Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Harry Hammond

2007-09-27T00:58:26Z

CalebRookwood:

[[Image:Hammond.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Harry Hammond]]]]
'''Harry Hammond''' was a 69 year old street preacher from Bournemouth, [[England]] who was subjected in October of 2001 to an assault by a angry crowd of 40 people while he proclaimed his Christian views in the town center which included a call to repentance in respect to [[homosexuality]].<ref>http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref> Mr. Hammond suffered from a type of [[autism]] making speaking with others difficult for him.<ref>http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref> Mr. Hammond was holding a sign bearing the words, "[[Jesus Christ|Jesus]] Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop [[Lesbianism]], Jesus is Lord".<ref>http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref>

Two police officers arrived at the scene, there was a disagreement as to whether they should protect him or arrest him and eventually Mr Hammond was arrested but no violent members of the crowd were arrested.<ref>http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref> At the time there were complaints from homosexuals about the sign which called for repentance in regards to homosexuality.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200205/ai_n9117665</ref>

Subsequently, Harry Hammond was charged and prosecuted and fined under the Public Order Act 1986.<ref>http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref> Sadly, Mr Hammond later died and despite a posthumous court appeal stating that Mr. Hammond should have the right to freedom of religion and the freedom to express his beliefs, it was ruled that Harry Hammond had acted unreasonably in holding up a sign he knew to be offensive.<ref>http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref> A further appeal to the [[European Court of Human Rights]] was also dismissed.<ref>http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Christians]]

Juche

2007-09-25T00:46:15Z

CalebRookwood: Replacing page with 'Juche is the official state religion or ideology of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, better known as North Korea.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/m...'

Juche is the official state [[religion]] or [[ideology]] of the [[Democratic People's Republic of Korea]], better known as [[North Korea]].<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/suryong.htm]</ref>

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

[[Category:Religion]] [[Category:Politics]]

JP Holding

2007-09-25T00:45:03Z

CalebRookwood:

'''JP Holding''' is a Florida-based [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] and president of Tekton Apologetics Ministries which provides answers to questions which are often posed regarding the [[Christianity|Christian]] faith. JP Holding holds a Masters degree in [[Library Science]].<ref>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970906307/</ref>
Tekton Apologetics Ministries is one of the leading apologetics ministries on the Internet with over 17,000 articles.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Impossible-Faith-James-Patrick-Holding/dp/1602660840/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/102-5806907-7615321</ref>

JP Holding is the author of two books ''The Impossible Faith'' and ''Mormon Defenders''.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Impossible-Faith-James-Patrick-Holding/dp/1602660840/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/102-5806907-7615321</ref><ref>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970906307/</ref> Holding's book ''The Impossible Faith'' affirms that [[Christianity]] could not have succeeded without indisputable proof of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Impossible-Faith-James-Patrick-Holding/dp/1602660840/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/102-5806907-7615321</ref> Holding's book ''The Impossible Faith'' originally started out as an essay and can be found on his website.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html</ref> An [[Atheism|atheist]] paid $5,000 to have [[Richard Carrier]], a writer who contributes articles for [[Internet Infidels]], write a work which argued against Holding's essay ''The Impossible Faith''.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Impossible-Faith-James-Patrick-Holding/dp/1602660840/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/102-5806907-7615321</ref><ref>http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43795</ref> JP Holding states in his essay ''The Impossible Faith'' that he:
{{cquote|...put together a comprehensive list of issues that we assert that critics must deal with in explaining why Christianity succeeded where it should have clearly failed or died out as did these others. Merely saying it was "lucky" where Sevi, et al. were not will not be an adequate answer -- and in fact, is the least likely answer of all as we shall see.

Below I offer a list of 17 factors to be considered -- places where Christianity "did the wrong thing" in order to be a successful religion. It is my contention that the only way Christianity did succeed is because it was a truly revealed faith -- and because it had the irrefutable witness of the resurrection.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html</ref>}}

''The Mormon Defenders'' argues that the case for a Biblical [[Mormon|Mormonism]] is rooted in misinterpretations of the Bible.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970906307/</ref>

Among other things, Mr. Holding's website Tekton Apologetics Ministries offers many articles which defend the doctrine of [[Bible inerrancy]] in regards to various [[Bible]] verses. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html</ref> In addition, JP Holding has written articles for the Christian Research Journal and the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970906307/</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.tektonics.org/ Tekton Apologetics Ministries]

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

[[Category:Religious people|Holding, J P]]
[[Category:Christian Apologetics]]

Jonathan Sarfati

2007-09-24T13:56:03Z

CalebRookwood: rv, yes it is.

[[Image:Jonathansafarti.jpg|left]]
'''Jonathan Sarfati''', Ph.D. is a [[Creationist]] scientist and author, and master [[chess]] player from [[New Zealand]] and [[Australia]]. Previously affiliated with [[Answers in Genesis]], he is now affiliated with the [[Creation Ministries International]] in [[Brisbane]], [[Australia]]. He has authored a paper in the top-of-the line journal Nature
<ref> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v328/n6127/pdf/328233a0.pdf </ref>and drew a
chess game with world champion [[Boris Spassky]] and was for a time the chess champion of [[New Zealand]].<ref>http://www.poisonpawn.co.nz/titles.htm</ref>. Sarfati has used his general
intelligence and extensive knowledge of science to demonstrate the many holes in
the [[theory of evolution]] such as the impossibility of life arising from non-life.

Sarfati is a [[Messianic Judaism|Messianic Jew]], that is, a [[Jew]] who accepts [[Jesus]] as his Lord and Savior. He has repeatedly and powerfully attacked liberalism, liberal activist judges, as well as defended Biblical morality against liberal causes like [[abortion]], evolution and [[gay marriage|gay "marriage"]].
<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3628/ </ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0415.asp</ref>
<ref> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2158/</ref>

See his [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3547 bio, papers, books and articles] and his [http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=39623 chess games].

=== Sarfati and Wikipedia ===
[[Image:Sarfati chess.jpg|right]]
In 2006, evolutionist administrators at [[Wikipedia]] attempted to turn the Wikipedia page about Sarfati into an attack piece. This went so far as to go to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel</ref>. After the evolutionists were not allowed to have their way, they then tried repeatedly to get the article deleted. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Sarfati%282%29 </ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Sarfati </ref>.

====References====
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Sarfati, Jonathan}}
[[Category:Creationist|Sarfati, Jonathan]]
[[Category:Young Earth Creationists]]
[[Category:Scientists]]

Talk:The New York Times

2007-09-21T01:05:34Z

CalebRookwood: /* Liberal bias and the NY Times */

The news sections of the New York Times certainly don't have a "liberal stance," even if the editorial page does.

== Subsidizing MoveOn claim false ==

Hi Rob,

Rather than possibly instigate an edit war I thought I'd talk with you about this here first. As explained in this week's Advertising Age, the reason that the MoveOn ad was cheaper than the rate card lists is because they used a lesser-used but publicly available "standby rate," which is a contract that allows an advertiser to choose a date but does not guarantee publication. It's like flying standby, for example.

The standby rate is the same rate that the Guiliani campaign used when they published their rebuttal/condemnation of the MoveOn ad. It's completely understandable why this misinterpretation was first made, as (like many discounted rates across many businesses) it isn't the most prominently-displayed rate. It does exist, however, and it's how both of the above-mentioned ads were purchased.

I'll wait for your acknowledgment before editing this article, or you can do it yourself if you prefer; no skin off my nose either way. :) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:43, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-and that's a lot of skin...''

== Removal of my edit? ==

Tash, why did you remove the part about the WP vandalism staying up less than a minute?

I wouldn't even call that a controversy to begin with. ''Somebody'' inside the NYT offices made a silly edit that got instantly reverted. It's not exactly something that led to frontpage news, angry comments, or whatever. (If there were any, please add references to them - I don't see any) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:36, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*What you added, Jenkins, is ''spin'', worthy of a Times employee or a [[Deceit|Liberal]]. But it was an unsubstantiated conjecture as to their intent, eh? And please stop with fact templates on stuff that is a truism, such as the politics of the publisher. If you have time to run around inserting those, you have the time to find the appropriate citation to prove or disprove. That is the job of an editor. Not some other editor, YOUR job. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::What I added was a simple, sourced fact. "Spin" ''might'' have been if I had rephrased the first part of that entry to remove the "most vile hate speech" bit. And I still don't see the "controversy" - especially when sites like WikiScanner have been [http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22315991-5001031,00.html doubted] in the past. But thanks for the recommendation, I might apply for a NYT job later ;)
::And no, it would be the fact of the editor who MAKES THE CLAIM. I happen not to know that guy, and he doesn't seem to have an article. So to casual readers, it's not a truism, it's an unsourced claim. And from what I see, the claim becomes "true" with the reasoning "The NYT is liberal because the guy is liberal, and the guy is liberal because he's the chief of the NYT". But fine, I'll do the job of whoever made the claim and do his/her research. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:43, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::Wow, googling for '''"Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr" radical leftist''' gives this article as the first result. Truism indeed... but maybe there actually is a source... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:45, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*I will soon be wishing you Godspeed, Jenkins, I can just feel it in my bones! You can take your attitude and pack it up anytime you are ready. You are full of [[deceit]] in your twisting of everything, and we can do without that. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::My aim is to improve Conservapedia. I'm not sure why a simple content question sparked such hostile tones to begin with. Are we talking about potential blocking basically just because I dared to insert a fact tag and added true and sourced information? If so, I shall back off from this article. It seems to be good for my wiki-health. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 21:01, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal bias and the NY Times ==

I am doing research on the Times and liberal bias. It also appears as if the management denies there is a liberal bias but I have not fact checked that part.

Here is what I found:

Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=]

This appears to be Mr. Okrent's position in the company: the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent,[http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp]

I need to fact check this blog report about his boss denying the liberal bias: His boss was quick to correct the wayward editor. The Times wasn't liberal: it merely reflects a flexible urban viewpoint. Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint "urban." He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment The Times occupies means "We're less easily shocked," and that the paper reflects "a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility."[http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2005/05/ny_times_admits.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:54, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

: And are you surprised that the New York Times denies that it has a liberal bias? It seems to me to be yet another example of liberal [[deceit]]. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 20:59, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::NO, but we should support it and cite it via reputable sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::: I added them about 2 minutes before your reply here. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 21:05, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
:here is a confirmation of the blog from Okrent himself: "Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint "urban." He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment The Times occupies means "We're less easily shocked," and that the paper reflects "a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility."[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:04, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

== NY Times liberal Bias affects other media according to reporter John Stossel ==

Here is what I found: "Stossel also used the occasion to take a swipe at The New York Times and The Washington Post. While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents. "The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."[http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

The New York Times

2007-09-21T01:00:47Z

CalebRookwood:

The '''New York Times''' (NYT) is a [[radical]] [[leftist|liberal]] [[newspaper]] that is published in [[New York City|New York]], [[New York]] and distributed to readers worldwide.<ref>http://www.timeswatch.org/ <ref><ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200407290744.asp </ref> It is the third most widely circulated newspaper in the United States behind ''[[USA Today]]'' and ''[[Wall Street Journal|The Wall Street Journal]]'' <ref>Infoplease.com: [http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html Top 100 Newspapers in the United States]</ref>.
[[image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumb|Arthur Sulzberger Jr.]]
The New York Times is published by 3rd generation NYT publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr, who is a radical leftist in his political opinions. The NYT publishes 15 other newspapers, including the ''International Herald Tribune'' (based in Paris) and the ''Boston Globe.''

==Controversies==
*''The Times'' correspondent [[Walter Duranty]] intentionally covered up the [[Soviet]] [[Holodomor|genocide]] of the [[Ukraine|Ukrainians]].<ref>[http://www.nytco.com/company/awards/statement.html New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty]</ref>

*An anonymous editor at the ''New York Times'' attacked Rep. [[Tom DeLay]] with the most vile [[hate speech]] in Delay's [[Wikipedia]] biographical entry just prior to the 2006 election.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Edit in question]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner] results for the NYT</ref>
*[[Michelle Malkin]] says the NYT has violated an agreement regarding [[Journalism|journalist]]s covering [[war|war casualties]]. <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/02/01/the-nytimes-unspeakable-violation/ The NYTimes’ unspeakable violation]</ref>
*The ''New York Times'' subsidized<ref>[http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp? Subsidizing Sedition], Investor's Business Daily Editorial, 9/13/2007.</ref> what Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' referred to as a "vicious" attack on the person and charter of a respected professional soldier, Gen. [[David Petraeus]].<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> The [[radical]] [[liberal]] group [[MoveOn.org]], an organization which advocated maintaining the [[corrupt]] [[United Nations]] [[Iraq#Oil_for_food_scandal|Oil For Food]] program's support for the [[fascist]] [[Ba'athist]] regime in [[Iraq]], ran a full page ad in the ''Times'' at roughly half the cost of regular price impugning Gen. Petraeus credibility as a traitor.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>
*In 2003, ''New York Times'' reporter [[Jayson Blair]] resigned after it was found that he had engaged in repeated [[plagiarism]] and [[deceit]], copying articles from other newspapers and making up other articles out of whole cloth. Blair was promoted and problems with his reporting were ignored due to the newspaper's adherence to [[affirmative action]]<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_ethics/casestudy_blair.php</ref>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/New York Times|Articles about '''New York Times''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:United States Newspapers|New York Times]]

Talk:The New York Times

2007-09-21T00:59:11Z

CalebRookwood: /* Liberal bias and the NY Times */

The news sections of the New York Times certainly don't have a "liberal stance," even if the editorial page does.

== Subsidizing MoveOn claim false ==

Hi Rob,

Rather than possibly instigate an edit war I thought I'd talk with you about this here first. As explained in this week's Advertising Age, the reason that the MoveOn ad was cheaper than the rate card lists is because they used a lesser-used but publicly available "standby rate," which is a contract that allows an advertiser to choose a date but does not guarantee publication. It's like flying standby, for example.

The standby rate is the same rate that the Guiliani campaign used when they published their rebuttal/condemnation of the MoveOn ad. It's completely understandable why this misinterpretation was first made, as (like many discounted rates across many businesses) it isn't the most prominently-displayed rate. It does exist, however, and it's how both of the above-mentioned ads were purchased.

I'll wait for your acknowledgment before editing this article, or you can do it yourself if you prefer; no skin off my nose either way. :) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:43, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-and that's a lot of skin...''

== Removal of my edit? ==

Tash, why did you remove the part about the WP vandalism staying up less than a minute?

I wouldn't even call that a controversy to begin with. ''Somebody'' inside the NYT offices made a silly edit that got instantly reverted. It's not exactly something that led to frontpage news, angry comments, or whatever. (If there were any, please add references to them - I don't see any) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:36, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*What you added, Jenkins, is ''spin'', worthy of a Times employee or a [[Deceit|Liberal]]. But it was an unsubstantiated conjecture as to their intent, eh? And please stop with fact templates on stuff that is a truism, such as the politics of the publisher. If you have time to run around inserting those, you have the time to find the appropriate citation to prove or disprove. That is the job of an editor. Not some other editor, YOUR job. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::What I added was a simple, sourced fact. "Spin" ''might'' have been if I had rephrased the first part of that entry to remove the "most vile hate speech" bit. And I still don't see the "controversy" - especially when sites like WikiScanner have been [http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22315991-5001031,00.html doubted] in the past. But thanks for the recommendation, I might apply for a NYT job later ;)
::And no, it would be the fact of the editor who MAKES THE CLAIM. I happen not to know that guy, and he doesn't seem to have an article. So to casual readers, it's not a truism, it's an unsourced claim. And from what I see, the claim becomes "true" with the reasoning "The NYT is liberal because the guy is liberal, and the guy is liberal because he's the chief of the NYT". But fine, I'll do the job of whoever made the claim and do his/her research. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:43, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::Wow, googling for '''"Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr" radical leftist''' gives this article as the first result. Truism indeed... but maybe there actually is a source... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:45, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*I will soon be wishing you Godspeed, Jenkins, I can just feel it in my bones! You can take your attitude and pack it up anytime you are ready. You are full of [[deceit]] in your twisting of everything, and we can do without that. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal bias and the NY Times ==

I am doing research on the Times and liberal bias. It also appears as if the management denies there is a liberal bias but I have not fact checked that part.

Here is what I found:

Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=]

This appears to be Mr. Okrent's position in the company: the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent,[http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp]

I need to fact check this blog report about his boss denying the liberal bias: His boss was quick to correct the wayward editor. The Times wasn't liberal: it merely reflects a flexible urban viewpoint. Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint "urban." He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment The Times occupies means "We're less easily shocked," and that the paper reflects "a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility."[http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2005/05/ny_times_admits.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:54, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

: And are you surprised that the New York Times denies that it has a liberal bias? It seems to me to be yet another example of liberal [[deceit]]. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 20:59, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Jonathan Sarfati

2007-09-21T00:54:59Z

CalebRookwood: Thanks TK!

'''Jonathan Sarfati''', Ph.D. is a [[Creationist]] scientist and author, and master [[chess]] player from [[New Zealand]] and [[Australia]]. Previously affiliated with [[Answers in Genesis]], he is now affiliated with the [[Creation Ministries International]] in [[Brisbane]], [[Australia]]. He has authored a paper in the top-of-the line journal Nature
<ref> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v328/n6127/pdf/328233a0.pdf </ref>and drew a
chess game with world champion [[Boris Spassky]] and was for a time the chess champion of [[New Zealand]].<ref>http://www.poisonpawn.co.nz/titles.htm</ref>. Sarfati has used his general
intelligence and extensive knowledge of science to demonstrate the many holes in
the [[theory of evolution]] such as the impossibility of life arising from non-life.

Sarfati is a [[Messianic Judaism|Messianic Jew]], that is a [[Jew]] who accepts [[Jesus]] as his Lord and Savior. He has repeatedly and powerfully attacked liberalism, liberal activist judges, as well as defended Biblical morality against liberal causes like [[abortion]], evolution and [[gay marriage|gay "marriage"]].
<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3628/ </ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0415.asp</ref>
<ref> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2158/</ref>

See his [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3547 bio, papers, books and articles] and his [http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=39623 chess games].

=== Sarfati and Wikipedia ===
In 2006, evolutionist administrators at [[Wikipedia]] attempted to turn the Wikipedia page about Sarfati into an attack piece. This went so far as to go to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel</ref>. After the evolutionists were not allowed to have their way, they then tried repeatedly to get the article deleted. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Sarfati%282%29 </ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Sarfati </ref>.

====References====
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Sarfati, Jonathan}}
[[Category:Creationist|Sarfati, Jonathan]]
[[Category:Young Earth Creationists]]
[[Category:Scientists]]

The New York Times

2007-09-21T00:36:20Z

CalebRookwood: /* Controversies */ also Jayson Blair

The '''New York Times''' (NYT) is a [[radical]] [[leftist|liberal]] [[newspaper]] that is published in [[New York City|New York]], [[New York]] and distributed to readers worldwide. It is the third most widely circulated newspaper in the United States behind ''[[USA Today]]'' and ''[[Wall Street Journal|The Wall Street Journal]]'' <ref>Infoplease.com: [http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html Top 100 Newspapers in the United States]</ref>.
[[image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumb|Arthur Sulzberger Jr.]]
The New York Times is published by 3rd generation NYT publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr, who is a radical leftist in his political opinions. The NYT publishes 15 other newspapers, including the ''International Herald Tribune'' (based in Paris) and the ''Boston Globe.''

==Controversies==
*''The Times'' correspondent [[Walter Duranty]] intentionally covered up the [[Soviet]] [[Holodomor|genocide]] of the [[Ukraine|Ukrainians]].<ref>[http://www.nytco.com/company/awards/statement.html New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty]</ref>

*An anonymous editor at the ''New York Times'' attacked Rep. [[Tom DeLay]] with the most vile [[hate speech]] in Delay's [[Wikipedia]] biographical entry just prior to the 2006 election.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Edit in question]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner] results for the NYT</ref>
*[[Michelle Malkin]] says the NYT has violated an agreement regarding [[Journalism|journalist]]s covering [[war|war casualties]]. <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/02/01/the-nytimes-unspeakable-violation/ The NYTimes’ unspeakable violation]</ref>
*The ''New York Times'' subsidized<ref>[http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp? Subsidizing Sedition], Investor's Business Daily Editorial, 9/13/2007.</ref> what Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' referred to as a "vicious" attack on the person and charter of a respected professional soldier, Gen. [[David Petraeus]].<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> The [[radical]] [[liberal]] group [[MoveOn.org]], an organization which advocated maintaining the [[corrupt]] [[United Nations]] [[Iraq#Oil_for_food_scandal|Oil For Food]] program's support for the [[fascist]] [[Ba'athist]] regime in [[Iraq]], ran a full page ad in the ''Times'' at roughly half the cost of regular price impugning Gen. Petraeus credibility as a traitor.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>
*In 2003, ''New York Times'' reporter [[Jayson Blair]] resigned after it was found that he had engaged in repeated [[plagiarism]] and [[deceit]], copying articles from other newspapers and making up other articles out of whole cloth. Blair was promoted and problems with his reporting were ignored due to the newspaper's adherence to [[affirmative action]]<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_ethics/casestudy_blair.php</ref>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/New York Times|Articles about '''New York Times''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:United States Newspapers|New York Times]]

Michael Steele

2007-09-21T00:20:05Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Michael S. Steele''' is a former [[Republican]] [[Lieutenant Governor]] of the state of [[Maryland]] and 2006 senatorial candidate. He was born October 19, 1958 at [[Andrews Air Force Base]] in Prince George's County, [[Maryland]]. In 1981, he received a bachelor's degree in international relations from The Johns Hopkins University. After considering becoming a priest and spending three years at the Order of St. Augustine seminary, he received a law degree when he graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1991. From 1991 through 1997 he worked at the law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton in [[Washington D.C.]]<ref>[http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/08conoff/html/msa13921.html Maryland State Archives, "LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: MICHAEL S. STEELE, Lt.Governor (Republican)"]</ref>.

In late 2000, Steele was elected Chair of the [[Maryland]] [[Republican Party]] and in 2003, he was elected as Maryland's [[Lieutenant Governor]]. He ran for [[Senate]] in 2006 against [[Democrat]] [[Benjamin Cardin]] but lost with 44% of the vote compared to Cardin's 54.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/elections/2006/maryland/Maryland_US_Senator.html Washington Post, "Election Profile - U.S. Senate, Maryland"]</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110801368.html Washington Post, Matthew Mosk and Ann E. Marimow, November 9, 2006, "Governor and U.S. Senate Losses Just the Tip of State GOP Collapse"]</ref> After his loss, he was thought to be a leading candidate for chairman of the [[Republican National Committee]],<ref>[http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/11/steele_for_rnc.html Washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog, Chris Cillizza, November 8, 2006, "Michael Steele for Republican NationalChairman?"]</ref> but former [[Florida]] senator [[Mel Martinez]] was picked instead.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/13/AR2006111300636.html Washington Post, Jim VandeHei, November 14, 2006, "Florida Senator Will Be a Top RNC Officer"]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Political People]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Steele, Michael}}

Lionel Luckhoo

2007-09-21T00:14:41Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Lionel Luckhoo''' (1914-1997) was a famous [[lawyer]] and later an evangelist, whom the [[Guinness Book of World Records]] lists as having had the most successful acquittals in [[murder[[ trials, with 245. [http://www.hawaiichristiansonline.com/sir_lionel_luckhoo_bio.html] In 1980, he founded Lionel Luckhoo Ministries, and wrote pamphlets in support of Christianity. He said, "I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]] is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt." [http://www.gotquestions.org/why-believe-resurrection.html]

[[category:Religious people]]

Simon Greenleaf

2007-09-21T00:12:06Z

CalebRookwood:

[[Image:27 2blinka fig01f.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Simon Greenleaf]]]]
Dr. '''Simon Greenleaf''' was one of the principal founders of the [[Harvard Law School]], a legal scholar, and also served as a [[Isaac Royall, Jr.|Royall]] Professor at [[Harvard Law School]].<ref>[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html Testimony of the Evangelists] by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)</ref><ref>bible.org: [http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=551 The Resurrection of Jesus Christ]</ref> In addition, Greenleaf was the author of the classic three-volume text, ''A Treatise on the Law of Evidence'' (1842) and according to Dr. Wilbur Smith this work "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal procedure.”<ref>[http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/ATRJ/truth/ATRJ1203-EVPDF/ATRJ1203-EV-3.pdf The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ] (Part 2)</ref> In his law classes Dr. Greenleaf, who was an [[atheism|atheist]] at the time, would frequently attack the [[Bible]] until some of his Christian students challenged him to take his textbook and apply it to the Bible and to the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ]].<ref>Apprising Ministries: [http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/09/thy_word_is_tru_1.html GOD’S WORD IS TRUTH]</ref><ref name="caseforchrist">All About the Journey: [http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/the-case-for-christ.htm The Case for Christ]</ref> Dr. Greenleaf accepted his students challenge and when he examined the evidence for the resurrection of Christ he became a Christian.<ref name="caseforchrist"/> Dr. Greenleaf is often cited in the field of [[Christian Legal Apologetics|Christian legal apologetics]]. In his essay the ''[[Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice]]'', Greenleaf wrote the following:
{{cquote|All that Christianity asks of men…is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses [to the Resurrection] be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth.<ref>[http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm Testimony of the Evangelists]</ref>}}
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-17T01:39:44Z

CalebRookwood: /* Our Banner for the article is poor. Wikipedia has been called by some the National Enquirer of the internet? */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Planning to add a few new examples ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Suicide ==

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

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

== Double brackets needed ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Music ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== # 18 ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: Please don't attack me based on my word choice between perspective and bias; they both apply equally to the out-of-copyright sources that the meta article talks about. See [[bias]]. And how do you know I'm not conservative or moderate?
:: #18/#20 still distorts the intent and contents of the Wikipedia meta article, makes up accusations, and uses overly POV/biased word choice. For example, no one complained that Wikipedia is based on Christian and Jewish Encyclopedias; the Conservapedia writer literally made that up. Use of these texts is actually ''encouraged'' because they usually do a good job covering their area of expertise. The sources (including a public domain Encyclopedia Brittanica) just need to be checked for "ingrained biases, inaccuracies, and other problems reflecting the age and nature of the sources." I realize you want to score points against Wikipedia, but you only have to reread the article - the entire article - to realize that the #18/20 accusations are invalid.

:: As a side note, MediaWiki allows you to cite a single source in multiple places instead of using acronyms. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once Wikipedia:Footnotes] - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 19:27, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Admission of Liberal Bias ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: No, your comparison is meaningless. The percentage of entries about suicide should decrease as the overall number of entries increase, if there is no bias. Instead, that percentage increases at Wikipedia. Moreover, the content of those entries is very different on Wikipedia than here, further illustrating the bias. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:28, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, I am not saying there is not a systemic bias in regards to the Wikipedian population being inordinately preoccupied with suicide or even promoting suicide (inordinately preoccupied and promoting are two different things obviously). However, I will make 3 points. First, PROMOTES is a strong word and unfortunately at this point you do not show a single case of Wikipedia PROMOTING suicide. You did mention Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry but does that that sentence does not promote suicide. It is merely inappropriate to mention it so soon. Given that teenagers at Wikipedia (and there are a lot of them) may not be as socially astute this could easily be an explanation. In regards to Wikipedia's entry about Zerah Colburn ending with a claim that his distant nephew committed suicide this could merely be the type of rampant gossip and preoccupation with trivia regarding the rich and famous. Now I am I being picayune here? I can assure you that will not be like a unreasonable liberal who will nitpick to death and unreasonably ignore any future examples you give. I merely assert (and I believe reasonably) that you haven't yet provided a clear example of Wikipedia promoting suicide. Second, I do agree with RUTM that the percentages are similar although you might be right that Conservapedia's percentage may decline over time. However, while I think this may very well happen it is not a particularly strong argument at this point and promoting the strong claim that Wikipedia promotes suicide reasonably obligates you to provide reasonably clear evidence. Here are some suggestions. Give some strong examples of Wikipedia promoting suicide and/or wait until Conservapedia percentage of entries decreases in terms of the suicide percentage. I do think the important part is providing some clear examples of Wikipedia promoting suicide. In the absence of clear examples though in regards to Wikipedia promoting suicide I think you should wait until the Conservapedia percentage drops and then merely state that Wikipedia is inordinately preoccupied with the subject of suicide. I think it is better for a encyclopedia to make conservative claims and meet its evidential obligations rather than make claims that go beyond the evidence it provides. '''By the way, once the suicide matter is resolved I do believe we can easily leverage the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" article to provide us 25% to 33% more internet traffic by doing something very simple and I believe I am being conservative. It will also take about 15 minutes to do.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:22, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'm confident that with more research I could find more examples. However, the examples given are striking enough, and I see that Wikipedia changed them quickly in response to the criticism here. I've move on to other issues for now but please feel free to research further to improve our entry. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, one entry mentioning that a distant nephew committed suicide is a striking example of Wikipedia HEAVILY PROMOTING suicide? Mentioning that a man committed suicide in the beginning of the article is striking example of Wikipedia HEAVILY PROMOTING suicide? How do those entries heavily sell people on the idea of committing suicide? As far as saying you could find more examples that could be used as an argument to defend anything. I think you will agree that many times the evolutionists say with more time spent evidence will likely show up. It is really not a compelling argument. I certainly expect better from you than I could find more evidence if I tried. Please instead of merely moving on to other articles please let us delete this entry if you are not going to adequately support it. I certainly don't expect you to drop everything and adequately support this entry. However, if you are not willing to support the entry then simply erase it. If you find time later to support it you can always put it back. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:13, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Andy, thank you for removing the word heavily in regards to "heavily promotes". I really am not trying to be difficult and given that a Conservapedia editor whom I respect is agreeing with me on this issue via private letter I don't believe I am acting out of line. With that being said PROMOTE is still a strong word. I realize it would be a lot of work to dig through the garbage dump of Wikipedia in order to find sufficient examples to demonstrate that there are indeed examples of Wikipedia PROMOTING suicide since promote is a strong word. And who really knows if there are any examples? I certainly don't but I would not be surprised if there were. However, I think your time could be better spent than digging through the garbage dump of Wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest you wait until Conservapedia gets larger and revisit the issue. You can then compare statistics and then reasonably make the claim that Wikipedia is inordinately preoccupied with the issue of suicide if their percentage of mentioning the word is much higher than ours. Fair enough? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:32, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
::::As per your suggestion I did a little digging at Wikipedia in regards to this matter and found some horrendous stuff. Andy, I put the following addition to the entry: (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more horrendous entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). I have no problem with the entry now with my reasonable addition and I think it will put more pressure on Wikipedia to change. And we have caused some change to Wikipedia. I will also work on expanding the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]] article I just created. I think this changes the dynamic. Before it appeared that we had a baseless claim. Now it appears as if Conservapedia is doing the right thing and doing it in a responsible manner.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:40, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
::Here is a better change to the entry as per some feedback: (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]])[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:47, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Andy I made a recent change not as a compromise with you but as a compromise with TK as I fully expect you to agree with the change I made. I made the change so it does not appear as if Conservapedia is making a baseless claim and it rightly puts more pressure on Wikipedia. And I have noticed that in one case of our criticism of Wikipedian on another issue it appears our pressure on Wikipedia has caused change. It also strongly affirms the sanctity of life. Here is my suggested changed: "[[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28math_prodigy%29&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide, citing an unpublished PhD thesis at an obscure university."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

*Conservative, why are you watering down Andy's language? Why are you seeking to curry favor with WP editors? Why do you continue to revert the Owners own edits? Why can't you use the email like other Sysops when you have doubts, or wish to make changes? What is your compulsion with altering ever post Andy makes to this section? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:24, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still a couple of issues with the entry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::Is there some alternate wording (which you would allow me to insert to Wikipedia as GFDL) which might solve this problem? One major semantic problem I see with changing the current wording is that it is possible to deceive by accident without moral slight - the Wikipedia entry's alleged lack of morality is partly based on this. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 17:33, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:I agree that Wikipedia's definition of deception stinks. "not necessarily true"? Show me a dictionary or encyclopedia that states the "not necessarily true" idea associated with Wikipedia's lousy definition of deception. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

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

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

:::: There is no support for the far-fetched claim that she is a "philanthropist". Without support for such an incredible claim, why is it there??? Well, obviously, there are political reasons for sugar-coating violent liberal extremism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
While the claim of her being an philanthropist could certainly use an citation, im not so sure if the reason for it being there is an communist conspiracy of first making her look good and then spending rest of the article listing her crimes, and uhm... Liberal extremism??? Mayby you are bit jumping to conclusions here... [[User:WillM|WillM]] 17:53, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::The "May 19" group (so named for it being Mao's and Malcolm Little's birthday), advocated the violent overthrow of the United States. While she '''is''' a terrorist, she's a low key and minor one. More concerned with how to stay out of jail than with coming to power, she is by no means a philanthropist. [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 18:03, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
:This is what appears to be the case: Duke cited somewhere her occupation as "philanthropist;" Duke was arrested & indicted on several conspiracy charges connected with terrorist attacks, one including a terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol building; Duke jumped bail; FBI issued a poster with all information gathered on her previous occupations, and cited her as "philanthropist" which as an "occupation" could only be traced back to herself as the source. Why Wikipedia would refer to her as a "philanthropist" is a mystery, but the theory Andy expressed carries some weight, given that [[Harry Dexter White]], a dead person who never stood trial, is referred to in both FBI reports and NSA documents as "KGB Agent Harry Dexter White;" nonetheless, I had much trouble even presenting just that evidence.
:John Wilkes Booth never stood trial; Lee Harvey Oswald never stood trial. Both are dead, and both have been determined to be guilty of the crime of murder by various U.S. Government Commissions. Wikipedia does not refer to Booth or Oswald as the "alleged assassin," yet with a mass of evidence of complicity in all sorts of criminal activity on the part of hundreds of radical/liberal/communist/leftwing/subversive/activists, Wikipedia adamantly disregards the FBI as a credible source for factual information. And when the FBI declares in its files it has known facts, WP Admins ''still'' require "alleged to's". The argument here is, without trial & conviction, you cannot declare someone as guilty. Really? Look at Wikipedia's entry on [[Alger Hiss]], even with trial and conviction, he's still not guilty. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:22, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:P.S. we got an entry on [[M19CO]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:22, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== liberals vs liberalism and creationist vs creationism - dictionaries verses encyclopedias ==

I do think that an encyclopedia should mention movements or systems of thought like liberalism, creationism, capitalism, and conservatism but encylopedias are not dictionaries and need not have entries on liberal or creationist or capitalist. So I removed the fact that Wikipedia does not have an entry on liberal which is an insignificant point and placed all the emphasis on the failings of Wikipedia's [[liberalism]] article. This way we go straight and forcibly to main issue and do not appear picayune to our readers. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Al Gore and Dick Cheney ==

Regarding the Al Gore and Dick Cheney entry, I'm not sure that this is a problem. While Wikipedia does not mention it in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore Al Gore] article, it is mentioned prominently in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_III Al Gore III article] (about the former vice-president's son), where it has two supporting references. I would also like to note that context is important for the "criticism" of Dick Cheney: I don't think the word "prominently" is quite accurate when it is mentioned in ''only one sentence in the 88 kB article'', and noted to have affected his views on same-sex marriage a sentence later. For reference, please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney the Wikipedia Dick Cheney article] and [http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/cheney.samesex/ the article cited for verifiability]. It seems to me that there isn't any particular correction to Wikipedia needed or particular bias displayed in this example, is there? I'd like to confirm that this is still a problem, because it would be nice to fix any potential problems in Wikipedia. :) [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 13:49, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

: We're not fooled by the [[placement bias]] that is pervasive on [[Wikipedia]]. The Wikipedia Al Gore entry is going to be visited far often, and perhaps 100 times more often, than the entry on Al Gore III. It's placement bias to bury the embarrassment in the obscure entry, and hide it from the main entry, when the Dick Cheney family matter is placed prominently in the very first substantive section in his entry. Maybe placement bias can fool users of Wikipedia. It doesn't fool us here. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I think it is a leap to connect his espoused views (those of a traditional conservative/states rightist), to any "issues" of sexuality. This is only done in furtherance of [[deceit]] IMO. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:57, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:::TK, I am basing the idea of his view being partly based on that on the CNN article that Wikipedia references, which (the CNN article) quotes Cheney as mentioning that "[he and his wife] have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that [their] family is very familiar with" when speaking about same-sex marriage. [http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/cheney.samesex/]. I'm not trying to deceive, I'm just repeating what I see from a reliable source. :)
:::Aschlafly, I don't think that there's a specific bias in placing Al Gore III's information on a page of its own, given that he is a separate person. It is justifiable on editorial grounds without any particular bias - Wikipedia and Conservapedia each value that articles remain on topic, and that wider topics are separated into multiple, linked articles. I can imagine a conservative editor separating the two, in the interests of succinctness in the Al Gore article, which could use some (neutral) editorial paring regardless. That being said, placement bias is possible, though I find it unlikely that liberals would try to smear Cheney by mentioning a fact that he acknowledges, when many liberals don't have a problem with homosexuality in the first place. ;) (for the record, I'm straight)
:::I'll stop arguing now - I don't want to be combative here, I merely want Wikipedia to be dealt with fairly, and arguing ad infinitum won't help. There's a Wikipedia guideline called "Assume good faith" that I wish were used for criticisms of Wikipedia here. I'll tell you if I can find reasonable justification for the resolution of other examples on this list. In such a good faith, [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 15:10, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

::Nihiltres, I'm not going to waste a lot of time debating this with you. Of course [[liberals]] use the sexuality of Cheney's daughter against him. [[John Edwards]] brought it up during his debate with Cheney. Do you think John Edwards did that to help Cheney??? Admit the obvious, or don't waste our time. Meanwhile, of course [[liberals]] want to downplay the crimes by Gore's kid. Admit that, or likewise don't waste our time. Wikipedia's very different treatment of those analogous issues obviously favors the [[liberal]] relative to the [[conservative]]. If you don't admit that, then debating this with you is futile. I'll move on. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:21, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I notice there's not a lot of discussion about [[Chelsea Clinton]], the progeny of the two most brilliant people to ever walk the planet who flunked her drivers test, walked out of college to start working at $100, 000 per year, and now has the independent, objective [[George Step-on-all-of-us]] pitching her boyfriends book. [http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070831.asp#3] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:41, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:::P.S. Coming soon to a theater near you: the truth about the [[Dick Cheney]]-[[Halliburton]]-[[Brown and Root]]-[[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]-[[Lyndon Johnson]]-[[Bechtel Corporation]]-[[John F. Kennedy]]'s [[CIA]] Director [[John McCone]]- and [[KGB]] Agent-[[I.F. Stone]] connection. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:48, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

*Nihiltres, merely repeating gossipy junk, no matter the source, isn't any excuse. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Our Banner for the article is poor. Wikipedia has been called by some the National Enquirer of the internet? ==

Wikipedia has been called some the National Enquirer of the internet? Who is some? Please cite your sources! Please do not claim something without giving a source! It is better to not make a claim then make a unsourced claim! Who disagrees with me regarding the futility and undesirability of unsourced claims? I looked thoughout the article and could find no source for this claim. I could also find no source for this claim in the Wikipedia article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:28, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

: Google says that it used by many people. See [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=%22National+Enquirer%22+Wikipedia] which gives many different commentators making the comparison. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 21:39, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Adjutant

2007-09-13T00:42:06Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Adjutant''' ([[Latin]]: ''adiutans'' "to help") is a military rank or appointment.

[[Category:Military]]

Drew Barrymore

2007-09-13T00:41:29Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Drew Barrymore''' (22 February 1975-) is an American actress best known for romantic comedy roles. She is the daughter of American actor [[John Drew Barrymore]] and first appeared on film at the age of 5. However, she achieved early fame in the 1982 movie [[E.T.]]. This fame contributed to problems with her personal life which she overcame and made a successful return to filmmaking. Her most notable appearances have been in [[Ever After]] (1998), [[Charlie's Angels]] (2000 & 2003) and [[50 First Dates]] (2004).

{{DEFAULTSORT: Barrymore, Drew}}

[[Category:Actresses]]

CreationWiki

2007-09-12T21:30:22Z

CalebRookwood:

[[Image:creationwiki.jpg|right|thumb|300px| CreationWiki's Main page]]

'''CreationWiki''' is a free wiki-based Internet encyclopedia of [[creationism]] written from primarily a [[Young Earth Creationism]] perspective that was started during the summer of 2004 by the Northwest Creation Network, and is the work of an international team of creationists.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/CreationWiki:About</ref> Also, in addition to having articles regarding the creaetion/evolution issue CreationWiki has articles on the [[Bible]] and [[Christianity]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page</ref> CreationWiki was started in part due to the [[Theory of Evolution|evolutionist]] biases of [[Wikipedia]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Wikipedia</ref> Wikipedia by first writing an anti-creationist entry on CreationWiki and then deleting the entry when it became apparent that some users might not accept the biased entry.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki_%282nd_nomination%29</ref> As of 9/7/07 there were 3,158 articles written from a creationist point of view. <ref>http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page</ref>

==References==

<References/>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki.org]
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Conservapedia Conservapedia] from CreationWiki

[[Category: Young earth creationism]]
[[Category: wiki]]

CreationWiki

2007-09-12T20:41:15Z

CalebRookwood:

[[Image:creationwiki.jpg|right|thumb|300px| CreationWiki's Main page]]

'''CreationWiki''' is a free wiki-based Internet encyclopedia of [[creationism]] written from primarily a [[Young Earth Creationism]] perspective that was started during the summer of 2004 by the Northwest Creation Network, and is the work of an international team of creationists.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/CreationWiki:About</ref> CreationWiki was started in part due to the [[Theory of Evolution|evolutionist]] biases of [[Wikipedia]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Wikipedia</ref> Wikipedia by first writing an anti-creationist entry on CreationWiki and then deleting the entry when it became apparent that some users might not accept the biased entry.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CreationWiki_%282nd_nomination%29</ref> There are presently 2,623 articles from a creationist point of view. <ref>http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page</ref>

==References==

<References/>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki.org]
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Conservapedia Conservapedia] from CreationWiki

[[Category: Young earth creationism]]
[[Category: wiki]]

CreationWiki

2007-09-12T20:39:30Z

CalebRookwood:

[[Image:creationwiki.jpg|right|thumb|300px| CreationWiki's Main page]]

'''CreationWiki''' is a free wiki-based Internet encyclopedia of [[creationism]] written from primarily a [[Young Earth Creationism]] perspective that was started during the summer of 2004 by the Northwest Creation Network, and is the work of an international team of creationists.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/CreationWiki:About</ref> CreationWiki was started in part due to the [[Theory of Evolution|evolutionist]] biases of [[Wikipedia]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Wikipedia</ref> Wikipedia by first writing an anti-creationist entry on CreationWiki and then deleting the entry when it became apparent that some users might not accept the biased entry. There are presently 2,623 articles from a creationist point of view. <ref>http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page</ref>

==References==

<References/>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki.org]
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Conservapedia Conservapedia] from CreationWiki

[[Category: Young earth creationism]]
[[Category: wiki]]

CreationWiki

2007-09-12T20:38:17Z

CalebRookwood:

CreationWiki

2007-09-12T20:35:39Z

CalebRookwood:

Debate:Abortion and Artificial Consciousness

2007-09-10T00:25:59Z

CalebRookwood:

Here's an interesting analogy I thought of the other day…

Suppose that I'm constructing an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_conciousness artificial conciousness]. Halfway through the project, I decide that it's not worth the effort, and discontinue it, destroying the code and other neccesary components. Would this be moral? Consider that this is almost ''exactly like'' the destruction of an undifferentiated, or only slightly differentiated, zygote, before the brain has developed and the mind come into existence.

I still haven't decided my position on the matter, and would be interested in others' assesments. Also bear in mind that I'm not arguing one way or another, I'm interested in the issue without pushing any POV.

: It isn't the same at all. Computers do not have souls. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 20:25, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Category:Evolution

2007-09-10T00:24:49Z

CalebRookwood: is almost always a secular belief. not sure that one can even be a true Christian and think otherwise

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Secular beliefs]]

Genetic drift

2007-09-09T18:15:30Z

CalebRookwood: /* Genetic Drift as it Relates to Allele Frequencies */

'''Genetic drift''' is the random change in the genetic composition of a population due to chance events causing unequal participation of individuals in producing succeeding generations. Some evolutionists claim that along with [[natural selection]], genetic drift is principal force in [[theory of evolution|evolution]].

==Genetic Drift as it Relates to Allele Frequencies==

Different forms of a [[gene]] are called [[allele|alleles]]. Individual members of a [[population]] have different alleles. Together, all the alleles for all the genes in a population constitute the "gene pool" of the population. Through reproduction, individuals pass their genes on to the next generation. If considering only the effect of genetic drift, the larger the population is, the more stable the frequency of different alleles in the gene pool will be over time. In small populations allele frequencies are likely to change rapidly and dramatically over very few generations, or "drift," because of chance events. This rapid change can occur in small populations because each individual's alleles represent a large fraction of the gene pool, and if an individual did not reproduce it could have a much larger effect than in the case of an individual in a large population not reproducing. Also, alleles that are found infrequently are more likely to be lost due to random chance.

After many generations, if only genetic drift is operating, populations (even large populations) will eventually contain only one allele of a particular gene, becoming "monomorphic," or fixed for this allele. This is another example of how evolution results in a loss of information.

==Random Events that Affect Genetic Drift==

Many types of random events that can affect the likelihood of alleles being passed to future generations can be imagined. An adult may fail to mate during mating season due to unusually adverse weather; a pregnant mother may discover a rich food source and produce unusually strong or numerous off-spring; all the offspring of one parent may be consumed by predators. Many other scenarios are possible.

To see how such events affect allele frequencies, imagine a population that contains four individuals of an organism that reproduces once and dies. Let us examine how allele frequencies change for a gene that has two alleles, A and a. As with other genes, each individual has two alleles, one inherited from each parent. Imagine that three of the individuals are aa genotype, and one is Aa genotype. Thus, of the population's eight copies of the gene, one is A, and seven are a. Now imagine that because of random chance, the Aa individual does not reproduce. Therefore, only aa offspring are produced and the A allele is lost to the population. The A allele goes from a frequency of one-eighth to zero through the process of genetic drift.

A large reduction in population size can lead to a situation known as a genetic bottleneck. After a genetic bottleneck the population is likely to have different allele frequencies. When only a very small number of individuals are left after a population decline, the population will have only the alleles present in these few individuals. This is known as the "founder effect." The founder effect can be viewed as an extreme case of a genetic bottleneck. If a population decline affects all individuals in the population without respect to the alleles they carry, genetic drift will have an effect on all genes.

Genetic drift has important implications for the process of speciation. When a small group of individuals becomes isolated from the majority of individuals of a species, the small group will genetically drift from the rest of the species. Because genetic drift is random and the smaller group will drift more rapidly than the larger group, it is possible that, given enough time, the small group will become different enough from the large group to become a different species.

The fact that small populations are more subject to genetic drift has important implications for conservation. If the number of individuals of a species becomes small, it becomes increasingly influenced by genetic drift, which may result in the loss of valuable genetic diversity. Conservation biologists seek to maintain populations at sufficient numbers to counteract genetic drift.

Some [[theory of evolution|evolutionists]] try to use genetic drift to obfuscate the insufficiency of natural selection with random mutation to explain the origin of life.

==Further Reading==

:Avise, John C. Molecular Markers, Natural History and Evolution. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1994.
:Futuyma, Douglas J. Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998.
:Mayr, Ernst. Evolution and the Diversity of Life: Selected Essays. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1976.
:Weaver, Robert F., and Philip W. Hedrick. Genetics, 2nd ed. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown, 1992.

[[Category:Genetics]]

Talk:Kangaroo

2007-09-09T01:01:40Z

CalebRookwood: /* Evolution */

__TOC__
I think all of you ID proponents (creationists) should just ignore the fossil record, get your favorite version of the bible (I'm a King James lover myself), reread Genesis, and then stick your heads in the sand.--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandment 1 of this site is "what you post must be truthful and verifiable". Anyone with half a brain knows ID is utter bollocks.

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --[[User:John|John]] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::The Truth, perhaps? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22intelligent+design%22 7790 peer-reviewed articles] on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The problem with your point above, Dr. Paley, is that all of those articles cited above were not "peer reviewed" by scientists - that is why ID is not a science. You let me know when the next ID article is published in ''Science'' or ''Nature''--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=intelligent+design] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::On the other hand...[http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=kangaroo+intelligent+design][[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that ''proponents'' were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

:::::::Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html]]? I thought that was satire. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

:I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== "religious theories" ==

What is the point of the last paragraph on the kangaroo entry? Yes, australian aboriginal beliefs about the creation of the earth are religious in nature, but how is evolution a "religious theory"?

And more importantly, why can I not edit the page to remove this?

If this project is to be taken seriously, ridiculous comments like that need to be weeded out. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 22:21, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

:"Ridiculous comments like that" are preciesly what distinguish Conservapedia from pro-liberal sites like Wikipedia, and it's precisely why Conservapedia is so much better. We lack the bias that makes Wikipedia so unreliable. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Could you please explain to me why evolution should be considered a "religious theory". I note that the offending phrase has been removed. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 17:59, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

This is the worst website I have ever seen. Ever. Creationism is about as stupid an idea as eating your own sh**.

Actually, eating feces may be sensible in some situations. C. difficle infections due to shifts in colonic flora are a growning problem. In the past, fecal enemas from healthy donors were used. Currently, antibiotics are used. It has been proposed to feed people fecal emulsions to prevent or treat the infection. No, I am not making this up.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Kangaroo evolution - By 110 million years ago, mammals had diverged into two distinct groups, the placental mammals (a group that includes humans and most modern mammals) and the marsupial mammals (a group that includes koalas, kangaroos, wombats, and pouched mice). These groups evolved for millions of years in two increasingly different directions. As we follow the evolution of marsupials, we find their history to be further shaped by the drifting of the continents. The ancient landmasses of Laurasia and Gondwana broke apart to form the continents, isolating one group of marsupials on the continental island of Australia while isolating another group in South America. These separate populations of marsupials were left to evolve in parallel for some time.
Comparison reveals that, although placental and marsupial mammals formed seperate lineages, they still evolved similar adaptations. In some cases, placental and marsupial mammals physically resemble each other: the pouched marsupial mouse and the harvest mouse, the marsupial mole and the common mole, the marsupial wombat and the marmot, the tasmanian wolf and the wolf.--[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 17:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

On the article, which seems to condemn the possibility of evolution, it states "Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways." Now, correct me if im mistaken but is adaption not just evolution, but on a smaller scale. Many many adaptions over millenia '''IS''' evolution, is it not?
Therefore if these kangaroos really did sail across on mats of vegetation and didnt evolve, how did they adapt to the conditions of australia?? Does anybody know?? {{unsigned|Loveandpeace}}

:No, adaptation is a built-in mechanism in the ''design'' of living creatures. Adaptation involves (mostly at least) an elimination of some genetic information (for example, the elimination of genes for short hair on creatures living in cold climates), allowing them to become more specialised. Goo-to-you evolution requires the ''addition'' of ''brand-new'' genetic information, which is a different thing entirely. Yes, evolutionists will equivocate and call adaptation evolution, but specialisation will not provide now organs, etc. for living things, so cannot result in the evolution of new kinds of creatures. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps arguments would be clearer if you stuck to the mainstream definition. By the standard definition, adaptation ''is'' evolution. Larger changes over longer times are ''also'' evolution. If this adversion to the word "evolution" could be overcome then dialoge would be much easier. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem is that the [[definition of evolution]] is so woolly it can cover almost anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Space Ship Theory ==

I think the origin of the kangaroo should also include discussion of a belief held by many of Riley Martin's followers, the O-Qua Tangin Wann. They believe that Kangaroos originated from the "mothership" from the planet Tan. The alien visitors from Tan visited Earth a few hundred years ago and brought with them a male and female kangaroo. The "mothership" decided after visiting serveral continents that Australia was the best fit for their kangaroo species.

Lay off of the mushrooms. They're not good for you. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:If some conservatives believe it, we should give it equal time! --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:(And it's at least as believable as the idea that they migrated from the Middle East to Australia without ANY getting off along the way.)

::So your "suggestion" was just another jab at conservatives. Why are you even here, [[Scrap]]? Do you think that Conservapedia is just a dumping ground for your mean-spirited anti-Christian jokes? --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 05:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Of course it's not '''just''' for me to make bad jokes. It's '''also''' a source of ''unintentional'' hilarity, and a terrifying cautionary example of the perils of [[Groupthink]]. And I hardly think that was "mean-spirited", just really silly--I'd have to work mighty hard to out-crazy some of the "serious" posters here. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 05:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is really funny. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== why is this page locked? ==

Why isn't anyone allowed to edit this page?
Can't an Australian even make some constributions about an animal in his own country?

Apparently the origins of the kangaroo are a hot button issue. How informational will an encyclopedia be where any animal entry says "As with all animals, Noah brought them all on an ark impossibly small to hold them all... blah blah blah...." --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. ==

Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. Please keep that out in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:The reference to "land-bridges" was added by someone, who is apparently confused, to replace the reference to the [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 catastrophic continental drift theory]. Please keep that in in the future. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

It should be noted that this page is all speculation.

== Native?? ==
How can something be "now native"? Native refers to where something came from. If you're going with the normal evolution thought, then they are native to Australia. If you're going with the tale that they came from the Mid-East, then they are native to the Mid-East (or ideally where they came before the flood, which could be australia). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Evolutionists hold that ''all'' animals are non-native to the place they are currently living since they have been scurrying about for billions of years transmogrifying themselves into different things. "Now native" allows for both the Darwinian and Biblical views, as it expresses the idea that kangaroos have been habituated to Australia for thousands of years. This is a reasonable compromise, except apparently to the Darwinists who want to turn Conservapedia into Wikipedia through a slow death of a thousand cuts. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm fairly certain that "transmogrifying" comes from Calvin and Hobbes and isn't even remotely the same as evolution. Why are people like the good Dr. here always confused as to the actual definition of evolution? It is simply the slow change of organisms over the course of time based on which organisms are most successful at passing on their genes to the next generation. It's not like a whole different creature is born and it's a new species. It's slow genetic recombination and drift. That's all. WHY is that so hard for people to grasp? Anyhow, it just frustrates me that so many people in America are perfectly happy not understanding the world around them. The US is getting further and further behind the rest of the world. It's like we're backsliding and not even trying to regain our footing. Perhaps one day Doctors will be able to refuse antibiotics to people who don't believe in evolution. Those newly evolved bacteria can just wipe out all the stubborn creationists who refuse to believe that evolution can happen and is all around them. {{unsigned|Quisculus}}
:::Please read [[Definitions of evolution]]; evolution is not just a change in organisms. Perhaps America is losing ground because it has forgotten/rejected much of its Christian heritage that gave the world things like [[natural science#Beginnings|science]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, "now native" seems to be a contradiction in terms, and thus a joke. If it is left, it needs to be explained that native to a place means "has lived there for a long time" rather than "originated in". For Australian animals, this is a particularly important idea. [[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've changed it to eliminate the word entirely (what do you think?), although the word "native" is interesting. It's definitions include "being such by origin", which in effect assumes an evolutionary history, but which I doubt is always strictly applied anyway (e.g. the platypus would probably be considered native to Australia, even though fossil evidence shows that they existed in South America, which makes one wonder just what the evolutionary origin point was). Another definition (admittedly not strictly applicable here) is "being or composed of people inhabiting a region from the beginning (Example: "''Native Americans''")", which begs the question, "the beginning of what?", and suggests that the word does not strictly have to mean from the beginning of (a) the continent of America, or (b) the beginning of humanity. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::It reads much better now, thanks. Origin questions can get a bit controversial; e.g. the native Americans consider that they have always been there, although others may think otherwise.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 17:31, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Genetic bottleneck ==

I know what a genetic bottleneck is, but I don't know what evidence it would leave. Could someone enlighten me before I remove that new bit about there being no evidence that kangaroos have been through a genetic bottleneck? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:11, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think the evidence it would leave would be a close genetic similarity between all members of a particular species. I think [[cheetah]]s went through a genetic bottleneck once, according to a documentary I saw, - although if the Noah story is true, so did every species...
[http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s40791.htm cheetah genetic bottleneck in plain english]
[http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/90/8/3172.pdf the same in scientific terms]
[[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::A "genetic bottleneck" occurs when a certain species experiences an event that causes the entire species population to go nearly extinct. It can occur during processes of natural speciation (when few members of the population separate and start their own population) or from the introduction of a new natural predator. What happens is that after the near extinction event, the population gradually goes larger until eventually there are many more individuals and there is a substantial, self-sustaining species. We know that a genetic bottleneck has occurred, for example, in cheetahs because every animal has a very similar genetic make-up, which indicates that the entire cheetah species as we know it today originated from only a few individuals. This is also why cheetahs are generally prone to many familial conditions that result from inbreeding between genetically similar individuals. This last post is right to assume that if the story of Noah's arc were true, all species on this planet would exhibit similar genetic patterns. After all, what the Bible says is that Noah brought two of every animal on the arc and the rest drowned in the great floor. However, this is entirely not the case. Humans, for example, are by far the most diverse species on the planet due to the ease of international travel and mixing of different nationalities over the course of time. There are also 300,000 different varieties of beetles on this planet. Dogs and horses are just two more examples of species that maintain great genetic diversity, mostly through human intervention over thousands of years. Just another example of where the Bible got it wrong. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/bottleneck.html

:However, I know very little about the evolution of kangaroos. It sounds plausible, though, that a few kangaroos may have repopulated the entire species following the continental drift that separated Australia from the mainland.
:{{unsigned|Wagnerpe}}

::I should have realised the answer to this before. These explanations presume that the species that we have today are exactly the same as those that came off the ark. But that is not the model. Take canines, for example. On the ark would have been two of the canine [[baramin|kind]], and from that the various species and varieties of dogs and other canines have developed. That is, the two canines on the ark had all the genetic potential found in wolves, dogs, etc. today. The same would have applied for the kangaroo kind; there would have been a pair of "roo kind" on the ark, and from that have developed red kangaroos, grey kangaroos, wallabies, etc. So there is no "evidence" of a genetic bottleneck in the form of limited genetic variability simply because the specimens on the ark were not of limited genetic potential. Cheetahs obviously went through a genetic bottleneck ''after'' they became highly specialised (i.e. of limited variability), unlike the creatures on the ark.
::So much for the claim that the Bible got it wrong! And beetles could have survived off the ark, on floating mats of vegetation, so that's irrelevant to this discussion.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Rarely fossilize==
Darwindude ... please cite your sources before adding information. It may be true, but you need to show that. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 21:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Mats of vegetation ==

Was the argument that kangaroos floated across the Indian Ocean to Australia on mats of vegetation inserted into the article to make Young Earth Creationism look foolish? It's completely implausible. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 20:29, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:I see that the cited source doesn't actually say that kangaroos traveled on mats of vegetation. (It does cite an anonymous "evolutionist" who says that lemurs ''may'' have traveled this way to Madagascar.) Perhaps this should just be removed? [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 20:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

Evolution should wikilink to [[Theory of Evolution]]. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 21:01, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Kangaroo

2007-09-09T01:01:28Z

CalebRookwood: Evolution

Heritage Christian

2007-09-09T00:58:32Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Heritage Christian''' is a private high school in [[Indianapolis]], [[Indiana]].
[[Category:High schools]]

Helsinki Accords

2007-09-09T00:57:59Z

CalebRookwood:

The '''Helsinki Accord'''s occurred when thirty-five representatives from thirty-five nations met in [[Helsinki]], [[Finland]], in 1975 to discuses the security and cooperation in Europe. The final act of the conference is known as the Helsinki Accords.

[[Category:Cold War]]

Haploinsufficiency

2007-09-09T00:57:26Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Haploinsufficiency''' is a situation in which the [[protein]] produced by a single copy of an otherwise normal gene is not sufficient to assure normal function. Haploinsufficiency results in dominant disorders.

== Sources ==
http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=haploinsufficiency

[[Category:Genetics]]

Harem

2007-09-09T00:56:34Z

CalebRookwood:

A "harem" is a traditional form of [[marriage]] in which one husband has many wives. The Bible says that King [[Solomon]] practiced this form of marriage. It was popular in [[Africa]], Arabia and the [[Middle East]].

[[category:religion]]

Gregor Mendel

2007-09-09T00:54:53Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Gregor Mendel''' (1822-1884) was an Austrian monk. He studied math and science at the [[University of Vienna]] after becoming a priest. Then he worked as a high school teacher in a monastery, and tended the monastery garden.

He is most well known for his experiments with peas. Mendel cross-polinated pea plants of different characteristics and recorded the characteristics of their offspring. Through recording the traits of several generations, Mendel came up with [[Mendel's principles of genetics]].

== References ==

Miller, Kenneth, et. al. ''Biology''. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2006.

[[Category:Genetics]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mendel, Gregor}}

Floaters

2007-09-09T00:51:44Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Floaters''' are little "cobwebs" or specks that float about in your field of vision. They are small, dark, shadowy shapes that can look like spots, thread-like strands, or squiggly lines. They move as your [[eye|eyes]] move and seem to dart away when you try to look at them directly. They do not follow your eye movements precisely, and usually drift when your eyes stop moving.

In most cases, floaters are part of the natural aging process and simply an annoyance. They can be distracting at first, but eventually tend to "settle" at the bottom of the eye, becoming less bothersome. They usually settle below the line of sight and do not go away completely. Most people have floaters and learn to ignore them; they are usually not noticed until they become numerous or more prominent. Floaters can become apparent when looking at something bright, such as white paper or a blue sky.

Floaters occur when the vitreous, a gel-like substance that fills about 80 percent of the eye and helps it maintain a round shape, slowly shrinks. As the vitreous shrinks, it becomes somewhat stringy, and the strands can cast tiny shadows on the retina. These are floaters.

Floaters are more likely to develop as we age and are more common in people who are very nearsighted, have diabetes, or who have had a cataract operation. There are other, more serious causes of floaters, including infection, inflammation (uveitis), hemorrhaging, retinal tears, and injury to the eye.

==External links==
*[http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/floaters/index.asp Facts About Floaters] - National Eye Institute

[[category:medicine]]

Political Profiling

2007-09-08T19:20:05Z

CalebRookwood: /* Introduction */

'''Political profiling''' is an activity certain "watchdog" organizations engage in on various computer bulletin boards, chat rooms and wikis. A internet user's postings under either their real life identity of pseudonym may be "profiled" for their ideological convictions based upon editing patterns, interests, subject matter, common references, or declared beliefs. The profile is then pigeon-holed into predetermined character assessments published by the watchdog organizations. Political profiling has been referred to as the rough equivalent of surveilling all Black males on the grounds that a certain percentage may commit violent crimes. In the sense that targeting minorities for special surveillance is called “racial profiling,” the so called "watchdog organizations" engage in "political profiling." Some watchdog groups hold law enforcement conferences, seminars, training sessions, and publish manuals on this “profiling” behavior.

==Introduction==

[[Daniel Brandt]], founder of the [[Wikipedia-Watch]] website describes watchdog organizations that use political profiling as "private intelligence agencies", and remarks as a private agency, they enjoy
{{Cquote|no oversight, no requirements for probable cause prior to political spying, and no Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act responsibilities to the public. By contrast, the FBI, CIA, and some major police departments in the U.S. are held accountable by various hard-won legal restrictions. <ref>Daniel Brandt, [http://www.namebase.org/news02.html ''Cyberspace Wars: Microprocessing vs. Big Brother''], NameBase NewsLine', No. 2, July-August 1993.</ref>}}

[[Walter James O'Brien refers]] to them as "civilian agencies." <ref>[http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/ Walter James O'Brien], [http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf ''Nazism, the Internet and Culture of Violence,] A preliminary survey toward preventing a third world war'', 1999, pgs. 3, 6-9, 12, 14, 61, 63, 68. Written to compete for the Trench Gascoigne Prize offered by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies (http://www.rusi.org); retrieved from http://rjayco.com/ 06/10/07.</ref> And Laird Wilcox uses similar language in discussing their activities,

{{Cquote|Any citizen can obtain their FBI files through the Freedom of Information Act....There is no such mechanism by which a private American citizen can obtain their files compiled by private Watchdog organizations.... You cannot correct errors... they may have obtained information that government agencies cannot legally collect on its own. This... is something that goes on all the time and represents a serious civil liberties issue. <ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Editorial Research Service, 1999, pg. 15. ISBN 0-993592-96-5. </ref>}}

Some watchdog organizations have been criticized for the misuse of journalist shield laws to mask their domestic spying operations. [[Robert J. Friedman]] of the ''[[Village Voice]]'' commented:

{{Cquote|Journalists place information in the public domain where they are held accountable for falsehoods, distortions, and libel. And for the most part, journalists don’t share their files with domestic police agencies... many of [the "watchdog" agency] files are not open to public scrutiny, false information collected by ideologically biased researchers cannot be corrected. <ref>Robert J. Friedman, ''The Anti-Defamation League is Spying On You'', The Village Voice, 11 May 1993. </ref>}}

Wilcox observes the watchdog's publications are designed to support the ideological agenda of a like minded group, and not provide “news.” Thier publishing activities are only a small part of its program, most of which is fundraising, lobbying, and maintaining enemies lists. <ref>Laird Wilcox, ''The Watchdogs'', 1999, pgs 54-56.</ref> Wilcox, who is cited by the ''Military Law Review'' as one the "foremost expert analysts of right and left-wing extremism" <ref>MAJ Walter M. Hudson, [http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/277C75~1.pdf ''Racial Extremism in the Army''], The Military Law Review, Vol 159 (Mar 99), pg. 7, Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159.</ref>, and has published numerous books and articles on various extreme groups in America since the early 1960s, including ''American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists and Others'' by Prometheus Books, chronicles the excesses of the watchdog industry, and asks, "Who is watching the Watchdogs?"

{{Cquote|The simple fact is there are money and careers to be made....an entrenched industry exists... that has attracted bullying, moralizing fanatics, whose identity and livelihood depend upon growth and expansion...There is a [[humanist]] anti-racism that focuses on reconciliation and healing, that works to bring people together, that functions openly and honestly without the use of dossiers, spies, specious lawsuits, disinformation, and that recognizes the rights of individuals whether they agree with one another or not. This is the anti-racism of good neighbors, of people helping people, of community goodwill, and of the realization that we are all human beings....

On the other hand there is a vindictive and corrupt anti-racism that focuses on paybacks and punishment, that demonizes and degrades its critics, that attempts to carve out special rights for its constituency, that opposes free and open discussion of ideas, that attempts to silence, censor and stifle its opposition through intimidation and harassment, and encourages law enforcement scrutiny of opponents because of their alleged values, opinions and beliefs. This kind of anti-racism is more dangerous than the problem it purports to remedy, and this is the anti-racism that tends to characterize the Watchdog organizations.}}

Wilcox successfully demonstrates many of the watchdog's enemies are actually imagined enemies.

{{Cquote|Watchdog organizations tend to define themselves in terms of their opposition, i.e., the various individuals and organizations they call “extremist,” and depend upon this opposition to justify their existence, their intense hatred of their enemies, and their often questionable fund-raising activities. Moreover, Watchdog groups tend to exaggerate the divisions that exist in American society. In fact, the supposed polar opposites on the [[political spectrum|ideological spectrum]] have far more in common than they do in opposition. ...studies suggest that extremism is overestimated in American politics and that the differences between left and right are partly imagined.}}

The [[Wikipedia]] project has worked in close collaboration with several alleged humanitarian "watchdog" groups. The "Notable Wikipedia Experts" entrusted with this venture [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/033813.html] are immune to all Wikipedia's published policies, ''WP:Attribution'', ''WP:No self promotion'', ''WP:Experts do not hold a place of privilege'', ''WP:Citing self'', ''WP:No personal attacks'', ''WP:Civility'', and ''WP:Wikipedia is not a battleground'' are the most often cited policy violations that go unenforced against these private organizations which are granted license to publicly slander at will. <ref>Chirsi Arabia, [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352 Leftist Lie Factory], ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', October 16, 2003.</ref> [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6799&st=0&p=22830&#entry22830]

==Links and Ties==

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The ''fallacy of composition'' consists in reasoning improperly from a property of a member of a group to a property of the group itself.... It occurs in two varieties: First, it falsely extrapolates a quality of one group member to all group members....Second, it is possible to transfer a quality of a member to the group itself. 

The ''fallacy of division'' is the converse of the ''fallacy of composition''. It occurs when somebody reasons falsely from a quality of the group to a quality of a member of group. 

The converse ''fallacy of difference'', on the other hand, renders a special judgment upon a group for a quality which is not special to it. 

The ''fallacy of the perfect analogy'' consists in reasoning from a partial resemblance between two entities to an entire and exact correspondence. <ref>David Hacket Fisher, ''Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought'', New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970, 219-223.</ref></blockquote>
Consider the following account of the “links and ties” of [[U. S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas]] offered by Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates. Berlet notes correctly that Thomas is on the editorial board of the ''Lincoln Review'', a quarterly black conservative publication of the Lincoln Institute. Berlet claims “it is a far right group that has worked in coalition with… fascist and anti-Semitic groups.”

Berlet goes on to “link” Lincoln Institute head J. A. Baker with the Indiana [[Ku Klux Klan]] by virtue that Baker is on the board of the Council for National Policy and another board member is allegedly a former member of the Indiana Ku Klux Klan. Finally, Berlet says, The Lincoln Institute, with which Clarence Thomas has been affiliated in an official policy for close to ten years, was also a member group in the Coalition for Peace Through Strength. As author Russ Bellant discusses, the Coalition includes a number of racist, pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups." <ref>Chip Berlet, “A Few Facts About Clarence Thomas,” published by Rock Out Censorship (1997).</ref>

“Links and ties” is another name for ''argumentum ad hominem'' or [[guilt by association]],
which has both legitimate and illegitimate uses. If someone has been an active member of an ideological organization for many years, or a regular writer for an ideological publication, or routinely and regularly associates with a particular ideological crowd while professing sympathy and solidarity with them, and this has bona fide bearing on a particular issue, then the “link” or “tie” is probably significant.

This kind of analysis is subject to abuse, however. For ideological thinkers, a mere hint of “links and ties” may lead to great intuitive leaps that have no basis in fact.

Marxist or Nazi groups often demand great compliance with doctrine. It is unlikely that [[Chicago Area Friends of Albania]], for example, would let someone become a founding member unless that person had been in substantial agreement with its ideological program. In most cases the existence of “links and ties” or past political associations should be viewed as a statement of where people were at that particular time in their lives.

==Profiled groups==
The following two subsections, "[[Theocratic]]" and [[Wise use]], are taken from ''Understanding the Right Wing'', by Scot Nakagawa <ref>Scot Nakagawa, [http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=8210562338425&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE ''Understanding The Right Wing''], When Democracy Works, n.d.</ref> written about 1999 and lists various groups classified as "right wing" and "proto-fascist". This list and accompanying search engine terms have been expanded in the following years. Nakagawa accredits [[Political Research Associates]] ([[Chip Berlet]], Surina Khan, and [[Jean Hardisty]], (now retired]), the Coalition for Human Dignity (Jonathan Mozzochi, Steven Gardiner, and Gillian Leichtling), [[People for the American Way]], The Institute for First Amendment Studies, Sara Diamond, and the Western States Center (Tarso Ramos).

All these groups and the person associated with them have been the target of "political profiling", as discussed by Laird Wilcox. Dr. Dobson and Paul Weyrich, among several others, have been viciously smeared in Wikipedia, in violation of Wikipedia's own policies on Neutral Point of View {NPOV}, WP:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT), WP:Attribution, and a host of other policies. Wikipedia claims immunity under Sec. 230 of the Internet Decency Act of 1998 which exempts a hosting facility from liability for content.

==="'''Theocratic'''"===

*[[Concerned Women for America]] (CWA)
*[[Christian Coalition]]
*[[Focus on the Family]] ([[Dr. James Dobson]])
*[[American Family Association]] (AFA)
*[[Traditional Values Coalition]]
*[[Free Congress Foundation]] ([[Paul Weyrich]]) [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=7075&view=findpost&p=23788]

==='''Wise use'''===

*Alliance for America
*Evergreen Foundation
*Sea Lion Defense Fund
*Environmental Conservation Organization
*[[People for the West]]
*[[National Wetlands Coalition]]

==="'''Hate groups'''"===

The organizations listed below were taken from the SPLC's ''Intelligence Report'' <ref>Chip Berlet, [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=50 ''Into the Mainstream], SPLC ''Intelligence Report'', Summer 2003</ref> written by Berlet. Berlet classifies these groups as "[[hate groups]]", and some of the defamatory smears have made their way into Wikipedia, despite numerous violations of Wikipedia's stated policies.

*The American Cause
*[[American Enterprise Institute]] (AEI)
*American Immigration Control Foundation
*[[The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation]]
*Castle Rock Foundation
*Center for American Unity
*[[Center for the Study of Popular Culture]] ([[David Horowitz]])
*Federation for American Immigration Reform
*Free Congress Foundation (Paul Weyrich)
*Institute for the Study of Man
*[[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] (LvMI) [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6796&st=0&p=22861&#entry22861]
*New Century Foundation
*[[John M. Olin Foundation]]
*[[Pioneer Fund]] [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106#14]
*Rockford Institute
*[[Scaife Foundations]]
*U.S. Inc.

==Various profiles==
The profiling process of these watchdog organizations begins with identifying certain organizations, both high profile and marginal, determine their ideological content measured against the ideological views and prejudices of the watchdogs themselves, then link them in some way to extremism through an outrageous guilt by association smear. Numerous examples abound over the past 10 years, and Wikipedia has increasing become the seat of thier operations. Examples include,

*Daniel Brandt was the victim of a much publicized ongoing defamation based upon his split with an anti-Trotskyite cabal on the extreme left more than 15 years ago;
*Dr. James Dobson is linked to racism and the Ku Klux Klan [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council#Racism_allegations] through a convoluted series of accusations [[Dominionism#The_.22Christer.22_controversy|intended to undermine the so-called "Christian Right]]" (which is interchangeable with "Christian Fascism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fascism#Christianity_in_the_United_States] in Wikipedia);
*Senator Thad Cochrane is slandered with invective aimed at another person;
*Paul Weyrich is linked to "Christian Fascism" which is defined as a Protestant movement, despite his being a devout Catholic, because of Weyrich's organizational work for the Republican party beginning in the late 1970s; [http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/5/134631/4277]
*David Horowitz is slandered as operating a "hate group" because of opposition to reparations; [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106#7]
*The Ludwig von Mises Institute is profiled as "neo-confederate", allegedly advocating segregartion, slavery, and lynchings because an author dared criticize Abraham Lincoln for passing an [[income tax]] during the [[Civil War]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#Historical_views]

==Wise use movement targeted==

A particularly shocking and dangerous example of [[guilt-by-association]] targeting and profiling occurred when two New Mexico grandmothers found themselves suspected of being [[terrorist]]s after appearing on a radio talk show where they criticized the federal government and the United Nations. Kay Stone and Jean Vallance were investigated by New Mexico Department of Public Safety (State Police) after appearing on KINN radio in Alamagordo in June, 1998.

State police Lt. Bill Bowers called the station and spoke with talk show host Mike Shinaberry, who was asked about the couple and Maude Rathgeber, the Otereo [[Republican party]] chairwomen, who had also been on the show in the past. According to Shinaberry:

{{Cquote|It bothered me that anyone would be the subject of an investigation simply because they got on the radio and said what they believed... None of them ever came close to espousing violence. <ref>Scott Parks, ''NM Women Worry They’re On Secret List ‘Radicals’'', Dallas Morning News, 13 September 1998.</ref>}}

According to ''The Dallas Morning News'', which covered the story from the beginning:

{{Cquote|Maj. Michael Francis, another state police officer...said the inquiries into Ms. Stone and Ms. Vallance sprang from the activities of a Domestic Terrorism Task Force, comprising local, state and federal agents. }}

The two women were also investigated by the military officials at a nearby Air Force Base:

{{Cquote|Six days later, on June 17, Mrs. Vallance said she received a phone call from Special Agent Amanda Finerty, from the office of special investigations [OSI] at Holloman Air Force Base.

Mrs. Vallance, a retired nurse who is married to a civilian employee at Holloman, said Agent Finerty asked about her religious affiliation and whether anyone was “planning something” against German pilots [stationed at the base].}}

All of this came about by the issuance of a manual entitled ''The Extreme Right: An Overview'' containing in large part material from a [[leftist]] "Watchdog" organization to law enforcement agencies. <ref>Laird Wilcox, ''The Watchdogs'', 1999, pg. 69.</ref> According to news sources:

{{Cquote|The 73-page document included profiles of fringe groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, as well as skinheads and extremists who believe each race should have its own land in the United States. Lumped into the manual’s description of terrorists, racists and other pariahs is an excerpt on the so-called “[[wise use]]” movement, which advocates more local control over federally owned lands. }}

Shinaberry was spurred to investigate this manual. Speaking again with Lt. Bill Bowers he was told “that the federal government had asked state police to create a -- he used the term intelligence database’ -- to make lists of people who might be radicals.” He also noted that the manual suggests an anti-government continuum of groups that apparently run from the most peaceful to those with a reputation for violence, with no distinction made between them. As it happened the contents of the manual were leaked to the public after the police inquiries into the two women.

Ranchers and loggers erupted in anger at the manual’s juxtaposition of the [[wise use]] movement with Nazi and Klan groups....Local government officials, concerned about the impact of federal policies on rural economies, also objected to the manual.

{{Cquote|They labeled us as dissidents when all we went to do is participate in decisions about how federal lands are used,” said Adam Polley, a Catron County official in western New Mexico. }}

Darren White, the Governor’s cabinet secretary for the state police, apologized for the manual and issued a written apology dated 9 July 1998:

{{Cquote|I recognize that across New Mexico thousands of farmers, ranchers, miners, loggers and others are committed to preserving a way of life free from unnecessary regulation,” he wrote. “I believe free speech and the spoken word sustain our freedom. }}

The "Watchdog" organization manual and others like it continue to be circulated among law enforcement officials nationwide, even though its effect is to target ordinary American citizens on the basis of the values, opinions and beliefs. <ref>Laird Wilcox, ''The Watchdogs'', pg. 70. </ref> The Wise use movement was the target of political profiling and placed on the this leftist Watchdog list because if frequently takes positions contrary to the [[Sierra Club]] and the [[Wilderness Society]]. <ref>[http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=ef ATTAC Report].</ref>

==See also==
*[[The Bell Curve]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:politics]]

Political Profiling

2007-09-08T19:19:18Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Political profiling''' is an activity certain "watchdog" organizations engage in on various computer bulletin boards, chat rooms and wikis. A internet user's postings under either their real life identity of pseudonym may be "profiled" for their ideological convictions based upon editing patterns, interests, subject matter, common references, or declared beliefs. The profile is then pigeon-holed into predetermined character assessments published by the watchdog organizations. Political profiling has been referred to as the rough equivalent of surveilling all Black males on the grounds that a certain percentage may commit violent crimes. In the sense that targeting minorities for special surveillance is called “racial profiling,” the so called "watchdog organizations" engage in "political profiling." Some watchdog groups hold law enforcement conferences, seminars, training sessions, and publish manuals on this “profiling” behavior.

==Introduction==

[[Daniel Brandt]], founder of the [[Wikipedia-Watch]] website describes watchdog organizations that use political profiling as "private intelligence agencies", and remarks as a private agency, they enjoy
{{Cquote|no oversight, no requirements for probable cause prior to political spying, and no Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act responsibilities to the public. By contrast, the FBI, CIA, and some major police departments in the U.S. are held accountable by various hard-won legal restrictions. <ref>Daniel Brandt, [http://www.namebase.org/news02.html ''Cyberspace Wars: Microprocessing vs. Big Brother''], NameBase NewsLine', No. 2, July-August 1993.</ref>}}

[[Walter James O'Brien refers]] to them as "civilian agencies." <ref>[http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/ Walter James O'Brien], [http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf ''Nazism, the Internet and Culture of Violence,] A preliminary survey toward preventing a third world war'', 1999, pgs. 3, 6-9, 12, 14, 61, 63, 68. Written to compete for the Trench Gascoigne Prize offered by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies (http://www.rusi.org); retrieved from http://rjayco.com/ 06/10/07.</ref> And Laird Wilcox uses similar language in discussing their activities,

{{Cquote|Any citizen can obtain their FBI files through the Freedom of Information Act....There is no such mechanism by which a private American citizen can obtain their files compiled by private Watchdog organizations.... You cannot correct errors... they may have obtained information that government agencies cannot legally collect on its own. This... is something that goes on all the time and represents a serious civil liberties issue. <ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Editorial Research Service, 1999, pg. 15. ISBN 0-993592-96-5. </ref>}}

Some watchdog organizations have been criticized for the misuse of journalist shield laws to mask their domestic spying operations. [[Robert J. Friedman]] of the ''[[Village Voice]]'' commented:

{{Cquote|Journalists place information in the public domain where they are held accountable for falsehoods, distortions, and libel. And for the most part, journalists don’t share their files with domestic police agencies... many of [the "watchdog" agency] files are not open to public scrutiny, false information collected by ideologically biased researchers cannot be corrected. <ref>Robert J. Friedman, ''The Anti-Defamation League is Spying On You'', The Village Voice, 11 May 1993. </ref>}}

Wilcox observes the watchdog's publications are designed to support the ideological agenda of a like minded group, and not provide “news.” Thier publishing activities are only a small part of its program, most of which is fundraising, lobbying, and maintaining enemies lists. <ref>Laird Wilcox, ''The Watchdogs'', 1999, pgs 54-56.</ref> Wilcox, who is cited by the ''Military Law Review'' as one the "foremost expert analysts of right and left-wing extremism" <ref>MAJ Walter M. Hudson, [http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/277C75~1.pdf ''Racial Extremism in the Army''], The Military Law Review, Vol 159 (Mar 99), pg. 7, Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159.</ref>, and has published numerous books and articles on various extreme groups in America since the early 1960s, including ''American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists and Others'' by Prometheus Books, chronicles the excesses of the watchdog industry, and asks, "Who is watching the Watchdogs?"

{{Cquote|The simple fact is there are money and careers to be made....an entrenched industry exists... that has attracted bullying, moralizing fanatics, whose identity and livelihood depend upon growth and expansion...There is a [[humanist]] anti-racism that focuses on reconciliation and healing, that works to bring people together, that functions openly and honestly without the use of dossiers, spies, specious lawsuits, disinformation, and that recognizes the rights of individuals whether they agree with one another or not. This is the anti-racism of good neighbors, of people helping people, of community goodwill, and of the realization that we are all human beings....

On the other hand there is a vindictive and corrupt anti-racism that focuses on paybacks and punishment, that demonizes and degrades its critics, that attempts to carve out special rights for its constituency, that opposes free and open discussion of ideas, that attempts to silence, censor and stifle its opposition through intimidation and harassment, and encourages law enforcement scrutiny of opponents because of their alleged values, opinions and beliefs. This kind of anti-racism is more dangerous than the problem it purports to remedy, and this is the anti-racism that tends to characterize the Watchdog organizations.}}

Wilcox successfully demonstrates many of the watchdog's enemies are actually imagined enemies.

{{Cquote|Watchdog organizations tend to define themselves in terms of their opposition, i.e., the various individuals and organizations they call “extremist,” and depend upon this opposition to justify their existence, their intense hatred of their enemies, and their often questionable fund-raising activities. Moreover, Watchdog groups tend to exaggerate the divisions that exist in American society. In fact, the supposed polar opposites on the [[political spectrum|ideological spectrum]] have far more in common than they do in opposition. ...studies suggest that extremism is overestimated in American politics and that the differences between left and right are partly imagined.}}

The [[Wikipedia project]] has worked in close collaboration with several alleged humanitarian "watchdog" groups. The "Notable Wikipedia Experts" entrusted with this venture [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/033813.html] are immune to all Wikipedia's published policies, ''WP:Attribution'', ''WP:No self promotion'', ''WP:Experts do not hold a place of privilege'', ''WP:Citing self'', ''WP:No personal attacks'', ''WP:Civility'', and ''WP:Wikipedia is not a battleground'' are the most often cited policy violations that go unenforced against these private organizations which are granted license to publicly slander at will. <ref>Chirsi Arabia, [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10352 Leftist Lie Factory], ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', October 16, 2003.</ref> [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6799&st=0&p=22830&#entry22830]

==Links and Ties==

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The ''fallacy of composition'' consists in reasoning improperly from a property of a member of a group to a property of the group itself.... It occurs in two varieties: First, it falsely extrapolates a quality of one group member to all group members....Second, it is possible to transfer a quality of a member to the group itself. 

The ''fallacy of division'' is the converse of the ''fallacy of composition''. It occurs when somebody reasons falsely from a quality of the group to a quality of a member of group. 

The converse ''fallacy of difference'', on the other hand, renders a special judgment upon a group for a quality which is not special to it. 

The ''fallacy of the perfect analogy'' consists in reasoning from a partial resemblance between two entities to an entire and exact correspondence. <ref>David Hacket Fisher, ''Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought'', New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970, 219-223.</ref></blockquote>
Consider the following account of the “links and ties” of [[U. S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas]] offered by Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates. Berlet notes correctly that Thomas is on the editorial board of the ''Lincoln Review'', a quarterly black conservative publication of the Lincoln Institute. Berlet claims “it is a far right group that has worked in coalition with… fascist and anti-Semitic groups.”

Berlet goes on to “link” Lincoln Institute head J. A. Baker with the Indiana [[Ku Klux Klan]] by virtue that Baker is on the board of the Council for National Policy and another board member is allegedly a former member of the Indiana Ku Klux Klan. Finally, Berlet says, The Lincoln Institute, with which Clarence Thomas has been affiliated in an official policy for close to ten years, was also a member group in the Coalition for Peace Through Strength. As author Russ Bellant discusses, the Coalition includes a number of racist, pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups." <ref>Chip Berlet, “A Few Facts About Clarence Thomas,” published by Rock Out Censorship (1997).</ref>

“Links and ties” is another name for ''argumentum ad hominem'' or [[guilt by association]],
which has both legitimate and illegitimate uses. If someone has been an active member of an ideological organization for many years, or a regular writer for an ideological publication, or routinely and regularly associates with a particular ideological crowd while professing sympathy and solidarity with them, and this has bona fide bearing on a particular issue, then the “link” or “tie” is probably significant.

This kind of analysis is subject to abuse, however. For ideological thinkers, a mere hint of “links and ties” may lead to great intuitive leaps that have no basis in fact.

Marxist or Nazi groups often demand great compliance with doctrine. It is unlikely that [[Chicago Area Friends of Albania]], for example, would let someone become a founding member unless that person had been in substantial agreement with its ideological program. In most cases the existence of “links and ties” or past political associations should be viewed as a statement of where people were at that particular time in their lives.

==Profiled groups==
The following two subsections, "[[Theocratic]]" and [[Wise use]], are taken from ''Understanding the Right Wing'', by Scot Nakagawa <ref>Scot Nakagawa, [http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=8210562338425&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE ''Understanding The Right Wing''], When Democracy Works, n.d.</ref> written about 1999 and lists various groups classified as "right wing" and "proto-fascist". This list and accompanying search engine terms have been expanded in the following years. Nakagawa accredits [[Political Research Associates]] ([[Chip Berlet]], Surina Khan, and [[Jean Hardisty]], (now retired]), the Coalition for Human Dignity (Jonathan Mozzochi, Steven Gardiner, and Gillian Leichtling), [[People for the American Way]], The Institute for First Amendment Studies, Sara Diamond, and the Western States Center (Tarso Ramos).

All these groups and the person associated with them have been the target of "political profiling", as discussed by Laird Wilcox. Dr. Dobson and Paul Weyrich, among several others, have been viciously smeared in Wikipedia, in violation of Wikipedia's own policies on Neutral Point of View {NPOV}, WP:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT), WP:Attribution, and a host of other policies. Wikipedia claims immunity under Sec. 230 of the Internet Decency Act of 1998 which exempts a hosting facility from liability for content.

==="'''Theocratic'''"===

*[[Concerned Women for America]] (CWA)
*[[Christian Coalition]]
*[[Focus on the Family]] ([[Dr. James Dobson]])
*[[American Family Association]] (AFA)
*[[Traditional Values Coalition]]
*[[Free Congress Foundation]] ([[Paul Weyrich]]) [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=7075&view=findpost&p=23788]

==='''Wise use'''===

*Alliance for America
*Evergreen Foundation
*Sea Lion Defense Fund
*Environmental Conservation Organization
*[[People for the West]]
*[[National Wetlands Coalition]]

==="'''Hate groups'''"===

The organizations listed below were taken from the SPLC's ''Intelligence Report'' <ref>Chip Berlet, [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=50 ''Into the Mainstream], SPLC ''Intelligence Report'', Summer 2003</ref> written by Berlet. Berlet classifies these groups as "[[hate groups]]", and some of the defamatory smears have made their way into Wikipedia, despite numerous violations of Wikipedia's stated policies.

*The American Cause
*[[American Enterprise Institute]] (AEI)
*American Immigration Control Foundation
*[[The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation]]
*Castle Rock Foundation
*Center for American Unity
*[[Center for the Study of Popular Culture]] ([[David Horowitz]])
*Federation for American Immigration Reform
*Free Congress Foundation (Paul Weyrich)
*Institute for the Study of Man
*[[Ludwig von Mises Institute]] (LvMI) [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=6796&st=0&p=22861&#entry22861]
*New Century Foundation
*[[John M. Olin Foundation]]
*[[Pioneer Fund]] [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106#14]
*Rockford Institute
*[[Scaife Foundations]]
*U.S. Inc.

==Various profiles==
The profiling process of these watchdog organizations begins with identifying certain organizations, both high profile and marginal, determine their ideological content measured against the ideological views and prejudices of the watchdogs themselves, then link them in some way to extremism through an outrageous guilt by association smear. Numerous examples abound over the past 10 years, and Wikipedia has increasing become the seat of thier operations. Examples include,

*Daniel Brandt was the victim of a much publicized ongoing defamation based upon his split with an anti-Trotskyite cabal on the extreme left more than 15 years ago;
*Dr. James Dobson is linked to racism and the Ku Klux Klan [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council#Racism_allegations] through a convoluted series of accusations [[Dominionism#The_.22Christer.22_controversy|intended to undermine the so-called "Christian Right]]" (which is interchangeable with "Christian Fascism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fascism#Christianity_in_the_United_States] in Wikipedia);
*Senator Thad Cochrane is slandered with invective aimed at another person;
*Paul Weyrich is linked to "Christian Fascism" which is defined as a Protestant movement, despite his being a devout Catholic, because of Weyrich's organizational work for the Republican party beginning in the late 1970s; [http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/5/134631/4277]
*David Horowitz is slandered as operating a "hate group" because of opposition to reparations; [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106#7]
*The Ludwig von Mises Institute is profiled as "neo-confederate", allegedly advocating segregartion, slavery, and lynchings because an author dared criticize Abraham Lincoln for passing an [[income tax]] during the [[Civil War]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#Historical_views]

==Wise use movement targeted==

A particularly shocking and dangerous example of [[guilt-by-association]] targeting and profiling occurred when two New Mexico grandmothers found themselves suspected of being [[terrorist]]s after appearing on a radio talk show where they criticized the federal government and the United Nations. Kay Stone and Jean Vallance were investigated by New Mexico Department of Public Safety (State Police) after appearing on KINN radio in Alamagordo in June, 1998.

State police Lt. Bill Bowers called the station and spoke with talk show host Mike Shinaberry, who was asked about the couple and Maude Rathgeber, the Otereo [[Republican party]] chairwomen, who had also been on the show in the past. According to Shinaberry:

{{Cquote|It bothered me that anyone would be the subject of an investigation simply because they got on the radio and said what they believed... None of them ever came close to espousing violence. <ref>Scott Parks, ''NM Women Worry They’re On Secret List ‘Radicals’'', Dallas Morning News, 13 September 1998.</ref>}}

According to ''The Dallas Morning News'', which covered the story from the beginning:

{{Cquote|Maj. Michael Francis, another state police officer...said the inquiries into Ms. Stone and Ms. Vallance sprang from the activities of a Domestic Terrorism Task Force, comprising local, state and federal agents. }}

The two women were also investigated by the military officials at a nearby Air Force Base:

{{Cquote|Six days later, on June 17, Mrs. Vallance said she received a phone call from Special Agent Amanda Finerty, from the office of special investigations [OSI] at Holloman Air Force Base.

Mrs. Vallance, a retired nurse who is married to a civilian employee at Holloman, said Agent Finerty asked about her religious affiliation and whether anyone was “planning something” against German pilots [stationed at the base].}}

All of this came about by the issuance of a manual entitled ''The Extreme Right: An Overview'' containing in large part material from a [[leftist]] "Watchdog" organization to law enforcement agencies. <ref>Laird Wilcox, ''The Watchdogs'', 1999, pg. 69.</ref> According to news sources:

{{Cquote|The 73-page document included profiles of fringe groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, as well as skinheads and extremists who believe each race should have its own land in the United States. Lumped into the manual’s description of terrorists, racists and other pariahs is an excerpt on the so-called “[[wise use]]” movement, which advocates more local control over federally owned lands. }}

Shinaberry was spurred to investigate this manual. Speaking again with Lt. Bill Bowers he was told “that the federal government had asked state police to create a -- he used the term intelligence database’ -- to make lists of people who might be radicals.” He also noted that the manual suggests an anti-government continuum of groups that apparently run from the most peaceful to those with a reputation for violence, with no distinction made between them. As it happened the contents of the manual were leaked to the public after the police inquiries into the two women.

Ranchers and loggers erupted in anger at the manual’s juxtaposition of the [[wise use]] movement with Nazi and Klan groups....Local government officials, concerned about the impact of federal policies on rural economies, also objected to the manual.

{{Cquote|They labeled us as dissidents when all we went to do is participate in decisions about how federal lands are used,” said Adam Polley, a Catron County official in western New Mexico. }}

Darren White, the Governor’s cabinet secretary for the state police, apologized for the manual and issued a written apology dated 9 July 1998:

{{Cquote|I recognize that across New Mexico thousands of farmers, ranchers, miners, loggers and others are committed to preserving a way of life free from unnecessary regulation,” he wrote. “I believe free speech and the spoken word sustain our freedom. }}

The "Watchdog" organization manual and others like it continue to be circulated among law enforcement officials nationwide, even though its effect is to target ordinary American citizens on the basis of the values, opinions and beliefs. <ref>Laird Wilcox, ''The Watchdogs'', pg. 70. </ref> The Wise use movement was the target of political profiling and placed on the this leftist Watchdog list because if frequently takes positions contrary to the [[Sierra Club]] and the [[Wilderness Society]]. <ref>[http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=ef ATTAC Report].</ref>

==See also==
*[[The Bell Curve]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:politics]]

Gonzales v. Oregon

2007-09-08T19:05:59Z

CalebRookwood:

''Gonzales v. Oregon'', 546 U.S. 243 (2006), was a 6-3 decision limiting the power of the federal government to interfere with local medical issues. Specifically, that case concerned a rule by the United States Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide, despite an [[Oregon]] law allowing this.

The decision established that states, not the federal government, regulate the practice of medicine:<ref>''Gonzales v. Oregon'', 546 U.S. at 275</ref>

:The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality. The text and structure of the [federal law] show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it.

== Subsequent Decisions Relying on Gonzales v. Oregon ==

* ''Walker v. Eggleston'', 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60958 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2006)
* ''Bonds v. Tandy'', 457 F.3d 409, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18121 (5th Cir. Miss. 2006)
* ''Toomer v. City Cab'', 443 F.3d 1191, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8079, 12 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P12-124, 17 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1360 (10th Cir. Utah 2006)
* ''Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs'', 464 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85132, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 319, 36 Envtl. L. Rep. 20236 (M.D. Fla. 2006)

== Reference ==

<references/>

[[category:United States law]]
[[category:medicine]]

Goldbach's conjecture

2007-09-08T19:05:03Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Goldbach's conjecture''' is that every even [[integer]] greater than two is the sum of two [[prime]] numbers. Goldbach considered 1 to be a prime number, a convention not often in use today.

This conjecture is one of the oldest unsettled statements in mathematics. For centuries mathematicians have attempted to prove this statement, without success.

[[category: mathematics]]

Gerry Studds

2007-09-08T19:03:54Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Gerry Studds''' (1937 - 2006) was a [[Democratic]] congressman from [[Massachusetts]] from 1973 - 1997. Studds was the first openly gay candidate elected to national office, although he was not openly gay when he first ran. In 1983 he was censured by the US House of Representatives after admitting to an affair with a 17-year-old male congressional page 10 years earlier.[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S001040] The Democrats defended Studds then and then attacked [[Mark Foley]] for less severe behavior.

{{DEFAULTSORT: Studds, Gerry}}
[[Category:US Representative]]

Flemming Rose

2007-09-08T19:01:14Z

CalebRookwood:

[[Image:Portraitsz.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Flemming Rose''' (born March 11, 1958) is a cultural editor of the [[Denmark|Danish]] newspaper Jyllands-Posten. In September 2005, Flemming Rose published a series of Cartoons, which instigated one of the most significant discussions of free speech of this generation.

==See Also==
:[http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/flemmingrose/ Northern Light], Flemming Rose's blog.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rose, Flemming}}

[[category:journalists]]

Corazon Aquino

2007-09-08T19:00:42Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Corazon Aquino''' was the widow of [[Marcos Aquino]] and the President of the [[Philippines]] from 1986-1992. During her Presidency, there was an increase in [[Communist]] action in the Philippines. She also succeeded in the withdrawal of U.S. military bases. She was [[Time Magazine|Time Magazine]]'s "Woman of the Year."

{{DEFAULTSORT:Aquino, Corazon}}
[[Category:Heads of state]]
[[Category:Women]]

Fidel Ramos

2007-09-08T19:00:01Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Fidel Valdez Ramos''' (born 1928) served as the 12th President of the [[Philippines]] until 1998, following the presidency of [[Corazon Aquino]]. He had previously served as the head of the Philippine Constabulary during the regime of President [[Ferdinand Marcos]], and has been criticized for imposing martial law as ordered by President Marcos. But during the 1986 People Power Revolution against Marcos, Ramos switched sides and helped civilian protests that forced Marcos into exile. During his presidency, the Philippines' economy grew.

[[Category:History]][[Category:Heads of state]]

Genetic drift

2007-09-08T18:57:16Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Genetic drift''' is the random change in the genetic composition of a population due to chance events causing unequal participation of individuals in producing succeeding generations. Some evolutionists claim that along with [[natural selection]], genetic drift is principal force in [[theory of evolution|evolution]].

==Genetic Drift as it Relates to Allele Frequencies==

Different forms of a [[gene]] are called [[allele|alleles]]. Individual members of a [[population]] have different alleles. Together, all the alleles for all the genes in a population constitute the "gene pool" of the population. Through reproduction, individuals pass their genes on to the next generation. If considering only the effect of genetic drift, the larger the population is, the more stable the frequency of different alleles in the gene pool will be over time. In small populations allele frequencies are likely to change rapidly and dramatically over very few generations, or "drift," because of chance events. This rapid change can occur in small populations because each individual's alleles represent a large fraction of the gene pool, and if an individual did not reproduce it could have a much larger effect than in the case of an individual in a large population not reproducing. Also, alleles that are found infrequently are more likely to be lost due to random chance.

After many generations, if only genetic drift is operating, populations (even large populations) will eventually contain only one allele of a particular gene, becoming "monomorphic," or fixed for this allele.

==Random Events that Affect Genetic Drift==

Many types of random events that can affect the likelihood of alleles being passed to future generations can be imagined. An adult may fail to mate during mating season due to unusually adverse weather; a pregnant mother may discover a rich food source and produce unusually strong or numerous off-spring; all the offspring of one parent may be consumed by predators. Many other scenarios are possible.

To see how such events affect allele frequencies, imagine a population that contains four individuals of an organism that reproduces once and dies. Let us examine how allele frequencies change for a gene that has two alleles, A and a. As with other genes, each individual has two alleles, one inherited from each parent. Imagine that three of the individuals are aa genotype, and one is Aa genotype. Thus, of the population's eight copies of the gene, one is A, and seven are a. Now imagine that because of random chance, the Aa individual does not reproduce. Therefore, only aa offspring are produced and the A allele is lost to the population. The A allele goes from a frequency of one-eighth to zero through the process of genetic drift.

A large reduction in population size can lead to a situation known as a genetic bottleneck. After a genetic bottleneck the population is likely to have different allele frequencies. When only a very small number of individuals are left after a population decline, the population will have only the alleles present in these few individuals. This is known as the "founder effect." The founder effect can be viewed as an extreme case of a genetic bottleneck. If a population decline affects all individuals in the population without respect to the alleles they carry, genetic drift will have an effect on all genes.

Genetic drift has important implications for the process of speciation. When a small group of individuals becomes isolated from the majority of individuals of a species, the small group will genetically drift from the rest of the species. Because genetic drift is random and the smaller group will drift more rapidly than the larger group, it is possible that, given enough time, the small group will become different enough from the large group to become a different species.

The fact that small populations are more subject to genetic drift has important implications for conservation. If the number of individuals of a species becomes small, it becomes increasingly influenced by genetic drift, which may result in the loss of valuable genetic diversity. Conservation biologists seek to maintain populations at sufficient numbers to counteract genetic drift.

Some [[theory of evolution|evolutionists]] try to use genetic drift to obfuscate the insufficiency of natural selection with random mutation to explain the origin of life.

==Further Reading==

:Avise, John C. Molecular Markers, Natural History and Evolution. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1994.
:Futuyma, Douglas J. Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998.
:Mayr, Ernst. Evolution and the Diversity of Life: Selected Essays. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1976.
:Weaver, Robert F., and Philip W. Hedrick. Genetics, 2nd ed. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown, 1992.

[[Category:Genetics]]

Creationwiki.

2007-09-08T15:04:04Z

CalebRookwood: Redirecting to CreationWiki

#REDIRECT[[CreationWiki]]

Genetic drift

2007-09-08T15:02:09Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Genetic drift''' is the random change in the genetic composition of a population due to chance events causing unequal participation of individuals in producing succeeding generations. Along with natural selection, genetic drift is claimed to be a principal force in evolution.

==Genetic Drift as it Relates to Allele Frequencies==

Different forms of a gene are called alleles. Individual members of a population have different alleles. Together, all the alleles for all the genes in a population constitute the "gene pool" of the population. Through reproduction, individuals pass their genes on to the next generation. If considering only the effect of genetic drift, the larger the population is, the more stable the frequency of different alleles in the gene pool will be over time. In small populations allele frequencies are likely to change rapidly and dramatically over very few generations, or "drift," because of chance events. This rapid change can occur in small populations because each individual's alleles represent a large fraction of the gene pool, and if an individual did not reproduce it could have a much larger effect than in the case of an individual in a large population not reproducing. Also, alleles that are found infrequently are more likely to be lost due to random chance.

After many generations, if only genetic drift is operating, populations (even large populations) will eventually contain only one allele of a particular gene, becoming "monomorphic," or fixed for this allele.

==Random Events that Affect Genetic Drift==

Many types of random events that can affect the likelihood of alleles being passed to future generations can be imagined. An adult may fail to mate during mating season due to unusually adverse weather; a pregnant mother may discover a rich food source and produce unusually strong or numerous off-spring; all the offspring of one parent may be consumed by predators. Many other scenarios are possible.

To see how such events affect allele frequencies, imagine a population that contains four individuals of an organism that reproduces once and dies. Let us examine how allele frequencies change for a gene that has two alleles, A and a. As with other genes, each individual has two alleles, one inherited from each parent. Imagine that three of the individuals are aa genotype, and one is Aa genotype. Thus, of the population's eight copies of the gene, one is A, and seven are a. Now imagine that because of random chance, the Aa individual does not reproduce. Therefore, only aa offspring are produced and the A allele is lost to the population. The A allele goes from a frequency of one-eighth to zero through the process of genetic drift.

A large reduction in population size can lead to a situation known as a genetic bottleneck. After a genetic bottleneck the population is likely to have different allele frequencies. When only a very small number of individuals are left after a population decline, the population will have only the alleles present in these few individuals. This is known as the "founder effect." The founder effect can be viewed as an extreme case of a genetic bottleneck. If a population decline affects all individuals in the population without respect to the alleles they carry, genetic drift will have an effect on all genes.

Genetic drift has important implications for the process of speciation. When a small group of individuals becomes isolated from the majority of individuals of a species, the small group will genetically drift from the rest of the species. Because genetic drift is random and the smaller group will drift more rapidly than the larger group, it is possible that, given enough time, the small group will become different enough from the large group to become a different species.

The fact that small populations are more subject to genetic drift has important implications for conservation. If the number of individuals of a species becomes small, it becomes increasingly influenced by genetic drift, which may result in the loss of valuable genetic diversity. Conservation biologists seek to maintain populations at sufficient numbers to counteract genetic drift.

Some [[theory of evolution|evolutionists]] try to use genetic drift to obfuscate the insufficiency of natural selection with random mutation to explain the origin of life.

==Further Reading==

:Avise, John C. Molecular Markers, Natural History and Evolution. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1994.
:Futuyma, Douglas J. Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998.
:Mayr, Ernst. Evolution and the Diversity of Life: Selected Essays. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1976.
:Weaver, Robert F., and Philip W. Hedrick. Genetics, 2nd ed. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown, 1992.

[[Category:Genetics]]

Genetic drift

2007-09-08T15:01:38Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Genetic drift''' is the random change in the genetic composition of a population due to chance events causing unequal participation of individuals in producing succeeding generations. Along with natural selection, genetic drift is a principal force in evolution.

==Genetic Drift as it Relates to Allele Frequencies==

Different forms of a gene are called alleles. Individual members of a population have different alleles. Together, all the alleles for all the genes in a population constitute the "gene pool" of the population. Through reproduction, individuals pass their genes on to the next generation. If considering only the effect of genetic drift, the larger the population is, the more stable the frequency of different alleles in the gene pool will be over time. In small populations allele frequencies are likely to change rapidly and dramatically over very few generations, or "drift," because of chance events. This rapid change can occur in small populations because each individual's alleles represent a large fraction of the gene pool, and if an individual did not reproduce it could have a much larger effect than in the case of an individual in a large population not reproducing. Also, alleles that are found infrequently are more likely to be lost due to random chance.

After many generations, if only genetic drift is operating, populations (even large populations) will eventually contain only one allele of a particular gene, becoming "monomorphic," or fixed for this allele.

==Random Events that Affect Genetic Drift==

Many types of random events that can affect the likelihood of alleles being passed to future generations can be imagined. An adult may fail to mate during mating season due to unusually adverse weather; a pregnant mother may discover a rich food source and produce unusually strong or numerous off-spring; all the offspring of one parent may be consumed by predators. Many other scenarios are possible.

To see how such events affect allele frequencies, imagine a population that contains four individuals of an organism that reproduces once and dies. Let us examine how allele frequencies change for a gene that has two alleles, A and a. As with other genes, each individual has two alleles, one inherited from each parent. Imagine that three of the individuals are aa genotype, and one is Aa genotype. Thus, of the population's eight copies of the gene, one is A, and seven are a. Now imagine that because of random chance, the Aa individual does not reproduce. Therefore, only aa offspring are produced and the A allele is lost to the population. The A allele goes from a frequency of one-eighth to zero through the process of genetic drift.

A large reduction in population size can lead to a situation known as a genetic bottleneck. After a genetic bottleneck the population is likely to have different allele frequencies. When only a very small number of individuals are left after a population decline, the population will have only the alleles present in these few individuals. This is known as the "founder effect." The founder effect can be viewed as an extreme case of a genetic bottleneck. If a population decline affects all individuals in the population without respect to the alleles they carry, genetic drift will have an effect on all genes.

Genetic drift has important implications for the process of speciation. When a small group of individuals becomes isolated from the majority of individuals of a species, the small group will genetically drift from the rest of the species. Because genetic drift is random and the smaller group will drift more rapidly than the larger group, it is possible that, given enough time, the small group will become different enough from the large group to become a different species.

The fact that small populations are more subject to genetic drift has important implications for conservation. If the number of individuals of a species becomes small, it becomes increasingly influenced by genetic drift, which may result in the loss of valuable genetic diversity. Conservation biologists seek to maintain populations at sufficient numbers to counteract genetic drift.

Some [[theory of evolution|evolutionists]] try to use genetic drift to obfuscate the insufficiency of natural selection with random mutation to explain the origin of life.

==Further Reading==

:Avise, John C. Molecular Markers, Natural History and Evolution. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1994.
:Futuyma, Douglas J. Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998.
:Mayr, Ernst. Evolution and the Diversity of Life: Selected Essays. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1976.
:Weaver, Robert F., and Philip W. Hedrick. Genetics, 2nd ed. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown, 1992.

[[Category:Genetics]]

Flatland

2007-09-08T14:57:53Z

CalebRookwood:

[[Image:Flatland cover.jpg|right|thumb|250px]]
'''Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions''' is an 1884 book by Edwin A. Abbott (1838-1926) about an imaginary land which is a [[Euclidean plane]], and whose citizens are geometrical figures. It is entertaining on many levels, not all intended by the author, and is particularly enjoyed by students learning [[geometry]].

Flatland's civilization parallels that of [[Victorian]] [[England]]. The male inhabitants of Flatland are, for the most part, regular polygons, with their social status and intelligence increasing with the number of sides:

:Our Middle Class consists of Equilateral or Equal-Sided Triangles. Our Professional Men and Gentlemen are Squares (to which class I myself belong) and Five-Sided Figures or Pentagons. Next above these come the Nobility, of whom there
are several degrees, beginning at Six-Sided Figures, or Hexagons, and from thence rising in the number of their sides till they receive the honourable title of Polygonal, or many-Sided. Finally when the number of the sides becomes so numerous, and the sides themselves so small, that the figure cannot be distinguished from a circle, he is included in the Circular or Priestly order; and this is the highest class of all.

The lowest classes—"our Soldiers and Lowest Class of Workmen" are isosceles triangles. In Flatland, it is dangerous for a inhabitants to come into contact with a sharp, acute angle. Consequently, the upper classes live in fear of being attacked by the lower classes, whose acute angles make good weapons.

The women of Flatland are straight lines, and are thus lower in status and intelligence than even the isosceles triangles, and even more dangerous:
:If our highly pointed Triangles of the Soldier class are formidable, it may be readily inferred that far more formidable are our Women. For, if a Soldier is a wedge, a Woman is a needle; being, so to speak, ''all'' point, at least at the two extremities.

In the later chapters, the narrator is visited by a three-dimensional sphere who tries to explain the nature of three-dimensional space to him. He does not understand, until finally the sphere drags him into "spaceland." Having grasped the idea of three dimensions, the narrator in turn asks the sphere whether there might not be four dimensions, extending the arguments the sphere used on him.

==External links==
*[http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/ Flatland] Online edition with illustrations
[[category:book]]

Fissure

2007-09-08T14:57:19Z

CalebRookwood:

[[Image:Fissure.jpg|thumb|300px|Eruptive fissure on southeast rim of Kilauea caldera, Hawaii.]]
In [[geology]], a '''fissure''' is a fracture or crack in rock along which there is a distinct separation; fissures are often filled with mineral-bearing materials. On [[volcano|volcanoes]], a fissure is an elongate fracture or crack at the surface from which lava erupts. Fissure eruptions typically dwindle to a central vent after a period of hours or days. Occasionally, lava will flow back into the ground by pouring into a crack or an open eruptive fissure, a process called drain back; sometimes lava will flow back into the same fissure from which it erupted.<ref>http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Products/Pglossary/fissure.html</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Geology]]

Fauxtography

2007-09-08T14:56:33Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Fauxtography''' is the term used to describe [[photograph|photographs]] that have been doctored with photo-editing software, staged to increase dramatic or emotive effect, or mis-captioned to provide a false meaning to the scene. "Fauxtography" usually describes photos that have been manipulated to promote a particular political point of view. The term was coined by Charles Johnson, proprietor of the [[blog|weblog]] Little Green Footballs in the context of the [[Lebanon]]/[[Israel]] conflict. Fauxtography is frequently used by [[liberal|liberals]] a part of their [[deceit]].

In August 2006, a reader of Little Green Footballs notified Charles that a photo by Adnan Hajj showed evidence of having been manipulated using the Photoshop "clone" tool or its equivalent. Further examination of Hajj's photos by bloggers revealed that a second photo had also been altered electronically. In response, Reuters discontinued its relationship with Hajj and pulled all 920 of Hajj's photos.

Further questions about Hajj's photographs involve:

* photos of the same site submitted on separate dates
* a woman who appears to have lost two homes in two different places on two different occasions
* two bridges given the same name
In the wake of this discovery, bloggers began to examine photos of the Lebanon/Israel conflict from other photographers. Suspected examples of staging, misleading captions, or other fakery include the following:
* a rescue worker displaying the body of a child allegedly killed in Israel's bombardment of Qana for what may have been a span of four hours[
* a series of photos of a tire fire misidentified as a downed Israeli jet. One of the photos appeared on the cover of the July 31, 2006 issue of U.S. News & World Report (Headlines: "Dangerous Liaisons: How radicals in Iran are rolling the Middle East from Lebanon to Iraq. What's really behind the violence. The region's new rocket threat. Israel's defense chief: Baptism by fire. Fouad Ajami on Lebanon's agony."). A photo from the same series appeared in Time Magazine with a caption identifying the fire as coming from a downed Israeli jet. Time admitted the error to "Gunny Bob," a radio host, in an e-mail.

In the wake of this discovery, bloggers began to examine photos of the Lebanon/Israel conflict from other photographers. Suspected examples of staging, misleading captions, or other fakery include the following:

* A photo of a car whose caption says that it was hit by "Israeli ware [sic] plane missiles" in Kfar Zabad. Readers of the blog Hot Air point out that the car is not damaged enough to have been hit by a missile, e.g., the windshield is still intact, and that the hole in the top is most likely a missing sunroof.

* A photo of an ambulance whose caption says "Under fire: missile damage on the clearly marked ambulances, hit while caring for injured in the town of Qana." Dan Riehl at the blog Riehl World View observes that the ambulance does not appear to have sustained damage from a missile: the hole in the roof and accompanying dents are covered with rust and there is no charring from the explosion that allegedly accompanied the missile strike. He further points out inconsistencies between the various versions of the story.

* A series of photos of post-bombing rubble that show a child's toy featured prominently in the foreground. The blogger notes that the toys are too clean to have survived an explosion and suspects that they were placed by the photographer.

* A photo in a NY Times photo essay of a man who, at first glance, appears to be pulling a dead man from the rubble. The caption reads, "The mayor of Tyre said that in the worst-hit areas, bodies were still buried under the rubble, and he appealed to the Israelis to allow government authorities time to pull them out." Further examination of the photo led some bloggers to conclude that the "dead" man was in fact alive, and that he had posed for the photo. However, NPR posted the same photo with the following caption: "After an Israeli airstrike destroyed a building in Tyre, Lebanon, one man helps another who had fallen and was hurt."

* A photo of a rescue worker pulling a dead child from the rubble, an event which one blogger thinks might have been "stretched out" for the benefit of photographers.

==External Links==
*Day by Day editorial cartoon [http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2006/08/09/#a003741 about the photo controversy]. Last accessed August 8, 2006.
*Cox & Forkum editorial cartoon [http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000903.html about the photo controversy]. Last accessed August 7, 2006.
*[http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/ Digital Tampering in the Media, Politics and Law]. Recent history of media photo manipulation. Hany Farid, associate professor, University of Massachusetts. Last accessed August 7, 2006.

[[category:slang]]

Knowledge

2007-09-08T14:48:16Z

CalebRookwood:

That which is known to be the case. There are said to be various kinds of knowledge: knowledge of matters of contingent fact ([[empiricism|empirical knowledge]]), knowledge of necessary truths ([[a priori knowledge]]), and knowledge of matters of gods and religions ([[knowledge in the biblical sense|divine knowledge]]). This can mean that what constitutes 'knowledge', despite the concept involving incontrovertibility, is in fact contested around the world, between religions, amongst historians, scientists etc.

Many believe that sharing of knowledge is the best way to increase knowledge. Others believe so firmly in one kind of knowledge that they fear learning. Encyclopedias often contain a wealth of 'knowledge' unless they espouse only one single type of knowledge in which case they seem to become repositories of 'opinion'. [[Wikipedia]] is considered to lack knowledge by [[Daniel Brandt]].

Knowledge is opposed to mere [[subjective opinion]].

Philosophers take up the question of knowledge in [[Epistemology]] and [[Methodology]].

[[C.S. Lewis]] said, "All our knowledge of the universe beyond our immediate experiences depends on inferences from these experiences." [http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html]
[[category:philosophy]]

Runaway greenhouse effect

2007-09-06T17:43:07Z

CalebRookwood:

{{merge|greenhouse effect}}
A '''runaway greenhouse effect''' has been predicted by some climate scientists, in which slight increases in trace gases in the Earth's atmosphere would lead to higher air temperatures. These higher temperatures would in turn cause "[[greenhouse gases]]" such as [[carbon dioxide]] to have higher concentrations, which in turn would accelerate the warming trend. Alarming increases of 3 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit have been predicted.

Outside of the political sphere, few academics give any credence to this theory.

MIT professor [[Richard Lindzen]] wrote:

:It is still of interest to ask what we would expect a doubling of carbon dioxide to do. A large number of calculations show that if this is all that happened, we might expect a warming of from .5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade. The general consensus is that such warming would present few, if any, problems. ... current models depend heavily on undemonstrated positive feedback factors to predict high levels of warming.<ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Another professor wrote:

:[[Computer model]]s suggest that a doubling of the concentration of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, may raise the [[average global temperature]] between 1 and 3° Celsius. However, the numeric equations of computer models do not accurately simulate the effects of a number of possible [[negative feedback]]s. For example, many of the models cannot properly simulate the negative effects that increased [[cloud cover]] would have on the [[radiation balance]] of a warmer Earth. Increasing the Earth's temperature would cause the [[ocean]]s to evaporate greater amounts of water, causing the atmosphere to become cloudier. These extra clouds would then reflect a greater proportion of the Sun's energy back to space reducing the amount of [[solar radiation]] absorbed by the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. With less solar energy being absorbed at the surface, the effects of an enhanced greenhouse effect may be counteracted.<ref>http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html</ref>

Some scientists have tried to use [[Venus]] as an example of a planet where a runaway greenhouse effect has already occurred. However, Venus has many differences with Earth, including a lack of plate tectonics which make the comparison faulty.

==See also==
*[[Sea surface temperature]] (SST) - anomalies throughout the global climate system

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Ecology]]
[[Category:earth science]]

Talk:God

2007-09-06T17:37:26Z

CalebRookwood:

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007

::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?

::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.

I heard something about god which I found quite interesting, if good is all powerful and loves us all why is there needless suffering in the world? If good is all powerful and doesn't love us why worship him? If god isn't all powerful and loves us then he's pretty much useless and if god isn't all powerful and doesn't love us then it's pretty much the same thing[[User:Nobodyyouareawareof|Nobodyyouareawareof]] 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm far from a zealot, but these arguments always strike me as hopelessly simplistic. Why do we presume that we can understand God? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even? I imagine that small children (never mind animals, insects, etc...) can't comprehend why, if I claim to love them, I make them eat their vegetables, don't let them stay up as long they want, and so on. Just because a person believes that unconditional love and unlimited power should yield no suffering doesn't actually make it true.

:Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-wonders, wonders (ooom ba doo-oo oom!) who wrote the book of Job...''

== Bad sentence ==

In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I dont believe in god.

== Capitalization Concerns ==

If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
<ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
:Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
::I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==other views of god==

The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.<--Previous comment left by [[Nobodyyouareawareof]]
:Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{cquote|James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}

== Error in first sentence (concept of God), or missing reference==
It is WRONG to say that God is the creator of the Universe. The Holy Bible tells us that God has created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. The author of this entry distorts this knowledge by claiming that God has created the Universe. There is no reference for this, however. Kluivert 18 August 2007

Eukaryote

2007-09-06T17:35:44Z

CalebRookwood:

'''Eukaryotes '''are are eukaryotes organisms whose cells are organized into complex structures by internal [[membrane|membranes]] and a [[cytoskeleton]]. [[animal|animals]], [[plant|plants]] and [[fungus|fungi]] are all eukaryotes, but [[bacteria]] are not.

The most characteristic feature of a eukaryotic cell, the nucleus, consists of a nucleoplasm surrounded by a double nuclear membrane pierced by nuclear pores. <ref>http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/search/dict-search.html</ref><ref>http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Eukaryote</ref> The nucleoplasm contains the (linear) chromosomes of the cell, which are organised into heterochromatin, which stains only a little, and euchromatin, which stains more densely. The most important euchromatic area is the nucleolus, in which ribosomes are formed.

#εύ-καρυον (eu-karyon) - true kernel.
#Double-membrane bound nucleus containing linear chromosomes.
#Complex 9+2-type undulipodium, cytoskeleton, cytosis and mitosis.
#Many membrane-bound organelles and double membrane-bound endosymbionts.
#They can grow 'large' because cytoplasmic streaming allows rapid transport across the cell - 100 μm.

[[Image:Animal_cell.png‎ |center||Animal cell: eukaryotic cells are characterised by the possession of a nucleus and membrane bound organelles.]]

The role of the nucleus is three-fold:

#Storage and protection of the genome.
#Regulation of gene expression.
#Creation of ribosomes.

[[DNA]] storage takes up about 10% of the cell of both prokaryotes (nucleoid area) and eukaryotes (nucleus). However, don't forget that some of the genome lives elsewhere: plasmids, endosymbionts (mitochondria), etc. The nucleus of eukaryotes also protects the genome from the cytoskeleton. Condensation of genome during mitosis is required to withstand these stresses. This is not relevant in prokaryotes, as they lack a cytoskeleton. The existence of the nucleus permits processing of mRNA, and therefore defers translation. Alternative splicing can be performed to generate different proteins from the same RNA primary transcript. mRNA is capped and tailed to permit it to exit the nucleus. rRNA and tRNA are also heavily processed by RNA editing, i.e. base modification (this also occurs to some mRNA in trypanosomes). rRNA modification occurs in the nucleolus, where ribosomes are constructed.

The nucleus is bound by a double-membrane, which is contiguous through the nuclear pores, known as the nuclear envelope. The pores are required to allow RNA out and membrane lipids in (which is needed for growth during S phase).<ref> Berg, Jeremy M.; Tymoczko, John L.; and Stryer, Lubert."Biochemistry". W. H. Freeman and Co. ; c2002 </ref>

The inner face of the inner nuclear envelope (INE) is coated by the nuclear lamina, which contains intermediate fibres called lamins A, B and C (at least in mammals). Phosphorylation of lamins by kinases cause nuclear envelope breakdown during prometaphase. Chromosomes occupy definite positions within the nucleus because of the interaction between lamins and telomeres, for example the Rabl conformation in yeast.

In the Rabl conformation, the centromeres are at the pole closest to MTOC; and the telomeres at other, bound to the nuclear lamina. This orientation probably reduces tangling, and is inherited from mitosis. Later in interphase, the chromosomes may lose the Rabl conformation, but chromosomes still occupy discrete territories in the nucleus.

The outer nuclear envelope (ONE) is surrounded by other intermediate fibres, and is essentially just the RER surrounding the nucleus, and continuous with it. The space between the INE and ONE is termed the perinuclear space, and is continuous with the RER cisternae.

The cell wall of eukaryotes (when present) is usually composed of a β-(1→4)-glucan of some sort. In fungi, it is mostly chitin (N-acetylaminoglucan), in plants cellulose, but more exotic ingredients are common. Animal cells lack a wall, but may have a glycocalyx, which is a layer of thickened glycoproteins surrounding them and connecting them to the extracellular matrix.

Almost all eukaryotes have mitochondria, which are the remains of bacteria that became endosymbionts of the eukaryotic cell about a billion years ago. They perform oxidative phosphorylation and generate energy in the form of ATP for the cell. They have their own 70S ribosomes and some of their own DNA. Mitochondria have a double membrane surrounding them, the inner one is highly folded into cristae, surrounding a matrix space.

Photosynthetic eukaryotes also have chloroplasts, which are the remains of cyanobacteria that also became endosymbiotic. They have a triple membrane system. The outer membrane surrounds the inner membrane, which itself surrounds the stroma, in which are embedded a number of thylakoid membranes, some of which occur in stacks called grana. Those that are unstacked are termed intergrana. The thylakoids surround another compartment, termed the lumen. Chloroplasts are one of several different sorts of plastid. Others include proplasts (immature plastids), chromoplasts (full of pigments), etioplasts (formed in the dark) and amyloplasts (full of starch). Plastids carry out photosynthesis, converting light energy into ATP and NADH.

[[Image:Plant_cell.png|center||Plant cell: The cell wall vs the cell membrane found in animal cells.]]

Eukaryotes have a cytoskeleton, which is composed of a number of interacting fibre types. The first are the actin microfilaments, which, with the motor protein myosin, form the muscles of the cytoskeleton (and in sarcosomes, form actual muscles too). The actin cytoskeleton forms a cortex beneath the plasmalemma of most eukaryotic cells, which is involved in changes to the external shape of the cell (such as the formation of pseudopodia in amoebae).The second fibre type are intermediate filaments, composed of spectrin, keratin, vimentin, nuclear lamins and other proteins. The intermediate filaments help maintain the relative positions of organelles and give the cell mechanical strength. The third type of cytoskeletal filament are the microtubules, which form the spindle during cell divisions (meiosis and mitosis), and give structure to the cell membrane, forming microvilli. They also form undulipodia, which are waving structures with a typical 9+2 structure, found in cilia (short undulipodia) and flagella (longer ones). The microtubules are composed of tubulin, and are organised by a microtubule organising centre (the centrosome and centrioles in animals), in which the − ends of the microtubules (which grow more slowly than the + ends) are embedded. Vesicles traffic along the microtubules under the influence of motor proteins such as kinesin (which transports items from the −→+ ends, i.e. away from the MTOC) and dynein (which traffics items from +→−). Tubulin is homologous to the FtsZ protein that is involved in bacterial fission.

The body of the cell is composed of a heterogeneous mixture of proteins and solutes called the cytosol. The cytosol contains many 80S ribosomes, on which protein synthesis takes place.

The endomembranes and plasmalemma form a continuous membrane system in the eukaryote cell. The cell contains a rich diversity of membranes, in addition to those found in the endosymbiotic organelles. The outer cell membrane or plasmalemma, controls what gets in and out of the cell by the use of pores, symports, antiports and pumps. It is composed of a fluid mosaic of proteins embedded in a phospholipid bilayer, as are all membranes. The plasmalemma also interacts with the extracellular space through receptors, gap junctions, plasmodesmata, and synapses.

The endomembranes include the nuclear membrane, already mentioned, and the rough and smooth endoplasmic reticula (RER and SER). The lamellae of the rough endoplasmic reticulum are continuous throughout the cell, and also contiguous with the nuclear membrane. They are the site of synthesis for proteins destined for the endomembrane system and the extracellular space, with which its lumen (the cisternal space) is topologically identical. The tubules of the SER are responsible for steroid and lipid synthesis. After translation on ribosomes attached to the RER, proteins are carried in small transport vesicles to the Golgi bodies (dictyosomes), where they go undergo modification to the glycosylation they received as they were imported into the RER. After modification, some proteins are exported from the trans-Golgi network in export vesicles to the extracellular space. The ER is continuous with the nuclear envelope, and probably evolved at the same time, possibly by invaginations of the sort seen in the mesosomes of bacteria.

[[Image:Endomembranes_evolution.png‎|center||Endomembranes probably evolved from invaginations of the plasmalemma, as seen in bacterial mesosomes, thylakoids and chromatophores.]]

The rough ER differs from the smooth ER morphologically. The RER's cytoplasmic surface is studded with ribosomes, and it has flattened cisternae (rather than tubular ones). The RER is denser than SER due to presence of ribosomes. Consequently, disrupted ER 'microsomes' can be separated using density gradient centrifugation.

[[Image:Density_gradient_er.png|center||SER microsomes are less dense than RER microsomes, so can be separated by centrifugation.]]

Other proteins are destined for the endolysosome system. Material engulfed from outside by phagocytosis (solids) and pinocytosis (liquids) are packaged into phagosomes, and internal organelles destined for destruction are packed into autophagosomes. Endolysosomes containing digestive enzymes fuse with the phagosomes and digest their contents. The fused organelles produced are the cells disposal system, and are called lysosomes. Very large lysosomes are found in plants where they help to bulk the cell with water. Here they are called vacuoles, and are surrounded by a membrane called to tonoplast. Other vacuoles are involved in osmoregulation: for example contractile vacuoles in Amoeba.

Finally, a number of smaller vesicles are found in the cytosol. They are called microsomes, and most seem to be peroxisomes, containing the enzyme catalase, which degrades hydrogen peroxide produced by respiration. In germinating plant seed, many glyoxysomes are present, which perform fat oxidation for growth. Some vesicles also contain food reserves, such as fat droplets.

Eukaryotic DNA is bound by histones, and requires some degree of unpacking for expression. Much of their genome is composed of parasitic DNA and introns. Three RNA polymerases exists, (approximately) one for each sort of major RNA product:

RNApol-I - rRNA.
RNApol-II - mRNA and snRNA.
RNApol-III - tRNA and 5S rRNA.
RNA is heavily processed in the nucleus, which allows deferred translation. They possess large 80S ribosomes.

==Eukaryotes and Evolution==
The [[Theory of Evolution]] does not have a good explanation for where eukaryotes come from. Some evolutionists tell a [[just-so tale]] that Eukaryotes arose by ingesting other microorganisms but rather than digesting the microorganisms they turned the organisms into the [[mitochrondria]]. The explanation that Eukaryotes were created by God is much simpler.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Molecular Biology]]
[[Category:Cellular Biology]]
[[Category:microbiology]]