion that homosexuals, a group defined by behavior rather than immutable characteristics, constitute a bona fide minority."<ref>http://ghroll.blogspot.com/2008/03/homosexuality-in-media.html</ref>}}

=== Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue ===

''see also:'' [[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

The [[American Family Association]] reported the following in regards to [[Bill O'Reilly]] who host the O'Reilly Report which is a popular program on the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|On February 11, 2004, Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, featured Kevin Jennings, the executive director of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network.) Jennings, former teacher turned homosexual activist, along with a lesbian counterpart, discussed GLSEN's new pro-homosexual curriculum on marriage being marketed to children and youth in public schools all across America under the guise of "tolerance."...

O'Reilly, watched heavily by conservatives and Christians alike, shocked much of his constituency on September 3, 2002 when he publicly announced his support of homosexual rights in the nation's largest “gay” publication, ''The Advocate''. His sympathetic, lenient views on “gay” adoption and his mixed-message stance on “gay” marriage have caused great dissent among his loyalists - and no doubt cost him viewers.<ref>http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/GetArticle.asp?id=115</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] stated the following regarding O'Reilly and his exchange with the [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] and evangelical minister Stephen Bennett:
{{cquote|Fox News is threatening to sue a prominent evangelical minister in the ex-homosexual movement who engaged in a volatile exchange over biblical morality on the top-rated television program "The O'Reilly Factor" in September.

Stephen Bennett, who says he left his homosexual lifestyle nearly 11 years ago, has distributed a 60-minute audio tape program called the "The O'Reilly Shocker," in which he responds to host Bill O'Reilly's characterization of people who take the Bible literally as "religious fanatics.".

Bennett said he has received hundreds of e-mails from viewers of the segment who said they were outraged at O'Reilly's "anger and verbal abuse." <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30300</ref>}}

In response to the threatened lawsuit of the Fox News Channel the Agape Press reported:
{{cquote|But Mike DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, which represents Bennett, says Bennett has a right to distribute a recording of the program -- and that his use of the tape is legal under copyright law's allowance of fair use and comment.

"The law provides that even copyrighted material may be used, provided it's used not for commercial gain but for comment," DePrimo says. "Stephen Bennett used the material from the O'Reilly show simply to rebut the arguments O'Reilly put forward."

The attorney implies there may be another reason the popular O'Reilly wants distribution of the tape stopped -- and it has to do with image. "O'Reilly promotes himself as a [[conservative]]," DePrimo explains. "In fact, Bennett's tape shows that O'Reilly is simply another media elite who's advancing the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]] -- and he doesn't want to be exposed for what he is."<ref>http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/afa/32003a.asp</ref>}}

Bill O'Reilly describes himself as a practicing [[Roman Catholic]].<ref>http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=29184</ref> According to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

=== Peter LaBarbera Concerning Fox News and homosexuality ===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality in the media]]

[[Image:Peter.jpg|right|thumb|150px|[[Peter LaBarbera]] ]]
In April of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] of [[Americans for Truth]] wrote:
{{cquote|How fascinating that [[Wayne Besen]] (left) is given the opportunity to appear on FOX News, of all places..., to critique alleged “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” attitudes and speech toward homosexuals — when he has such a well-deserved reputation for being one of the nastiest “queer” activists in the business.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/gays-hating-ex-gays-wayne-besens-verbal-assault-on-greg-quinlan.html</ref>}}

In March of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] declared:
{{cquote|Temple U. Professor Dr. Marc Lamont Hill (left), a frequent guest on FOX News, believes Americans are “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” because most still don’t like to see homosexuality (compared to heterosexuality) on TV or the big screen. We say Prof. Hill should get off his liberal high horse and stop lecturing Americans for their normal reaction to unnatural and immoral behavior....

Enough already. Gay sex is wrong, [[Homosexuality and health|unhealthy (especially between men)]], and my hunch is it’s still pretty off-putting to most FOX viewers who are honest with themselves. And that’s OK. But I’ll go further: if there is a growing acceptance of homo-sexual behavior, especially among young people, that’s not a good thing but a sign of America’s descent into decadence, and our departure from a transcendent Judeo-Christian moral code that has served this nation well.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/were-all-homophobes-now-letter-to-foxs-red-eye.html</ref>}}

In 2006, [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:
{{cquote|Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami (Sept 7-10 at Loew’s Miami Beach Hotel). Every year, the NLGJA garners hundreds of thousands of dollars in Big Media sponsorships for its convention; this year it appears (based on the sponsorship list below) that the total is around half a milliion dollars in corporate support...

Our question for Fox News executives is: if you are truly “fair and balanced,” will you now give an equal and corresponding grant to Americans for Truth or another pro-family organization, say, Accuracy in Media, that counters the ubiquitous pro-”gay” spin in the media? We’ll be awaiting your answer.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref>}}

=== Rupert Murdoch ===
[[Image:HillaryRupert1V.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Hillary Clinton with media magnate Ruppert Murdoch. ''Photo Courtesy Democrats Against Hillary''.<ref>[http://democratsagainsthillary.blogspot.com/ ''Democrats Against Hillary''].</ref>]]
The Fox News Channel is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]].

Slated reported in 2008 that since 1997, [[Republicans]] have received a slight majority - 56% of the $4.76 million in campaign donations from the Murdoch family and the [[News Corporation]]'s political action committees and employees.<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> However, [[Slate]] also reported in 2008: "Since Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections, the company and its employees have given more than twice as much to [[Democrats]] as to [[Republicans]]."<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> Generally speaking, [[Republicans]] have less favorable views and policies concerning homosexuality than [[Democrats]].<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral-Issues-Sharply-Divide-Americans.aspx</ref> The Pew Research Center reported in 2010: "In broad terms, voters view the Democratic Party's ideology as the opposite of the Republican Party's: 58% say the Democratic Party is either very liberal or liberal..."<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1669/political-ideology-democrats-seen-farther-from-center-than-republicans</ref> In the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> In recent years, Rupert Murdoch has formed a relationship with the [[liberal]]s/[[Democrats]] [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]. In 2005, he invited musician [[Bono]] and Bill Clinton to a company conference on the environment, [[Islam]] in the West, and future of the world.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Keith-Rupert-Murdoch_639W.html</ref>

=== Knighthood by Roman Catholic Organization and Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality ===
Rupert Murdoch has been married three times and divorced two times. Before Rupert Murdoch left his second wife, he was anointed as a member of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great, for his "unblemished character."<ref>http://weeklywire.com/ww/01-20-98/alibi_opinion.html</ref>

The [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref><ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html</ref> However, as noted earlier, according to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

== See Also ==
* '''[[Fox News and homosexuality]]'''
* '''[[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]]'''
* '''[[Homosexuality in the media]]'''
* '''[[Fox Television and Religion]]'''
* '''[[Roger Ailes]]'''

== External Links ==
* [http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News official website]

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

[[Category:Fox News Channel]]
[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]

Fox News Channel

2013-07-05T18:41:39Z

Brenden: /* Fox News Canada */

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|right|175px]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is a 24-hour general news service covering breaking news as well as political, business and entertainment news. The average age of its viewership is 65 years old, and even 70 years old for its [[O'Reilly Factor]]. Much of Fox News Channel is self-serving "happy talk," telling its elderly audience what it wants to hear, or selling O'Reilly's latest book.

The Fox News Channel heavily promotes [[RINO Backers]] -- commentators who may appear to be [[conservative]] but side with [[RINO]]s just when it matters most. Examples include [[Bill O'Reilly]], [[Sean Hannity]], [[Karl Rove]], and [[Rush Limbaugh]], who savaged [[Todd Akin]] for making a [[pro-life]] statement pointing out that pregnancy from rape is rare due to feminine biology. The Fox News Channel gave Karl Rove a platform to raise money against [[pro-life]] Republican candidates.

Even center-right pundit [[Sarah Palin]] is too [[conservative]] for Fox News Channel, as when it canceled some of her interviews at a key political moment in August 2012,<ref>"[[Sarah Palin]]: 'Fox canceled my interviews.''" [http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/sarah-palin-fox-cancelled-my-interviews-133729.html]</ref> and then refused to renew her contract. And Fox News believes that the former [[Guatemala|guatemalan]] president [[Efraín Ríos Montt]] was a dictator.<ref>http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/01/28/former-guatemalan-dictator-efrain-rios-montt-to-stand-trial-on-genocide-charges/</ref>

More generally, the Fox News Channel heavily favors [[neoconservatives]] and generally avoids or even sides against [[liberals]] on most political issues. The Fox News Channel is particularly weak in criticizing the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[abortion]]. The Fox News Channel often helps elect less conservative [[Republican]]s, as when it repeatedly featured and promoted [[John McCain]] and [[Chris Christie]] while excluding their more [[conservative]] primary opponents. It drifted further from the [[Conservative Movement|conservative movement]] by petulantly declaring that [[conservative]] [[Newt Gingrich]] would not be accepted back.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/ailes-newt-cant-come-back-to-fox-120421.html</ref>

==Founding==
The Fox News channel was started in 1996 by [[Rupert Murdoch]] and [[Roger Ailes]], who perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. [[Mainstream media]] "[[political correctness]]" was banished. As an example, Fox news [[anchor]]s call [[terrorist]]s what they are, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News has dominated the ratings of other cable news outlets.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, including the three major broadcast news shows, combined. It is by far the most profitable news network in the world, on track to earn more than $700 Million in 2010.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html New York Times, January 9, 2010]</ref> But the profit motive may cause some of the hostility Fox News has to the [[conservative]] positions on important social issues.

Indeed, for over 100 consecutive months, FNC has been the most-watched cable news channel in the country. FNC is available in more than 90 million homes. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
Critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda|propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''Outfoxed'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

Rolling Stone magazine charged that Ailes has “built the most formidable propaganda machine ever seen outside of the [[Communist]] bloc.” Ailes responded accusing NBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times, and the rest of running a liberal propaganda machine. {{cquote| If they did fair and balanced news, we’d be out of business.}}

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

Although it is true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated; it is equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with price-gouging and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. Greta Van Susteren's politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentators, such as news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for the Fox News Channel as well. For example, conservatives have complained about [[Fox News and homosexuality|how Fox News has covered the homosexuality issue]]. In 2006, the [[conservative]] reporter [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote that "Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]]’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami."<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref> In addition, their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

=== Fox News Liberals ===
Fox News is accused of being blatantly biased towards the right, during its supposedly non-partisan news reports. These accusations stem from alledged injection of opinion in news stories, selectively preventing liberals a chance to be represented on the channel, and supposed support for the Republican Party. Opponents to this theory cites the fact that Fox News employs the following [[liberal]]s;

*[[Juan Williams]]
*[[Alan Colmes]]
*[[Kirsten Powers]]
*[[Shepard Smith]]
*[[Geraldo Rivera]]
*[[Mara Liasson]]
*[[Bill Schulz]]
*[[Susan Estrich]]
*[[Bob Beckel]]
*[[Santita Jackson]]
*[[Simon Rosenberg]]

A 2009 national survey showed that 46% of those who watch FOX News “just about every day” are [[Democrat]]s or Independents. [[Dick Morris]] interpreted the numbers and determines, ''"Could it be that the [[Obama Administration]] is concerned about FOX News not because it is 'an arm of the Republican Party' but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?"'' <ref>[http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/fox-news-reaches-across-party-lines/ FOX NEWS REACHES ACROSS PARTY LINES, Dick Morris.com, October 19, 2009]</ref>

=== The Five ===
The show that replaced Glenn Beck's ratings dominance is 'The Five', described as a “roundtable ensemble of five rotating FOX personalities...." <ref>[http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/fox-news-to-replace-beck-with-the-five/, Fox News to Replace Beck With ‘The Five’, NYTimes, June 30, 2011]</ref>

Most often, the show pits Bob Beckel, a consistent defender of every Democratic Party talking point, against a panel of conservative or libertarian opponents. 'The Five' features Bob Beckel, Greg Gutfeld, [[Juan Williams]], [[Dana Perino]], [[Andrew Napolitano]], Geraldo Rivera, Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling, Monica Crowley, and Kimberly Guilfoyle.

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year. [Citation Needed]

[[Glenn Beck]] dominated the ratings before leaving the network in June 2011. Beck broke every single record for the 5 P.M. timeslot. The leftist mob learned to hate him with a passion and [[Center For American Progress]]' senior fellow [[Van Jones]] is taking credit for Beck's retirement.

April 2009 statistics showed three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with Greta Van Susteren is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Fox News Canada ==
Liberals have successfully painted Fox News as being blocked in [[Canada]] because of laws against lying, the premise is false. While they don't operate in Canada because of the legal tactics of direct competitor and wholly-owned government entity [[Canadian Broadcast Corporation]] ([[CBC]]), Fox News does have a broadcast presence by selling programs to third party independent media companies like Bell, Rogers and 20 other companies. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184837,00.html Where in the World is FOX?, Fox News, march 1, 2011]</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the Rev. Franklin Graham, [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on Pat Ireland and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a Pew Foundation study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fringe views Versus Fox News ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist Brian Anderson. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' oil-for-food initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these conservatives in the media. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Obama Administration versus Fox News ==
[[Barack Hussein Obama]] has thin skin when it comes to criticism of his policies. The entire [[mainstream media]] has thrown its support to Obama and refuses to questions his policies. Fox News is the lone station that will criticize Obama fairly. Obama said, <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_critic_fox_news/2009/06/19/227121.html Media Critic: Fox Only Press Doing Its Job] NewsMax, June 19, 2009</ref>
{{cquote| “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.” }}

The President has praised MSNBC and berated Fox News. Considering that MSNBC devoted itself to attacking George W Bush and his administration, this is hypocritical on Obama's part. To sum it up, all other major news networks have let themselves become servile heralds of the liberal agenda, while Fox news is the only station that will call Obama out on anything he does.

Media critic David Zurawik said “Thank goodness at least one TV outlet, Fox, is questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt,” and "...ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and the others allow their news operations to be used by the White House for partisan political reasons."

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|400px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The contract will pay him over 23 million dollars in 2009. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business Channel]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.
{{cquote|'''At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. ''Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.'' The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates.''' --- The New York Times, 1/9/2010 <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html?pagewanted=all Ailes: Fox News Chief at the Pinnacle of Media and Politics ]</ref> }}

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref> Snow died July 12, 2008, after an unsuccessful battle with colon cancer.

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his own opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Shepard Smith.

==Sarah Palin==
The network confirmed in January of 2010 that the former [[Alaska|Alaskan]] governor [[Sarah Palin]] had signed a multiyear contract to appear on the news station periodically. Potentially in a format similar to LtCol (ret) Oliver L. North's "War stories" documentary series. <ref>http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sarah-palin-to-contribute-to-fox-news/?scp=2&sq=Palin&st=cse</ref>

==Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld==
Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld is a hybrid news / comedic satire show hosted by Greg Gutfeld. The show appears on Fox News at 3:00 a.m. EST on weekdays. Their ratings are remarkable for the time slot. <ref>[http://www.mediaite.com/online/red-eye-resurgence-more-demo-viewers-watch-fox-at-3am-than-cnn-at-8pm/ Red Eye Resurgence: More Demo Viewers Watch Fox At 3am Than CNN at 8pm, October 5th, 2009]</ref>
{{cquote|
The ratings came out for September and Red Eye is up over 30% in total viewers and up 50% in the key demo (25-54) since July. They have more overall viewers than every CNBC show, every MSNBC show that is on before Hardball, most of HLN, and American Morning on CNN.}}

September 2010 marks the third anniversary of RedEye w/ Greg Gutfeld. It was noted that their rating for 3:00 a.m. EST beat out [[CNN]],

{{cquote|This time, the show had better ratings in the A25-54 demographic than Campbell Brown at 8pmET and Larry King at 9pmET, and tied Anderson Cooper at 10pmET (Monday-Thursday).}}
==Fox News Channel and Homosexuality ==

''see also:'' [[Fox News and homosexuality]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

Currently, the Fox Broadcasting Company website declares concerning the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] (NLGJA):
{{cquote|NLGJA Annual Conference and Job Fair
Fox News is a regular exhibitor at these annual Job Fairs. News Corp sponsored the opening reception for first time attendees in 2006, as well as sponsoring workshops on Journalism in various colleges in 2007.<ref>http://www.fox.com/diversity/outreach/lgbt.htm</ref>}}

In 2010, the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] declared that [[Kelly Wright]], a Fox News Channel representative, attended NLGJA's 15th Annual New York Benefit.<ref>http://www.nlgja.org/news/NYE2010.htm</ref> According the Fox News Channel website: "Kelly Wright is co-anchor of "FOX & Friends Weekend" as well as a general assignment correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC)."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> Wright is a graduate of the [[Christian]] university [[Oral Roberts University]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> In January of 2010, the [[pro-life]] website published by Jill Stanek claimed Kelly Wright is a pastor.<ref>http://www.jillstanek.com/pregnancy/foxs-kelly-wrig.html</ref> According to [[Christianity]] and the [[Bible]], [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality is a sin]].
[[Image:Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Photo.jpg|thumb|Reverend [[Louis Sheldon]] of the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ]]
The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] states the following regarding the Fox News Channel and the issue of [[homosexuality]]:
{{cquote|The [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] has hundreds of members and is heavily funded by Hearst newspapers, Knight-Ridder, [[CBS News]], [[CNN]], Gannett, [[NBC]], [[Los Angeles Times]], [[Fox News]], and more. Major newspapers throughout the U.S. have homosexual activists on their staffs who filter what you read about homosexuality.<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf</ref>}}

[[Accuracy in Media]] declared concerning the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|Media organizations which underwrote the convention included NBC News, Times Inc., Turner Broadcasting, Knight-Ridder, the Washington Post and Fox News Network. That’s right - Fox News. This is supposed to be a conservative network. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and USA Today all sent recruiters to the event, to hire open gays as journalists. Fitzpatrick comments, "By treating the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association as a legitimate counterpart to black and Hispanic journalists’ associations, these media organizations showed that they agree with the notion that homosexuals, a group defined by behavior rather than immutable characteristics, constitute a bona fide minority."<ref>http://ghroll.blogspot.com/2008/03/homosexuality-in-media.html</ref>}}

=== Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue ===

''see also:'' [[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

The [[American Family Association]] reported the following in regards to [[Bill O'Reilly]] who host the O'Reilly Report which is a popular program on the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|On February 11, 2004, Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, featured Kevin Jennings, the executive director of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network.) Jennings, former teacher turned homosexual activist, along with a lesbian counterpart, discussed GLSEN's new pro-homosexual curriculum on marriage being marketed to children and youth in public schools all across America under the guise of "tolerance."...

O'Reilly, watched heavily by conservatives and Christians alike, shocked much of his constituency on September 3, 2002 when he publicly announced his support of homosexual rights in the nation's largest “gay” publication, ''The Advocate''. His sympathetic, lenient views on “gay” adoption and his mixed-message stance on “gay” marriage have caused great dissent among his loyalists - and no doubt cost him viewers.<ref>http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/GetArticle.asp?id=115</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] stated the following regarding O'Reilly and his exchange with the [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] and evangelical minister Stephen Bennett:
{{cquote|Fox News is threatening to sue a prominent evangelical minister in the ex-homosexual movement who engaged in a volatile exchange over biblical morality on the top-rated television program "The O'Reilly Factor" in September.

Stephen Bennett, who says he left his homosexual lifestyle nearly 11 years ago, has distributed a 60-minute audio tape program called the "The O'Reilly Shocker," in which he responds to host Bill O'Reilly's characterization of people who take the Bible literally as "religious fanatics.".

Bennett said he has received hundreds of e-mails from viewers of the segment who said they were outraged at O'Reilly's "anger and verbal abuse." <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30300</ref>}}

In response to the threatened lawsuit of the Fox News Channel the Agape Press reported:
{{cquote|But Mike DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, which represents Bennett, says Bennett has a right to distribute a recording of the program -- and that his use of the tape is legal under copyright law's allowance of fair use and comment.

"The law provides that even copyrighted material may be used, provided it's used not for commercial gain but for comment," DePrimo says. "Stephen Bennett used the material from the O'Reilly show simply to rebut the arguments O'Reilly put forward."

The attorney implies there may be another reason the popular O'Reilly wants distribution of the tape stopped -- and it has to do with image. "O'Reilly promotes himself as a [[conservative]]," DePrimo explains. "In fact, Bennett's tape shows that O'Reilly is simply another media elite who's advancing the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]] -- and he doesn't want to be exposed for what he is."<ref>http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/afa/32003a.asp</ref>}}

Bill O'Reilly describes himself as a practicing [[Roman Catholic]].<ref>http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=29184</ref> According to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

=== Peter LaBarbera Concerning Fox News and homosexuality ===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality in the media]]

[[Image:Peter.jpg|right|thumb|150px|[[Peter LaBarbera]] ]]
In April of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] of [[Americans for Truth]] wrote:
{{cquote|How fascinating that [[Wayne Besen]] (left) is given the opportunity to appear on FOX News, of all places..., to critique alleged “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” attitudes and speech toward homosexuals — when he has such a well-deserved reputation for being one of the nastiest “queer” activists in the business.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/gays-hating-ex-gays-wayne-besens-verbal-assault-on-greg-quinlan.html</ref>}}

In March of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] declared:
{{cquote|Temple U. Professor Dr. Marc Lamont Hill (left), a frequent guest on FOX News, believes Americans are “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” because most still don’t like to see homosexuality (compared to heterosexuality) on TV or the big screen. We say Prof. Hill should get off his liberal high horse and stop lecturing Americans for their normal reaction to unnatural and immoral behavior....

Enough already. Gay sex is wrong, [[Homosexuality and health|unhealthy (especially between men)]], and my hunch is it’s still pretty off-putting to most FOX viewers who are honest with themselves. And that’s OK. But I’ll go further: if there is a growing acceptance of homo-sexual behavior, especially among young people, that’s not a good thing but a sign of America’s descent into decadence, and our departure from a transcendent Judeo-Christian moral code that has served this nation well.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/were-all-homophobes-now-letter-to-foxs-red-eye.html</ref>}}

In 2006, [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:
{{cquote|Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami (Sept 7-10 at Loew’s Miami Beach Hotel). Every year, the NLGJA garners hundreds of thousands of dollars in Big Media sponsorships for its convention; this year it appears (based on the sponsorship list below) that the total is around half a milliion dollars in corporate support...

Our question for Fox News executives is: if you are truly “fair and balanced,” will you now give an equal and corresponding grant to Americans for Truth or another pro-family organization, say, Accuracy in Media, that counters the ubiquitous pro-”gay” spin in the media? We’ll be awaiting your answer.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref>}}

=== Rupert Murdoch ===
[[Image:HillaryRupert1V.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Hillary Clinton with media magnate Ruppert Murdoch. ''Photo Courtesy Democrats Against Hillary''.<ref>[http://democratsagainsthillary.blogspot.com/ ''Democrats Against Hillary''].</ref>]]
The Fox News Channel is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]].

Slated reported in 2008 that since 1997, [[Republicans]] have received a slight majority - 56% of the $4.76 million in campaign donations from the Murdoch family and the [[News Corporation]]'s political action committees and employees.<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> However, [[Slate]] also reported in 2008: "Since Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections, the company and its employees have given more than twice as much to [[Democrats]] as to [[Republicans]]."<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> Generally speaking, [[Republicans]] have less favorable views and policies concerning homosexuality than [[Democrats]].<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral-Issues-Sharply-Divide-Americans.aspx</ref> The Pew Research Center reported in 2010: "In broad terms, voters view the Democratic Party's ideology as the opposite of the Republican Party's: 58% say the Democratic Party is either very liberal or liberal..."<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1669/political-ideology-democrats-seen-farther-from-center-than-republicans</ref> In the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> In recent years, Rupert Murdoch has formed a relationship with the [[liberal]]s/[[Democrats]] [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]. In 2005, he invited musician [[Bono]] and Bill Clinton to a company conference on the environment, [[Islam]] in the West, and future of the world.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Keith-Rupert-Murdoch_639W.html</ref>

=== Knighthood by Roman Catholic Organization and Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality ===
Rupert Murdoch has been married three times and divorced two times. Before Rupert Murdoch left his second wife, he was anointed as a member of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great, for his "unblemished character."<ref>http://weeklywire.com/ww/01-20-98/alibi_opinion.html</ref>

The [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref><ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html</ref> However, as noted earlier, according to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

== See Also ==
* '''[[Fox News and homosexuality]]'''
* '''[[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]]'''
* '''[[Homosexuality in the media]]'''
* '''[[Fox Television and Religion]]'''
* '''[[Roger Ailes]]'''

== External Links ==
* [http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News official website]

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

[[Category:Fox News Channel]]
[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]

Fox News Channel

2013-07-05T18:40:26Z

Brenden: /* Fox News Liberals */ MoS

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|right|175px]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is a 24-hour general news service covering breaking news as well as political, business and entertainment news. The average age of its viewership is 65 years old, and even 70 years old for its [[O'Reilly Factor]]. Much of Fox News Channel is self-serving "happy talk," telling its elderly audience what it wants to hear, or selling O'Reilly's latest book.

The Fox News Channel heavily promotes [[RINO Backers]] -- commentators who may appear to be [[conservative]] but side with [[RINO]]s just when it matters most. Examples include [[Bill O'Reilly]], [[Sean Hannity]], [[Karl Rove]], and [[Rush Limbaugh]], who savaged [[Todd Akin]] for making a [[pro-life]] statement pointing out that pregnancy from rape is rare due to feminine biology. The Fox News Channel gave Karl Rove a platform to raise money against [[pro-life]] Republican candidates.

Even center-right pundit [[Sarah Palin]] is too [[conservative]] for Fox News Channel, as when it canceled some of her interviews at a key political moment in August 2012,<ref>"[[Sarah Palin]]: 'Fox canceled my interviews.''" [http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/sarah-palin-fox-cancelled-my-interviews-133729.html]</ref> and then refused to renew her contract. And Fox News believes that the former [[Guatemala|guatemalan]] president [[Efraín Ríos Montt]] was a dictator.<ref>http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/01/28/former-guatemalan-dictator-efrain-rios-montt-to-stand-trial-on-genocide-charges/</ref>

More generally, the Fox News Channel heavily favors [[neoconservatives]] and generally avoids or even sides against [[liberals]] on most political issues. The Fox News Channel is particularly weak in criticizing the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[abortion]]. The Fox News Channel often helps elect less conservative [[Republican]]s, as when it repeatedly featured and promoted [[John McCain]] and [[Chris Christie]] while excluding their more [[conservative]] primary opponents. It drifted further from the [[Conservative Movement|conservative movement]] by petulantly declaring that [[conservative]] [[Newt Gingrich]] would not be accepted back.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/ailes-newt-cant-come-back-to-fox-120421.html</ref>

==Founding==
The Fox News channel was started in 1996 by [[Rupert Murdoch]] and [[Roger Ailes]], who perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. [[Mainstream media]] "[[political correctness]]" was banished. As an example, Fox news [[anchor]]s call [[terrorist]]s what they are, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News has dominated the ratings of other cable news outlets.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, including the three major broadcast news shows, combined. It is by far the most profitable news network in the world, on track to earn more than $700 Million in 2010.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html New York Times, January 9, 2010]</ref> But the profit motive may cause some of the hostility Fox News has to the [[conservative]] positions on important social issues.

Indeed, for over 100 consecutive months, FNC has been the most-watched cable news channel in the country. FNC is available in more than 90 million homes. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
Critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda|propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''Outfoxed'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

Rolling Stone magazine charged that Ailes has “built the most formidable propaganda machine ever seen outside of the [[Communist]] bloc.” Ailes responded accusing NBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times, and the rest of running a liberal propaganda machine. {{cquote| If they did fair and balanced news, we’d be out of business.}}

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

Although it is true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated; it is equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with price-gouging and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. Greta Van Susteren's politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentators, such as news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for the Fox News Channel as well. For example, conservatives have complained about [[Fox News and homosexuality|how Fox News has covered the homosexuality issue]]. In 2006, the [[conservative]] reporter [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote that "Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]]’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami."<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref> In addition, their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

=== Fox News Liberals ===
Fox News is accused of being blatantly biased towards the right, during its supposedly non-partisan news reports. These accusations stem from alledged injection of opinion in news stories, selectively preventing liberals a chance to be represented on the channel, and supposed support for the Republican Party. Opponents to this theory cites the fact that Fox News employs the following [[liberal]]s;

*[[Juan Williams]]
*[[Alan Colmes]]
*[[Kirsten Powers]]
*[[Shepard Smith]]
*[[Geraldo Rivera]]
*[[Mara Liasson]]
*[[Bill Schulz]]
*[[Susan Estrich]]
*[[Bob Beckel]]
*[[Santita Jackson]]
*[[Simon Rosenberg]]

A 2009 national survey showed that 46% of those who watch FOX News “just about every day” are [[Democrat]]s or Independents. [[Dick Morris]] interpreted the numbers and determines, ''"Could it be that the [[Obama Administration]] is concerned about FOX News not because it is 'an arm of the Republican Party' but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?"'' <ref>[http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/fox-news-reaches-across-party-lines/ FOX NEWS REACHES ACROSS PARTY LINES, Dick Morris.com, October 19, 2009]</ref>

=== The Five ===
The show that replaced Glenn Beck's ratings dominance is 'The Five', described as a “roundtable ensemble of five rotating FOX personalities...." <ref>[http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/fox-news-to-replace-beck-with-the-five/, Fox News to Replace Beck With ‘The Five’, NYTimes, June 30, 2011]</ref>

Most often, the show pits Bob Beckel, a consistent defender of every Democratic Party talking point, against a panel of conservative or libertarian opponents. 'The Five' features Bob Beckel, Greg Gutfeld, [[Juan Williams]], [[Dana Perino]], [[Andrew Napolitano]], Geraldo Rivera, Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling, Monica Crowley, and Kimberly Guilfoyle.

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year. [Citation Needed]

[[Glenn Beck]] dominated the ratings before leaving the network in June 2011. Beck broke every single record for the 5 P.M. timeslot. The leftist mob learned to hate him with a passion and [[Center For American Progress]]' senior fellow [[Van Jones]] is taking credit for Beck's retirement.

April 2009 statistics showed three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with Greta Van Susteren is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Fox News Canada ==
Liberals have successfully painted Fox News as being blocked in [[Canada]] because of laws against lying, the premise is false. While they don't operate in Canada because of the legal tactics of direct competitor and wholly-owned government entity Canadian Broadcast Corporation ([[CBC]]), Fox News does have a broadcast presence by way of independent media companies like Bell, Rogers and 20 other companies. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184837,00.html Where in the World is FOX?, Fox News, march 1, 2011]</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the Rev. Franklin Graham, [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on Pat Ireland and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a Pew Foundation study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fringe views Versus Fox News ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist Brian Anderson. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' oil-for-food initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these conservatives in the media. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Obama Administration versus Fox News ==
[[Barack Hussein Obama]] has thin skin when it comes to criticism of his policies. The entire [[mainstream media]] has thrown its support to Obama and refuses to questions his policies. Fox News is the lone station that will criticize Obama fairly. Obama said, <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_critic_fox_news/2009/06/19/227121.html Media Critic: Fox Only Press Doing Its Job] NewsMax, June 19, 2009</ref>
{{cquote| “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.” }}

The President has praised MSNBC and berated Fox News. Considering that MSNBC devoted itself to attacking George W Bush and his administration, this is hypocritical on Obama's part. To sum it up, all other major news networks have let themselves become servile heralds of the liberal agenda, while Fox news is the only station that will call Obama out on anything he does.

Media critic David Zurawik said “Thank goodness at least one TV outlet, Fox, is questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt,” and "...ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and the others allow their news operations to be used by the White House for partisan political reasons."

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|400px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The contract will pay him over 23 million dollars in 2009. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business Channel]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.
{{cquote|'''At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. ''Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.'' The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates.''' --- The New York Times, 1/9/2010 <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html?pagewanted=all Ailes: Fox News Chief at the Pinnacle of Media and Politics ]</ref> }}

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref> Snow died July 12, 2008, after an unsuccessful battle with colon cancer.

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his own opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Shepard Smith.

==Sarah Palin==
The network confirmed in January of 2010 that the former [[Alaska|Alaskan]] governor [[Sarah Palin]] had signed a multiyear contract to appear on the news station periodically. Potentially in a format similar to LtCol (ret) Oliver L. North's "War stories" documentary series. <ref>http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sarah-palin-to-contribute-to-fox-news/?scp=2&sq=Palin&st=cse</ref>

==Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld==
Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld is a hybrid news / comedic satire show hosted by Greg Gutfeld. The show appears on Fox News at 3:00 a.m. EST on weekdays. Their ratings are remarkable for the time slot. <ref>[http://www.mediaite.com/online/red-eye-resurgence-more-demo-viewers-watch-fox-at-3am-than-cnn-at-8pm/ Red Eye Resurgence: More Demo Viewers Watch Fox At 3am Than CNN at 8pm, October 5th, 2009]</ref>
{{cquote|
The ratings came out for September and Red Eye is up over 30% in total viewers and up 50% in the key demo (25-54) since July. They have more overall viewers than every CNBC show, every MSNBC show that is on before Hardball, most of HLN, and American Morning on CNN.}}

September 2010 marks the third anniversary of RedEye w/ Greg Gutfeld. It was noted that their rating for 3:00 a.m. EST beat out [[CNN]],

{{cquote|This time, the show had better ratings in the A25-54 demographic than Campbell Brown at 8pmET and Larry King at 9pmET, and tied Anderson Cooper at 10pmET (Monday-Thursday).}}
==Fox News Channel and Homosexuality ==

''see also:'' [[Fox News and homosexuality]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

Currently, the Fox Broadcasting Company website declares concerning the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] (NLGJA):
{{cquote|NLGJA Annual Conference and Job Fair
Fox News is a regular exhibitor at these annual Job Fairs. News Corp sponsored the opening reception for first time attendees in 2006, as well as sponsoring workshops on Journalism in various colleges in 2007.<ref>http://www.fox.com/diversity/outreach/lgbt.htm</ref>}}

In 2010, the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] declared that [[Kelly Wright]], a Fox News Channel representative, attended NLGJA's 15th Annual New York Benefit.<ref>http://www.nlgja.org/news/NYE2010.htm</ref> According the Fox News Channel website: "Kelly Wright is co-anchor of "FOX & Friends Weekend" as well as a general assignment correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC)."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> Wright is a graduate of the [[Christian]] university [[Oral Roberts University]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> In January of 2010, the [[pro-life]] website published by Jill Stanek claimed Kelly Wright is a pastor.<ref>http://www.jillstanek.com/pregnancy/foxs-kelly-wrig.html</ref> According to [[Christianity]] and the [[Bible]], [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality is a sin]].
[[Image:Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Photo.jpg|thumb|Reverend [[Louis Sheldon]] of the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ]]
The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] states the following regarding the Fox News Channel and the issue of [[homosexuality]]:
{{cquote|The [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] has hundreds of members and is heavily funded by Hearst newspapers, Knight-Ridder, [[CBS News]], [[CNN]], Gannett, [[NBC]], [[Los Angeles Times]], [[Fox News]], and more. Major newspapers throughout the U.S. have homosexual activists on their staffs who filter what you read about homosexuality.<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf</ref>}}

[[Accuracy in Media]] declared concerning the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|Media organizations which underwrote the convention included NBC News, Times Inc., Turner Broadcasting, Knight-Ridder, the Washington Post and Fox News Network. That’s right - Fox News. This is supposed to be a conservative network. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and USA Today all sent recruiters to the event, to hire open gays as journalists. Fitzpatrick comments, "By treating the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association as a legitimate counterpart to black and Hispanic journalists’ associations, these media organizations showed that they agree with the notion that homosexuals, a group defined by behavior rather than immutable characteristics, constitute a bona fide minority."<ref>http://ghroll.blogspot.com/2008/03/homosexuality-in-media.html</ref>}}

=== Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue ===

''see also:'' [[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

The [[American Family Association]] reported the following in regards to [[Bill O'Reilly]] who host the O'Reilly Report which is a popular program on the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|On February 11, 2004, Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, featured Kevin Jennings, the executive director of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network.) Jennings, former teacher turned homosexual activist, along with a lesbian counterpart, discussed GLSEN's new pro-homosexual curriculum on marriage being marketed to children and youth in public schools all across America under the guise of "tolerance."...

O'Reilly, watched heavily by conservatives and Christians alike, shocked much of his constituency on September 3, 2002 when he publicly announced his support of homosexual rights in the nation's largest “gay” publication, ''The Advocate''. His sympathetic, lenient views on “gay” adoption and his mixed-message stance on “gay” marriage have caused great dissent among his loyalists - and no doubt cost him viewers.<ref>http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/GetArticle.asp?id=115</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] stated the following regarding O'Reilly and his exchange with the [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] and evangelical minister Stephen Bennett:
{{cquote|Fox News is threatening to sue a prominent evangelical minister in the ex-homosexual movement who engaged in a volatile exchange over biblical morality on the top-rated television program "The O'Reilly Factor" in September.

Stephen Bennett, who says he left his homosexual lifestyle nearly 11 years ago, has distributed a 60-minute audio tape program called the "The O'Reilly Shocker," in which he responds to host Bill O'Reilly's characterization of people who take the Bible literally as "religious fanatics.".

Bennett said he has received hundreds of e-mails from viewers of the segment who said they were outraged at O'Reilly's "anger and verbal abuse." <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30300</ref>}}

In response to the threatened lawsuit of the Fox News Channel the Agape Press reported:
{{cquote|But Mike DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, which represents Bennett, says Bennett has a right to distribute a recording of the program -- and that his use of the tape is legal under copyright law's allowance of fair use and comment.

"The law provides that even copyrighted material may be used, provided it's used not for commercial gain but for comment," DePrimo says. "Stephen Bennett used the material from the O'Reilly show simply to rebut the arguments O'Reilly put forward."

The attorney implies there may be another reason the popular O'Reilly wants distribution of the tape stopped -- and it has to do with image. "O'Reilly promotes himself as a [[conservative]]," DePrimo explains. "In fact, Bennett's tape shows that O'Reilly is simply another media elite who's advancing the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]] -- and he doesn't want to be exposed for what he is."<ref>http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/afa/32003a.asp</ref>}}

Bill O'Reilly describes himself as a practicing [[Roman Catholic]].<ref>http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=29184</ref> According to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

=== Peter LaBarbera Concerning Fox News and homosexuality ===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality in the media]]

[[Image:Peter.jpg|right|thumb|150px|[[Peter LaBarbera]] ]]
In April of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] of [[Americans for Truth]] wrote:
{{cquote|How fascinating that [[Wayne Besen]] (left) is given the opportunity to appear on FOX News, of all places..., to critique alleged “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” attitudes and speech toward homosexuals — when he has such a well-deserved reputation for being one of the nastiest “queer” activists in the business.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/gays-hating-ex-gays-wayne-besens-verbal-assault-on-greg-quinlan.html</ref>}}

In March of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] declared:
{{cquote|Temple U. Professor Dr. Marc Lamont Hill (left), a frequent guest on FOX News, believes Americans are “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” because most still don’t like to see homosexuality (compared to heterosexuality) on TV or the big screen. We say Prof. Hill should get off his liberal high horse and stop lecturing Americans for their normal reaction to unnatural and immoral behavior....

Enough already. Gay sex is wrong, [[Homosexuality and health|unhealthy (especially between men)]], and my hunch is it’s still pretty off-putting to most FOX viewers who are honest with themselves. And that’s OK. But I’ll go further: if there is a growing acceptance of homo-sexual behavior, especially among young people, that’s not a good thing but a sign of America’s descent into decadence, and our departure from a transcendent Judeo-Christian moral code that has served this nation well.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/were-all-homophobes-now-letter-to-foxs-red-eye.html</ref>}}

In 2006, [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:
{{cquote|Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami (Sept 7-10 at Loew’s Miami Beach Hotel). Every year, the NLGJA garners hundreds of thousands of dollars in Big Media sponsorships for its convention; this year it appears (based on the sponsorship list below) that the total is around half a milliion dollars in corporate support...

Our question for Fox News executives is: if you are truly “fair and balanced,” will you now give an equal and corresponding grant to Americans for Truth or another pro-family organization, say, Accuracy in Media, that counters the ubiquitous pro-”gay” spin in the media? We’ll be awaiting your answer.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref>}}

=== Rupert Murdoch ===
[[Image:HillaryRupert1V.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Hillary Clinton with media magnate Ruppert Murdoch. ''Photo Courtesy Democrats Against Hillary''.<ref>[http://democratsagainsthillary.blogspot.com/ ''Democrats Against Hillary''].</ref>]]
The Fox News Channel is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]].

Slated reported in 2008 that since 1997, [[Republicans]] have received a slight majority - 56% of the $4.76 million in campaign donations from the Murdoch family and the [[News Corporation]]'s political action committees and employees.<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> However, [[Slate]] also reported in 2008: "Since Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections, the company and its employees have given more than twice as much to [[Democrats]] as to [[Republicans]]."<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> Generally speaking, [[Republicans]] have less favorable views and policies concerning homosexuality than [[Democrats]].<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral-Issues-Sharply-Divide-Americans.aspx</ref> The Pew Research Center reported in 2010: "In broad terms, voters view the Democratic Party's ideology as the opposite of the Republican Party's: 58% say the Democratic Party is either very liberal or liberal..."<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1669/political-ideology-democrats-seen-farther-from-center-than-republicans</ref> In the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> In recent years, Rupert Murdoch has formed a relationship with the [[liberal]]s/[[Democrats]] [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]. In 2005, he invited musician [[Bono]] and Bill Clinton to a company conference on the environment, [[Islam]] in the West, and future of the world.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Keith-Rupert-Murdoch_639W.html</ref>

=== Knighthood by Roman Catholic Organization and Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality ===
Rupert Murdoch has been married three times and divorced two times. Before Rupert Murdoch left his second wife, he was anointed as a member of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great, for his "unblemished character."<ref>http://weeklywire.com/ww/01-20-98/alibi_opinion.html</ref>

The [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref><ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html</ref> However, as noted earlier, according to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

== See Also ==
* '''[[Fox News and homosexuality]]'''
* '''[[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]]'''
* '''[[Homosexuality in the media]]'''
* '''[[Fox Television and Religion]]'''
* '''[[Roger Ailes]]'''

== External Links ==
* [http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News official website]

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

[[Category:Fox News Channel]]
[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]

Fox News Channel

2013-07-05T18:36:44Z

Brenden: remove bolded italics per MoS

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|right|175px]]

The '''Fox News Channel''' is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is a 24-hour general news service covering breaking news as well as political, business and entertainment news. The average age of its viewership is 65 years old, and even 70 years old for its [[O'Reilly Factor]]. Much of Fox News Channel is self-serving "happy talk," telling its elderly audience what it wants to hear, or selling O'Reilly's latest book.

The Fox News Channel heavily promotes [[RINO Backers]] -- commentators who may appear to be [[conservative]] but side with [[RINO]]s just when it matters most. Examples include [[Bill O'Reilly]], [[Sean Hannity]], [[Karl Rove]], and [[Rush Limbaugh]], who savaged [[Todd Akin]] for making a [[pro-life]] statement pointing out that pregnancy from rape is rare due to feminine biology. The Fox News Channel gave Karl Rove a platform to raise money against [[pro-life]] Republican candidates.

Even center-right pundit [[Sarah Palin]] is too [[conservative]] for Fox News Channel, as when it canceled some of her interviews at a key political moment in August 2012,<ref>"[[Sarah Palin]]: 'Fox canceled my interviews.''" [http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/sarah-palin-fox-cancelled-my-interviews-133729.html]</ref> and then refused to renew her contract. And Fox News believes that the former [[Guatemala|guatemalan]] president [[Efraín Ríos Montt]] was a dictator.<ref>http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/01/28/former-guatemalan-dictator-efrain-rios-montt-to-stand-trial-on-genocide-charges/</ref>

More generally, the Fox News Channel heavily favors [[neoconservatives]] and generally avoids or even sides against [[liberals]] on most political issues. The Fox News Channel is particularly weak in criticizing the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[abortion]]. The Fox News Channel often helps elect less conservative [[Republican]]s, as when it repeatedly featured and promoted [[John McCain]] and [[Chris Christie]] while excluding their more [[conservative]] primary opponents. It drifted further from the [[Conservative Movement|conservative movement]] by petulantly declaring that [[conservative]] [[Newt Gingrich]] would not be accepted back.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/ailes-newt-cant-come-back-to-fox-120421.html</ref>

==Founding==
The Fox News channel was started in 1996 by [[Rupert Murdoch]] and [[Roger Ailes]], who perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. [[Mainstream media]] "[[political correctness]]" was banished. As an example, Fox news [[anchor]]s call [[terrorist]]s what they are, (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants." As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

Fox News has dominated the ratings of other cable news outlets.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]</ref> Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias everywhere in the so-called "[[mainstream media]]", Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing [[CNN]], [[MSNBC]] and [[CNBC]] for years, and draws a much larger audience share than all competitors, including the three major broadcast news shows, combined. It is by far the most profitable news network in the world, on track to earn more than $700 Million in 2010.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html New York Times, January 9, 2010]</ref> But the profit motive may cause some of the hostility Fox News has to the [[conservative]] positions on important social issues.

Indeed, for over 100 consecutive months, FNC has been the most-watched cable news channel in the country. FNC is available in more than 90 million homes. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. [[Roger Ailes]] was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

==Fair and Balanced==
[[Image:Fair_balanced.jpg‎ |thumb|left|Fair And Balanced Logo]]
Critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] exploded at ''Fox News Sunday'' anchor [[Chris Wallace]] in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting [[Al Qaeda]]. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican [[propaganda|propaganda mill]]. Former Vice-President and environmentalist [[Al Gore]] has likened Fox to a right-wing "[[fifth column]]." Groups, such as [[MoveOn.org]], funded a classic [[schlockumentary]] entitled ''Outfoxed'', which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'. Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the [[Federal Trade Commission]] to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. <ref>[http://www.showbizdata.com/news/36127/FTC-REJECTS-COMPLAINTS-AGAINST-FOX-NEWS FTC: "It's best to ignore nuts"]</ref> Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, ''then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts."''

Rolling Stone magazine charged that Ailes has “built the most formidable propaganda machine ever seen outside of the [[Communist]] bloc.” Ailes responded accusing NBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times, and the rest of running a liberal propaganda machine. {{cquote| If they did fair and balanced news, we’d be out of business.}}

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found [[Brit Hume]]'s ''Special Report'' — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which are liberal. <ref>[http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html]</ref> The program is a model of smart news television.

Although it is true that the Fox's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated; it is equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not a mainstream Republican, but a registered [[Independent]] who sides with conservatives. He regularly charges the oil companies with price-gouging and attacks big business for quashing the little guy. Greta Van Susteren's politics are unclear, as she mostly covers the [[crime]]-of-the-day stories. [[Geraldo Rivera]] is traditionally liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for [[sex offender]]s.

Some liberal commentators, such as news analyst [[Marvin Kalb]], and [[Eleanor Clift]], are affiliated with the channel. In general, Fox News is closer to mainstream America than [[CBS]], [[ABC]], [[NBC]] or [[CNN]], its founding mission.

Conservatives have criticism for the Fox News Channel as well. For example, conservatives have complained about [[Fox News and homosexuality|how Fox News has covered the homosexuality issue]]. In 2006, the [[conservative]] reporter [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote that "Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]]’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami."<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref> In addition, their 'Fair and Balanced' motto allows [[liberal propaganda]], lies, deceit, and half-truths to gain an audience. In reality, Fox was judged to actually provide a more "fair and balanced" coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the ''Center for Media and Public Affairs''. <ref>[http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf Center for Media and Public Affairs: ''How TV News Has Covered McCain, Obama and Hillary'']</ref>

=== Fox News Liberals ===
Talk to any Fox News-hating liberal and you'll here the same old regurgitated talking point- ''"Fox is not Fair & Balanced,"'' ''"Rightwing propaganda."'' One network, Fox News, has twice the number of opposing commentators than does all media sources combined. If you add up the major media properties; ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post, and Newsweek -- you get a total of five [[Token conservative | so-called conservative]] personalities among hundreds of liberals. At the least, Fox News employs the following [[liberal]]s;

*[[Juan Williams]]
*[[Alan Colmes]]
*[[Kirsten Powers]]
*[[Shepard Smith]]
*[[Geraldo Rivera]]
*[[Mara Liasson]]
*[[Bill Schulz]]
*[[Susan Estrich]]
*[[Bob Beckel]]
*[[Santita Jackson]]
*[[Simon Rosenberg]]

A 2009 national survey showed that 46% of those who watch FOX News “just about every day” are [[Democrat]]s or Independents. [[Dick Morris]] interpreted the numbers and determines, ''"Could it be that the [[Obama Administration]] is concerned about FOX News not because it is 'an arm of the Republican Party' but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?"'' <ref>[http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/fox-news-reaches-across-party-lines/ FOX NEWS REACHES ACROSS PARTY LINES, Dick Morris.com, October 19, 2009]</ref>

=== The Five ===
The show that replaced Glenn Beck's ratings dominance is 'The Five', described as a “roundtable ensemble of five rotating FOX personalities...." <ref>[http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/fox-news-to-replace-beck-with-the-five/, Fox News to Replace Beck With ‘The Five’, NYTimes, June 30, 2011]</ref>

Most often, the show pits Bob Beckel, a consistent defender of every Democratic Party talking point, against a panel of conservative or libertarian opponents. 'The Five' features Bob Beckel, Greg Gutfeld, [[Juan Williams]], [[Dana Perino]], [[Andrew Napolitano]], Geraldo Rivera, Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling, Monica Crowley, and Kimberly Guilfoyle.

== Ratings Dominance ==
Fox News Channel was the 2nd highest rated cable channel on all of television during the first quarter of 2009 in prime time Total Viewers. CNN was 17th and MSNBC 24th for the first three months of the year. FNC beat CNN and MSNBC combined and gained the most compared to the first quarter of 2008, up 24%. 2009's first quarter was FNC's 3rd highest rated quarter in prime time in the network's history — just behind Q4 '08 and Q3 '05. In prime time, ages 25-54 demo, and in total day in both categories, FNC grew more year-to-year than CNN and MSNBC combined. FNC had nine of the top 10 programs on cable news in Total Viewers.

[[Bill O'Reilly|The O'Reilly Factor]] has now been #1 on cable news for 100 consecutive months, up 27% in Total Viewers year-over-year. [Citation Needed]

[[Glenn Beck]] dominated the ratings before leaving the network in June 2011. Beck broke every single record for the 5 P.M. timeslot. The leftist mob learned to hate him with a passion and [[Center For American Progress]]' senior fellow [[Van Jones]] is taking credit for Beck's retirement.

April 2009 statistics showed three new programs beat CNN and MSNBC ''combined'' in total viewers during their respective time slots.

On the Record with Greta Van Susteren is up 55% in total viewers and 75% in the demo. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 60% in Total Viewers and 102% in the demo. Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in total viewers. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115179.asp Media Bistro: April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined]
</ref>

== Fox News Canada ==
Liberals have successfully painted Fox News as being blocked in [[Canada]] because of laws against lying, the premise is false. While they don't operate in Canada because of the legal tactics of direct competitor and wholly-owned government entity Canadian Broadcast Corporation ([[CBC]]), Fox News does have a broadcast presence by way of independent media companies like Bell, Rogers and 20 other companies. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184837,00.html Where in the World is FOX?, Fox News, march 1, 2011]</ref>

== Anti-elitist ==
Conservatives argue that Fox's real ethos is not Republican or conservative, but anti-[[elitist]] — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq war]]s and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the politically correct "militant" to refer to terrorists. Since the [[Vietnam War]] era, mainstream [[journalist]]s have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic [[objectivity]], or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism is the treatment of [[evangelical]] and [[fundamentalist Christian]]s with respect, far from the normal liberal media's depiction as lunatics or extremists. "We regularly have on the Rev. Franklin Graham, [[Dr. James Dobson]] and other religious leaders, just as we put on Pat Ireland and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a Pew Foundation study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal [[lobbyist|lobbying]] organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the [[University of Alabama]]." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Fringe views Versus Fox News ==
"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with [[talk radio]] and the conservative [[blogosphere]], it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist Brian Anderson. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the [[United Nations]]' oil-for-food initiative in [[Iraq]], initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman [[Joe Scarborough]], is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these conservatives in the media. <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center</ref>

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that [[New York]] and [[Los Angeles]] have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm</ref>

== Obama Administration versus Fox News ==
[[Barack Hussein Obama]] has thin skin when it comes to criticism of his policies. The entire [[mainstream media]] has thrown its support to Obama and refuses to questions his policies. Fox News is the lone station that will criticize Obama fairly. Obama said, <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_critic_fox_news/2009/06/19/227121.html Media Critic: Fox Only Press Doing Its Job] NewsMax, June 19, 2009</ref>
{{cquote| “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.” }}

The President has praised MSNBC and berated Fox News. Considering that MSNBC devoted itself to attacking George W Bush and his administration, this is hypocritical on Obama's part. To sum it up, all other major news networks have let themselves become servile heralds of the liberal agenda, while Fox news is the only station that will call Obama out on anything he does.

Media critic David Zurawik said “Thank goodness at least one TV outlet, Fox, is questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt,” and "...ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and the others allow their news operations to be used by the White House for partisan political reasons."

== Roger Ailes ==
[[Image:Rogerailes_1.jpg‎ |thumb|right|400px|Roger Ailes, Fox News CEO]]
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controversy about its mission.

On November 20, 2008, [[Roger Ailes]], who now holds the titles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, FOX News and Chairman of FOX Television Stations, signed a new five year contract with News Corporation, it was announced by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The contract will pay him over 23 million dollars in 2009. <ref>[http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/roger_ailes_signs_new_5year_deal_with_news_corp_101312.asp Ailes Inks 5 Year Deal With NewsCorp]</ref>

During Ailes' time with [[News Corporation|News Corp]], [[FNC]] passed [[CNN]] in ratings in all day parts in 2002 to become the number one news network in the country, nearing full distribution with more than 90 million subscribers. In 2007, he launched the [[Fox Business Channel]] which currently reaches more than 40 million homes and served as the biggest launch in cable television history. Throughout Mr. Ailes' tenure, FOX Television Stations has increased its market share each of the last three years with all time record shares in the last two years. In addition, Fox Television Stations has expanded its local news presence by nearly 100 hours a week in a challenging economic climate.
{{cquote|'''At a time when the broadcast networks are struggling with diminishing audiences and profits in news, he has built Fox News into the profit engine of the News Corporation. ''Fox News is believed to make more money than CNN, MSNBC and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC and CBS combined.'' The division is on track to achieve $700 million in operating profit this year, according to analyst estimates.''' --- The New York Times, 1/9/2010 <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/media/10ailes.html?pagewanted=all Ailes: Fox News Chief at the Pinnacle of Media and Politics ]</ref> }}

== Tony Snow ==
In April, 2006 the [[White House]] selected [[Tony Snow]], Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House Press Secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a [[pundit]] on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the [[Washington Post]]. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html</ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President [[George H.W. Bush]] and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]. <ref>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref> Snow died July 12, 2008, after an unsuccessful battle with colon cancer.

==Bill O'Reilly==
The [[O'Reilly Factor]] has been the most watched cable news segment for eight years. [[Bill O'Reilly]] has interviewed Barack Obama and other high profile guests on his show.
:"FOX News destroys NBC and CNN on cable every night. We cover the news. We don't ignore it. And we don't denigrate it." - Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly is a registered independent, but sides with Republicans on most issues, excluding several Christian causes. Bill O'Reilly wrote the best seller "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." Like [[Sean Hannity]] and other commentators on Fox, O'Reilly's role is that of an independent contractor, expressing his own opinions, not those of Fox News, as opposed to the networks news anchors, like Shepard Smith.

==Sarah Palin==
The network confirmed in January of 2010 that the former [[Alaska|Alaskan]] governor [[Sarah Palin]] had signed a multiyear contract to appear on the news station periodically. Potentially in a format similar to LtCol (ret) Oliver L. North's "War stories" documentary series. <ref>http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sarah-palin-to-contribute-to-fox-news/?scp=2&sq=Palin&st=cse</ref>

==Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld==
Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld is a hybrid news / comedic satire show hosted by Greg Gutfeld. The show appears on Fox News at 3:00 a.m. EST on weekdays. Their ratings are remarkable for the time slot. <ref>[http://www.mediaite.com/online/red-eye-resurgence-more-demo-viewers-watch-fox-at-3am-than-cnn-at-8pm/ Red Eye Resurgence: More Demo Viewers Watch Fox At 3am Than CNN at 8pm, October 5th, 2009]</ref>
{{cquote|
The ratings came out for September and Red Eye is up over 30% in total viewers and up 50% in the key demo (25-54) since July. They have more overall viewers than every CNBC show, every MSNBC show that is on before Hardball, most of HLN, and American Morning on CNN.}}

September 2010 marks the third anniversary of RedEye w/ Greg Gutfeld. It was noted that their rating for 3:00 a.m. EST beat out [[CNN]],

{{cquote|This time, the show had better ratings in the A25-54 demographic than Campbell Brown at 8pmET and Larry King at 9pmET, and tied Anderson Cooper at 10pmET (Monday-Thursday).}}
==Fox News Channel and Homosexuality ==

''see also:'' [[Fox News and homosexuality]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

Currently, the Fox Broadcasting Company website declares concerning the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] (NLGJA):
{{cquote|NLGJA Annual Conference and Job Fair
Fox News is a regular exhibitor at these annual Job Fairs. News Corp sponsored the opening reception for first time attendees in 2006, as well as sponsoring workshops on Journalism in various colleges in 2007.<ref>http://www.fox.com/diversity/outreach/lgbt.htm</ref>}}

In 2010, the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] declared that [[Kelly Wright]], a Fox News Channel representative, attended NLGJA's 15th Annual New York Benefit.<ref>http://www.nlgja.org/news/NYE2010.htm</ref> According the Fox News Channel website: "Kelly Wright is co-anchor of "FOX & Friends Weekend" as well as a general assignment correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC)."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> Wright is a graduate of the [[Christian]] university [[Oral Roberts University]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/kelly-wright/</ref> In January of 2010, the [[pro-life]] website published by Jill Stanek claimed Kelly Wright is a pastor.<ref>http://www.jillstanek.com/pregnancy/foxs-kelly-wrig.html</ref> According to [[Christianity]] and the [[Bible]], [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality is a sin]].
[[Image:Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Photo.jpg|thumb|Reverend [[Louis Sheldon]] of the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ]]
The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] states the following regarding the Fox News Channel and the issue of [[homosexuality]]:
{{cquote|The [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] has hundreds of members and is heavily funded by Hearst newspapers, Knight-Ridder, [[CBS News]], [[CNN]], Gannett, [[NBC]], [[Los Angeles Times]], [[Fox News]], and more. Major newspapers throughout the U.S. have homosexual activists on their staffs who filter what you read about homosexuality.<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf</ref>}}

[[Accuracy in Media]] declared concerning the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|Media organizations which underwrote the convention included NBC News, Times Inc., Turner Broadcasting, Knight-Ridder, the Washington Post and Fox News Network. That’s right - Fox News. This is supposed to be a conservative network. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and USA Today all sent recruiters to the event, to hire open gays as journalists. Fitzpatrick comments, "By treating the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association as a legitimate counterpart to black and Hispanic journalists’ associations, these media organizations showed that they agree with the notion that homosexuals, a group defined by behavior rather than immutable characteristics, constitute a bona fide minority."<ref>http://ghroll.blogspot.com/2008/03/homosexuality-in-media.html</ref>}}

=== Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue ===

''see also:'' [[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]] and [[Homosexuality in the media]]

The [[American Family Association]] reported the following in regards to [[Bill O'Reilly]] who host the O'Reilly Report which is a popular program on the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|On February 11, 2004, Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, featured Kevin Jennings, the executive director of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network.) Jennings, former teacher turned homosexual activist, along with a lesbian counterpart, discussed GLSEN's new pro-homosexual curriculum on marriage being marketed to children and youth in public schools all across America under the guise of "tolerance."...

O'Reilly, watched heavily by conservatives and Christians alike, shocked much of his constituency on September 3, 2002 when he publicly announced his support of homosexual rights in the nation's largest “gay” publication, ''The Advocate''. His sympathetic, lenient views on “gay” adoption and his mixed-message stance on “gay” marriage have caused great dissent among his loyalists - and no doubt cost him viewers.<ref>http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/GetArticle.asp?id=115</ref>}}

[[WorldNetDaily]] stated the following regarding O'Reilly and his exchange with the [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] and evangelical minister Stephen Bennett:
{{cquote|Fox News is threatening to sue a prominent evangelical minister in the ex-homosexual movement who engaged in a volatile exchange over biblical morality on the top-rated television program "The O'Reilly Factor" in September.

Stephen Bennett, who says he left his homosexual lifestyle nearly 11 years ago, has distributed a 60-minute audio tape program called the "The O'Reilly Shocker," in which he responds to host Bill O'Reilly's characterization of people who take the Bible literally as "religious fanatics.".

Bennett said he has received hundreds of e-mails from viewers of the segment who said they were outraged at O'Reilly's "anger and verbal abuse." <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30300</ref>}}

In response to the threatened lawsuit of the Fox News Channel the Agape Press reported:
{{cquote|But Mike DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, which represents Bennett, says Bennett has a right to distribute a recording of the program -- and that his use of the tape is legal under copyright law's allowance of fair use and comment.

"The law provides that even copyrighted material may be used, provided it's used not for commercial gain but for comment," DePrimo says. "Stephen Bennett used the material from the O'Reilly show simply to rebut the arguments O'Reilly put forward."

The attorney implies there may be another reason the popular O'Reilly wants distribution of the tape stopped -- and it has to do with image. "O'Reilly promotes himself as a [[conservative]]," DePrimo explains. "In fact, Bennett's tape shows that O'Reilly is simply another media elite who's advancing the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]] -- and he doesn't want to be exposed for what he is."<ref>http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/afa/32003a.asp</ref>}}

Bill O'Reilly describes himself as a practicing [[Roman Catholic]].<ref>http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=29184</ref> According to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

=== Peter LaBarbera Concerning Fox News and homosexuality ===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality in the media]]

[[Image:Peter.jpg|right|thumb|150px|[[Peter LaBarbera]] ]]
In April of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] of [[Americans for Truth]] wrote:
{{cquote|How fascinating that [[Wayne Besen]] (left) is given the opportunity to appear on FOX News, of all places..., to critique alleged “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” attitudes and speech toward homosexuals — when he has such a well-deserved reputation for being one of the nastiest “queer” activists in the business.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/gays-hating-ex-gays-wayne-besens-verbal-assault-on-greg-quinlan.html</ref>}}

In March of 2009, [[Peter LaBarbera]] declared:
{{cquote|Temple U. Professor Dr. Marc Lamont Hill (left), a frequent guest on FOX News, believes Americans are “[[homophobia|homophobic]]” because most still don’t like to see homosexuality (compared to heterosexuality) on TV or the big screen. We say Prof. Hill should get off his liberal high horse and stop lecturing Americans for their normal reaction to unnatural and immoral behavior....

Enough already. Gay sex is wrong, [[Homosexuality and health|unhealthy (especially between men)]], and my hunch is it’s still pretty off-putting to most FOX viewers who are honest with themselves. And that’s OK. But I’ll go further: if there is a growing acceptance of homo-sexual behavior, especially among young people, that’s not a good thing but a sign of America’s descent into decadence, and our departure from a transcendent Judeo-Christian moral code that has served this nation well.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/were-all-homophobes-now-letter-to-foxs-red-eye.html</ref>}}

In 2006, [[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:
{{cquote|Fox News and Wal-mart are among the high-level ($10,000) sponsors of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s (NLGJA) 2006 Convention in Miami (Sept 7-10 at Loew’s Miami Beach Hotel). Every year, the NLGJA garners hundreds of thousands of dollars in Big Media sponsorships for its convention; this year it appears (based on the sponsorship list below) that the total is around half a milliion dollars in corporate support...

Our question for Fox News executives is: if you are truly “fair and balanced,” will you now give an equal and corresponding grant to Americans for Truth or another pro-family organization, say, Accuracy in Media, that counters the ubiquitous pro-”gay” spin in the media? We’ll be awaiting your answer.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/corporations/food-beverage-household-brands/coca-cola</ref>}}

=== Rupert Murdoch ===
[[Image:HillaryRupert1V.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Hillary Clinton with media magnate Ruppert Murdoch. ''Photo Courtesy Democrats Against Hillary''.<ref>[http://democratsagainsthillary.blogspot.com/ ''Democrats Against Hillary''].</ref>]]
The Fox News Channel is a [[United States]] [[cable]] and [[satellite]] [[news]] channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of [[Australia|Australian]]-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]].

Slated reported in 2008 that since 1997, [[Republicans]] have received a slight majority - 56% of the $4.76 million in campaign donations from the Murdoch family and the [[News Corporation]]'s political action committees and employees.<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> However, [[Slate]] also reported in 2008: "Since Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections, the company and its employees have given more than twice as much to [[Democrats]] as to [[Republicans]]."<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2196085/</ref> Generally speaking, [[Republicans]] have less favorable views and policies concerning homosexuality than [[Democrats]].<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/Four-Moral-Issues-Sharply-Divide-Americans.aspx</ref> The Pew Research Center reported in 2010: "In broad terms, voters view the Democratic Party's ideology as the opposite of the Republican Party's: 58% say the Democratic Party is either very liberal or liberal..."<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1669/political-ideology-democrats-seen-farther-from-center-than-republicans</ref> In the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> In recent years, Rupert Murdoch has formed a relationship with the [[liberal]]s/[[Democrats]] [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]. In 2005, he invited musician [[Bono]] and Bill Clinton to a company conference on the environment, [[Islam]] in the West, and future of the world.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Keith-Rupert-Murdoch_639W.html</ref>

=== Knighthood by Roman Catholic Organization and Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality ===
Rupert Murdoch has been married three times and divorced two times. Before Rupert Murdoch left his second wife, he was anointed as a member of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great, for his "unblemished character."<ref>http://weeklywire.com/ww/01-20-98/alibi_opinion.html</ref>

The [[Roman Catholic Church]]'s position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref><ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html</ref> However, as noted earlier, according to the [[Vatican]] individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html</ref>

== See Also ==
* '''[[Fox News and homosexuality]]'''
* '''[[Bill O'Reilly and the homosexuality issue]]'''
* '''[[Homosexuality in the media]]'''
* '''[[Fox Television and Religion]]'''
* '''[[Roger Ailes]]'''

== External Links ==
* [http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News official website]

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

[[Category:Fox News Channel]]
[[Category:Cable TV Networks]]

John Stossel

2013-07-05T18:35:46Z

Brenden: fox is not center, but slightly to the right of it

[[Image:Stossel.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[John Stossel]]]]
'''John F. Stossel''' (born March 6, 1947) is an advocacy reporter, author, television host, and [[libertarian]] columnist. He worked as an investigative reporter for the ABC [[television]] program ''20/20''. He has also written two books - ''Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media'' and ''Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know Is Wrong''.

In 1985, Stossel was physically assaulted by professional wrestler David Shultz after he asked Shultz if wrestling was fake. Stossel proceeded to sue the [[World Wrestling Federation]], and won $425,000 in damages. [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0832766/bio]

In 2009, Stossel announced he was leaving the left-leaning [[ABC]] for the more conservative [[Fox News Channel]]. He currently hosts ''Stossel'' on the [[Fox Business Network]].

==Quotes==
*{{Private sector}}

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Stossel, John}}
[[Category:Media personalities]]
[[Category:Libertarians]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

User talk:Brenden

2013-07-02T16:32:22Z

Brenden: /* RE:you have regular contact with Mr. Schlafly? */

{{Useful links}}
[[User talk:Brenden/Archive]]

== Regarding the Anonymous page ==

I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. [[User:JGrant|Blessings of the Almighty on you :)]] 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

== Seeing as you've blocked me in the past for sometimes having a less-than-cheerful attitude... ==

....you'll love [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/PaulDiFoglio this guy's] stream of edit comments. Hugs and kisses, [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:00, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

== What the hell are you doing? ==

Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.[[User:Brenden|Brenden]] 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

::DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:::[Comments retracted by poster]<del>Thank you, EJamesW </sarcasm>[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)</del>

What does </sarcasm> mean?

Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?

Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)

I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...

[[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

:Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
::My apologies, I failed to take a look at the history, and the tone you took kind of distracted me from looking. Sorry about that.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
==Editing==
Editing is fully restored. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:55, 11 November 2012 (EST)
:Thanks, Mr. Schlafly[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)

==Conservative==
If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)

== Personal Honeypot ==

Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)
:I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)
==Thanks==
Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

:Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)

== Spambots ==

It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)

:I think I might upgrade that to very active! Have you been getting much spam at your honeypot mate? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 19:27, 3 February 2013 (EST)
::It's been ok-ish. I blocked most of the ranges that were targeting my honeypot. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:50, 3 February 2013 (EST)

== I removed your latest round of "personal attacks removed" censorship ==
I think it is poor form to edit talk page comments left by others. If an editor wishes to run afoul of the rules by speaking their mind, it should be their freedom to do so. If that editor happens to be immune to the rules (as with the user in this case), then I think their unfettered comments should stand as testimony to their true nature. Thanks --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:16, 7 February 2013 (EST)
:Well, the last time that specific user left his comments, a lot of people were offended. While I agree, that generally, it is inappropriate to censor users, in certain cases, especially when personal attacks are involved, it should be fine. Furthermore, the use of such tags, causes the poster understand that such attacks are not welcome on Conservapedia.

Thanks for your input anyways, though. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:04, 7 February 2013 (EST)

== Editing should work now ==

Try now - your account has been promoted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 19 February 2013 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:59, 19 February 2013 (EST)

==Maybe you're right==

I still retain my suspicion, but if that contributor wants to reregister we should let him. I probably should have enabled account recreation after the block. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:34, 1 March 2013 (EST)

==AlanE==
Thanks Brenden. I needed that! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:20, 6 March 2013 (EST)
:NP [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:30, 6 March 2013 (EST)

== Reverting admins ==

Hi Brenden. You do not have the authority to undo admin's blocks. If you have an issue, you raise it. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:30, 7 March 2013 (EST)
:KK got it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:47, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

== Block ==

Thanks. [[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 11:56, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:No problem[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:25, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

== CameronD ==

Sorry I had been playing around with my signature I have now corrected it. [[User:CameronD|CameronD]] 13:45, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

== Unleash the <s>Kraken</s> Bot! ==
If you really do have the ability to implement some technical means to protect this wiki from a certain user's flagrant deletion sprees, I implore you to do so. Asking him to stop won't do a thing. He literally is incapable of changing his ways. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:57, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:Well I do hope that asking him to change will help him overcome his irritating habit of deleting pages, I am prepared to create a bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the MW api, sooo, I see a lot of googling, and asking for technical help in my foreseeable future. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:42, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

==User:C Reply==
I have no intention of leaving, but between C's actions and [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] choosing to ignore the problem(as well as any message I write to him now), it's hard to stay motivated to keep trying to make the site better. I'll stick around for now and continue to fight for this site, but I have this sinking feeling that it is only a matter of time before I'm perma-banned. Thanks for the support though, hopefully those of us who actually care will be able to prevail in the end. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 14:24, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
:On a related note... am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in C's repeated use of the 90/10 rule as a reason for banning (including the block of [[User:FWilliamM|FWilliamM]] a mere 40 minutes after your unbanning him) when 38% of his own last 500 edits were to talk pages? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:28, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::I do try to unblock the users unfairly blocked by that admin. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 01:17, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
:::I know you do and my earlier comment wasn't aimed at you. I was just frustrated with his antics last night and needed to express that to someone. Thank you for doing what you can. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 08:32, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

That is enough from both of you. Brendan, you have no business or authority unblocking users because of a pet peeve against Conservative, especially when I look into the matter and discover they are proven trolls previously blocked for hostility. User Fnarrow, your whining about being bullied is now over and done with. You chose to come into the site, and you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise. This site is an encyclopedia; it is not a site where anyone can cause a fight with anyone else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::: Karajou, I've always respected you, and found you to be a fair, and rational person, despite whatever ideological differences we may have. On the other hand, I must protest that contrary to what you said about FNarrow, ''"you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise."'' is actually an incorrect take on what happened. FNarrow was according to his contributions, merely being a productive editor, when s/he was provoked by User:C's ad-hominem attacks, and blatant violation of the Commandments. As per my authority to undo blocks placed by a superior, I feel, (and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Schlafly agrees with me), that blocks placed to censor users, and to subvert the policies here, are worthy of an immediate unblock. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:44, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

::::This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1036560] says a lot in support of my argument; this individual also created three additional accounts via a Philippine proxy in order to cause an attack on user Conservative...and you unblocked two of those socks. What you and FNarrow need to do is not only read the Conservapedia Commandments, but read and heed the warnings at the bottom of my user page. Everyone coming in is going to respect this website and the people in it, or they are out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:04, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Respect,K.? Ha!! Whose wife was implied to be a slut, K; and by whom, and who stood by and let that worm, Cons, get away with it? Who said one thing on Gmail and something else in public when he realised he had to show solidarity with a certain Mexican "gentleman" who backed a coward who has not bothered to do what he said he would do. I am still here, K. Where did Markman go when he realised he had given himself some work to do?

Just one question - why, if lack of citations is such a crime, wasn't I pulled up in 2007? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:55, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Sorry Brenden for smeering your page with my anger. One takes the opportunity when it arises. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:12, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
::@User:Karajou
I don't have the checkuser ability, so I cannot tell if the people I block and unblock are socks. As per respecting the website, and the people (Especially user:C), I do try to respect the person, even if I cannot respect their actions. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:37, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

==Fnarrow infinite block==
I am a friend of Fnarrow and he asked me to post the copy of this email which he sent to cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com on the user talk pages ofa few people whom he said had always been fair to him. <blockquote>
I got banned for a day and then Karajou immediately changed it to infinite for no apparent reason immediately after it expired. I have cut the dead end pages by nearly half during my short time there and feel i have made substantive improvements to other articles during that time. While i have had disagreements with Karajou and Conservative, i have always been respectful and adhered to the Conservapedia commandments. Finally, I never had a chance to respond to my accuser and did nothing to deserve this treatment. Please forward this to Mr. Schlafly for review.
Thank you, Fnarrow
</blockquote>
If my opinion counts for anything, Frank really is a great and passionate guy who could add a lot of valuable knowledge to yosite. That is all, please keep up the great work. [[User:JSandler|JSandler]] 14:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== If you hide another civil discussion I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website ==

If you hide another civil discussion that I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website. Thank you. I am sure Karajou and others would agree with me on this matter if I bring up this matter with other Admins. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:How dare you? You insulted Patmac, and a vast host of other anglicans, you dragged me into this fight, and if you don't tone down your insults, I will bring it up with Mr. Schlafly, who certainly agrees that your words are unnacceptable. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:14, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't consider my post to you daring. And I do mean to carry out what I said I would do should you do it again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::That discussion was civil? Calling user:Patmac a untrue christian, who is also a "lying evolutionist"? Really? I have brought this matter with the site's owner already. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:19, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::::Stating untruths about the conversation is not going to further your cause. In fact, you are making things worse. For example, I expressly did not answer Pacmac's question on whether or not he was a Christian which is why he repeated this question. You are digging for yourself a deeper hole. I would suggest you stop digging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:28, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::Since when is it your right to be implying that any user is not a "True Christian"? And furthermore, can you justify User:Conservative/Patmac dodged this issue?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:32, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Brenden, you shouldn't have pushed it so far. All C probably meant was that "no true Christian" would advocate this or that. You'd have to be an idiot to take that personally (in fact, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that 'be an idiot' was just a figure of speech).

It may seem unfair that sometimes admins get greater leeway when it comes to personal remarks, but getting into a pissing contest over it will never be productive. If you're really worried about fairness, I suggest you consider all the people in totalitarian dictatorships who have NO ACCESS to the Internet and no way to express themselves without a swift ride to prison. Getting blocked on a pro-freedom site for [[personal remarks]] hardly compares.

Chill out, and come back refreshed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:48, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==It is nothing to do with like or dislike ==
It is nothing to do with like or dislike. It is for your own good. This is a fight you will NOT win. Rob Smith tried this and he now edits at ratwiki, he is an ex-person here. Keep this up and you will be as well. Davidspencer 16:23, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:Thank you, David. I'm sorry for my choice of words now, but I must say, what User:Conservative did was not acceptable, and I tried to do my best to halt it before it returned to another user:C vs other sysops wheel war like last week. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:27, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==Thanks Brenden ==
I do appreciate it, but don't want to cause disruption--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 16:41, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==Re:Ryancsh==
I don't see why user page edits should not be understood as talk page edits for purposes of enforcing the 90/10 rule. I'm thinking of indefinitely banning Ryancsh for being a parodist anyway. Look up "Ryan Cash" on google, it seems to be some kind of an internet joke. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 11:25, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
:I searched up Ryan Cash, and saw that the second result points to a certain "Sonichu.com". However, I don't see how a website dedicated to provoking the creator of "sonichu" has any connection with Conservapedia or editing at Conservapedia. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:41, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

==Re:Rafael==

Considering his past record (see relevant block log) I think that if anything his block was not long enough. Increased length of block to one week. If this was his first offense then maybe it could have ended with a warning. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:10, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:Given the fact that you have been chastised for being overly block-happy, I would strongly suggest not touching Rafael again, until Mr. Schlafly condones it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:39, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
==Schmoozing with the enemy==

Good day,

I couldn't help but notice that you are not only frequenting a website dedicated solely for the purpose of attacking Conservapedia (everybody knows which website I'm talking about), but that you are also talking with the other liberals there about me. Care to elaborate? - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 15:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:If you see my goals I stated on my talkpage at that website, you will have your questions answered. As for speaking about you, I don't make assumptions on your motivations, but I have seen your blocking record, and I am frankly less than convinced on your sincerity. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:32, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

==Swordsman==

Look up "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?‎" You'll find Swordsman as there in the discussion about the Catholic Church and evolution. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

==Mark Kirk==

The idea that the stroke damaged his judgement does not sound unreasonable to me. I think that the main problem with the edit you reverted is that it treats this idea as a fact rather than a likely yet unproven possibility. I changed the wording [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&diff=1056953&oldid=1056927 accordingly]. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 04:04, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:The likelyhood of a stroke changing a person's political views are not supported by any reliable neuroscience research. I'm removing it as it seems to be at the best, an unproven claim. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:27, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

==Go to the talk page at the other wiki both of us frequent==

There's a surprise for you there. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 19:55, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:Do you mean Twigo or my talk page? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:59, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
::Your talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 20:01, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Aww thanks :), but I declined it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:42, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

== I'll tell you what ==

Why don't you ask Andy if he thinks it's impossible that damage to the brain can make someone liberal. If he says it's impossible, I'll remove that part of Kirk's article myself. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 20:28, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:You could do that. I encourage you to do so, as a matter of fact. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:42, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

== NKeaton ==

He needs to stop making false accusations against me. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:05, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
:You don't need to say "idiot" in the block comment, especially against a valuable and trusted contributor here. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:29, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
::I call them I like I seem them. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:48, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
:::What?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:55, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
::::LOL should have been "I call them like I see them". - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 22:59, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

== Markman ==

That's really enough of you and Markman going at it; you shouldn't be reverting his comment on Andy's talk page - he is a user with advanced privileges.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:29, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
:"Checkers, stop barking at Mr. Schlafly this instant!" is not appropriate for anyone to say. Besides, I have the same rank as Markman. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:31, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
::You have the same rank has nothing to do with the fact that you don't treat a user with advanced privileges as you would a new user; nor do you get in blocking wars with a user who has blocking rights. Stop blocking him.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:33, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
:::I won't block him or revert him. However, then wouldn't this logic then extend to me, and shouldn't Markman stop blocking me? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:34, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Yes.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:36, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

==Eg==

I'm going to relent on this issue. It seems as if the block has demoralized and discouraged him from further editing Conservapedia, so I don't see any reason to reinstate his block so long as he doesn't show his ugly mug around here. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 09:39, 26 June 2013 (EDT)
:{{cquote|It seems as if the block has demoralized and discouraged him from further editing Conservapedia, so I don't see any reason to reinstate his block so long as he doesn't show his ugly mug around here.}}

:Do you really believe that is appropriate behaviour, to drive off good faith editors, over a dispute over a pathetic claim of "overrated sports stars"? I'm appalled that you then had the audacity to go on my page, bragging of your misdeeds! Kindly refrain from posting on my talk page. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:44, 27 June 2013 (EDT)

::What is this tomfoolery I am reading? Participating in a wiki is a collaborative effort. You can't just shut people from you talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 18:00, 27 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Thatès rich comming from you. At any rate, I won't stand for your bullying of other users. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:54, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

==RE:you have regular contact with Mr. Schlafly?==

No but I just saw him log in two minutes before my latest block of Rafael (see recent changes). - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 12:33, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
:EDIT: To be a little more specific, he edited [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=1059294&oldid=1059218 mainpageright] on 16:20 while the aforementioned block of Rafael was given on 16:22. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 12:34, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
::Excellent, he should be able to check RC soon. At any rate, you can contact my special purpose account at brendenliasonwithmarkman@gmail.com [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 12:37, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
:::Check your email. In case you have doubts whether or not it's really me (I wouldn't be surprised if someone else already tried to contact you while pretending to be me) then I'll tell you on email how I will verify the authenticity of my account to you. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 11:49, 2 July 2013 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I got it. (I think it's you, at any rate) [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 12:32, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

== The Block log ==

The block log is getting ridiculous - we need to stop this block warring. If someone with blocking rights blocks a user you should generally respect that user's decision, but if you want to stick your neck out and be responsible for Rafael go ahead; I've unblocked him. If you decide you don't want this responsibility then you can block him again.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:04, 1 July 2013 (EDT)